Sitting of 10 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 17 May.

    CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Monday 14 May at Seven o'clock.
    Mr. Speaker: As the remaining 10 Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them together.

    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 17 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 he read a Second time on Thursday 17 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 17 May.

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

                HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
                Orders for Second Reading read.
                To be read a Second time on Thursday 17 May.

Oral Answers to Question
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Sunday Trading
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the law relating to Sunday trading in Northern Ireland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): The relevant law is contained in the Shops Act (Northern Ireland) 1946, and is similar to the law applying in England and Wales.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that a law which prohibits the sale of the Bible but allows the sale of girlie magazines, which allows the sale of gin but not of condensed milk and which allows the sale of chocolate but prohibits the sale of sugar, is illogical, immoral and fortunately, rarely enforced? Should not the Shops Act (Northern Ireland) 1946 reflect the realities of life in the 1990s instead of the prejudices of the 1940s?
    Mr. Needham: I accept that many elements of the Sunday trading laws are ridiculous. One can buy food for an ass but not for a cat in Northern Ireland on a Sunday. However, there is no significant political pressure for changing the trading laws on Sunday in Northern Ireland, least of all from Unionist Members of Parliament. Although we shall keep the matter under review, it would be unwise for us to do anything without seeing what happens in the rest of the country.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree, as I am sure the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) does, that the real problem involves traders who for profit motives rather than community interests want to trade on the Sabbath day? Was not that problem with us long before Nehemiah was governor of Jerusalem, and is not it likely to remain? The real issue is to apply the law and maintain the sanctity of that day.
    Mr. Needham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the enforcement of the law is the responsibility of district councils in Northern Ireland, and I am sure that he will pass that message on to them.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree that those anomalies refer to England and Wales as well as to Northern Ireland? When poking fun at Northern Ireland, he should also poke fun at the parts of Great Britain that come under the same laws. Will he give the House an assurance that if the Sunday trading law is considered in a Bill for the rest of Great Britain, the people of Northern Ireland will have the same opportunity of having a proper Bill and not something pushed through the House by an Order in Council which would be unacceptable in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman is aware that it is a transfered matter, so any changes will be dealt with under the transferred procedure. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I never poke fun, least of all at him.
    Mr. Ray Powell: I have very rarely been called during Northern Ireland Question Time, but the matter concerns

    379
    the Shops Act 1950. The Government are continually preaching that we should abide by the law and obey it. Is it not time that the Government themselves ensured that the Shops Act 1950 was properly upheld and enforced as an Act of Parliament?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman is probably not aware that in Northern Ireland, enforcement of the law is the responsibility of the district council.

    Local Authority Powers
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further talks he has had with representatives of the political parties in Northern Ireland regarding the transfer of certain powers to local authorities.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I have been having discussions with the leaders of the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland about the possibilities of transferring greater power to locally elected representatives. I have made it clear that the Government would give serious consideration to any workable proposals for more local involvement in the government of Northern Ireland if they seemed likely to command widespread acceptance.
    Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that far too much power is exercised in Northern Ireland by Northern Ireland Ministers and that, perforce, not enough is exercised by local people in the Province? Because the transfer of powers is well understood and accepted, and because the constitutional arrangements are there to accept, does my right hon. Friend agree that now may be the time for Northern Ireland politicians to sink their differences—which we all accept have been very real—in the interests of transferring power, which would be in everyone's interest?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is right in saying that Northern Ireland Ministers hold considerable power in Northern Ireland. It is within the knowledge of the House that we have been seeking to persuade locally elected politicians in Northern Ireland to accept that we might transfer some of that responsibility elsewhere. It is, inevitably, a two-way process and requires involvement in talks and consultations.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The Secretary of State intends to introduce compulsory competitive tendering in local councils in Northern Ireland. What plans does he have to prevent paramilitary involvement in those services in future?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that particular danger, which the Government have very much in mind.
    Mr. Kilfedder: The truth is that the onus is on the Government to act. They must get off their knees and not let Dublin stymie political progress in Northern Ireland any longer by setting down conditions for such progress. Without further delay, the Government must now restore the Northern Ireland Assembly which they brought scandalously to an abrupt end in a way that was a disgrace to them. They also entered the Anglo-Irish Agreement which was a betrayal of the Ulster majority. Surely the
    380
    Government should now recognise that betrayal and return powers to elected representatives in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Brooke: I recognise the hon. Gentleman as a distinguished Speaker of the Assembly to which he refers. Conversations relating to the transfer of power to locally-elected representatives are covered in article 4 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement which acknowledges the possibility of such developments occurring, but the involvement of the Irish Government in such conversations, as stated in article 4, would relate to the attitudes and modalities to be expressed. The decision about the talks themselves rests wholly with the parties in Northern Ireland and with the Government.
    Mr. McGrady: Does the Secretary of State agree that although in certain enlightened councils in Northern Ireland, especially those on which minority parties have a substantial say, progress has been made, in the mainstream of local government sectarian practices and attitudes are still very much to the fore? That is especially true of the Belfast corporation, which should be the flagship of local government in Northern Ireland. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the committee structures have been arranged there to prevent proper participation by the minority parties and that they have been deprived of offices and proportional representation? Even this week, financial resources have been denied to community services in minority areas. In those circumstances, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the return of functions to local government in Northern Ireland is still inappropriate and is best left to an overall agreement between the parties in due course?
    Mr. Brooke: It will not have escaped the attention of the hon. Gentleman that contacts between Ministers and Belfast city council have been limited in recent years. In those circumstances, it would be wrong for me to pass comment on those with whom I have not been directly in contact. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that if we were to advance on the transfer of power, we should need to see widespread acceptance of the principles involved.

    Breathalysers
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to introduce the breathalyser into Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Bottomley): We propose to consult on the introduction of the hand-held breathalyser for use by the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
    The major drop in drink-driving is coming from the allied efforts of the drinks trade to encourage all hosts to provide an attractive range of alcohol-free drinks and non and low-alcohol lager and beer for drivers; to support passengers in choosing in advance a driver who does not take alcohol, and to prompt potential drivers to decide whether to drive or to drink alcohol.
    These approaches, with the necessary and welcome enforcement work by police, will help to reduce the number of times a police officer has to knock on a stranger's door to announce that a mother or father, or a son or daughter will never return because of a drink-driver crash.
    Mr. Colvin: I was interested to hear my hon. Friend's reply. What consultations did he have before reaching his decision? I accept that there has been a downward trend in drink-driving offences since the introduction of low-alcohol drinks and the campaigns run by the on-licence trade, but what is the trend in drink-related accidents? If that is also downward, is it really necessary to introduce the breathalyser in the Province?
    Mr. Bottomley: I pay tribute to those in the drinks trade —the on-trade, vintners, off-licences and brewers—for coming together to help to support the efforts to cut casualties. In the United Kingdom as a whole, and in Northern Ireland, the trend in drink-related deaths is clearly a downwards trend, and pedestrians are benefiting just as much as drivers and their passengers. The reason for introducing the hand-held breathalyser is that it provides a screening device and only those who fail the screening test need to be taken to the roadside evidential machine. That means that the RUC will be able to process more people more quickly and so get off the road faster, which in Northern Ireland is sometimes important.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Is the Minister aware of the number of breathalysed drivers driving written-off vehicles imported from the mainland, repaired by cowboy garages and unleashed on the Northern Ireland community?
    Mr. Bottomley: That is something which we shall want to keep under control, but with the vehicle-testing system in place, vehicle defects contribute to less than 10 per cent. of crashes, whereas road conditions contribute to about one third and driver error to 95 per cent. of crashes. I should welcome the hon. Gentleman's support in dealing with the driver error problem, which is by far the largest.

    Natural Gas
    Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has made to the Commission of the European Community for financial assistance for the provision of a natural gas supply to Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Needham: The town gas industry in Northern Ireland is virtually closed down and there seems little prospect of re-establishing a viable gas industry. However, the possibility of burning gas in power stations is being examined in the context of overall energy provision for Northern Ireland and officials of the Department of Economic Development are in touch with the European Commission.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Minister aware that buried in the ground in Northern Ireland are 1,600 miles of perfectly good sound pipeline? Is he further aware that it would be comparatively easy to connect the gas supply from Great Britain—in the first instance to industry in Northern Ireland and thereafter to domestic consumers? Can the Minister say how, in the long-term, the Government can defend the exclusion of Northern Ireland from continental sources of energy?
    Mr. Needham: We will, of course, accept energy at a competitive price wherever it comes from. The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that, at its peak, gas only accounted for some 4 per cent. of energy use. To restore the infrastructure to which the right hon. Gentleman
    382
    refers, which is not in perfect condition, would cost some £300 million, whereas to build Kilroot II would cost £300 million and give us 18 per cent. of our energy requirement. I am afraid that it makes no sense whatever to bring back the natural gas industry in Northern Ireland—either to the domestic or to the industrial consumer—but it is certainly worth considering whether gas can be used for electricity generation.
    Mr. Dickens: Will my hon. Friend accept from me, as a former director of a Northern Ireland company, that Northern Ireland industry would very much like a natural gas supply to make it more competitive with the rest of the world and to enable it to stand more on its own two feet —as will become apparent when the question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is answered?
    Mr. Needham: What Northern Ireland industry needs is competitive energy. However beautiful natural gas may be, if it is very much more expensive than other forms of energy, it makes no sense to bring it back, and I am afraid that that is the position.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Minister accept that we all wish the Province to have access to the cheapest form of energy for both domestic and industrial consumers? In the Minister's reply to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), he referred to the comparative costs of natural gas and electricity. To put an end to the continuing debate, will he give an assurance that he will publish the basis of the answers that he has already given?' Clearly, the evidence exists. To ensure an open debate, it would be in the best interests of Northern Ireland to publish that evidence and information.
    Mr. Needham: Of course, we shall publish the information about the alternatives for electricity genera-tion and energy usage in Northern Ireland. We shall be happy to do that.

    Economic Assistance
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much economic assistance Northern Ireland has received (a) from Her Majesty's Government and (b) from the European Community since 1979.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): Since 1978–79, the average amount by which Northern Ireland public expenditure has been financed by revenue raised in Great Britain has been approximately £1,400 million a year. Over the same period, Northern Ireland has received an annual average of some £66 million from the European Community's structural fund as well as further amounts which cannot be separately identified under, for example, the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Jack: I thank my right hon. Friend for those impressive figures on economic assistance from the British taxpayer and the European Community. To what purpose is that money put? Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that the quality of industrial investment as a result of that assistance is high? Will he take it from me that we are grateful for the support that his Department continues to give to Northern Ireland, in spite of security and political problems?
    Mr. Cope: The figures that I gave are for the total public expenditure in Northern Ireland financed by Great Britain

    383
    and the Community respectively. Clearly, the money is used for a wide range of purposes, including economic development, to which my hon. Friend referred and, to some degree, security and other such matters. Of course, we do our best to make sure that all economic investment is of the best quality. The House will be aware of the Government's recent proposals to improve the quality.
    Mr. Grocott: Can the Minister confirm that Northern Ireland Ministers believe that it is extremely important that there should be Government intervention and support, and a regional policy? How does he cope in Cabinet battles with the ideological gulf between his view and that of the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Cope: Of course, we think it important that there should be support of one kind or another. As I said, the money to which I referred is used across the board, not only for economic development. If the hon. Gentleman studies the new proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and of the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), who looks after economic development, he will see that we are doing our best to target the money on precise job creation projects.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the Minister explain to the House why the Irish Republic receives from the European Community an average of £3 million per day and why there is such a differential between that and what is paid to Northern Ireland'? Will he also explain, on the question of additionality, how much money that comes from Europe for Northern Ireland goes directly to Northern Ireland? I ask that in view of the answers that have been given to me by Ministers on those questions.
    Mr. Cope: The European Commission and European Community divide the money according to objective economic criteria. Commissioner Millan and his colleagues have made it clear that that is the basis on which the money is divided for the structural funds. The gross domestic product per head in Northern Ireland is more than 75 per cent. of the average in the European Community. It is higher than that in the Republic of Ireland and higher than that for any other objective single region. That is why we do not have the same amount per head as, for example, the Republic or other countries. We are entirely within the rules of additionality laid down by the European Community.

    Railways
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next intends to meet the chairman of Northern Ireland Railways to discuss service improvements.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I will continue to meet the chairman as the occasion requires. Sir Myles Humphries is retiring in June after 24 years as a chairman dedicated to improving service for customers.
    Mr. Foulkes: I am glad that Sir Myles is dedicated to improving services—it is more than can be said for InterCity. Will the Minister tell the House what action the Northern Ireland Office is taking about the axing of the Stranraer to Euston sleeper, which is as vital for Northern
    384
    Ireland as it is for the south-west of Scotland? If, as I suspect, his answer is that the Northern Ireland Office has done little or nothing on that, will he get together with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Transport, and tell British Rail to put the service back into operation immediately?
    Mr. Bottomley: If more people had used the service, it would have been more commercial. The Department in Northern Ireland made representations to British Rail. It takes seven and a half hours to get from London to Stranraer and costs £53 second class. I have no doubt that anyone travelling with the hon. Gentleman would find that as time and distance passed they would become sleepy so there would be no need to pay the extra £20 for the sleeper. Most people who go to Northern Ireland now fly.
    Mr. Beggs: I welcome the views expressed and the support of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), but I very much regret that, as he said, the Northern Ireland Office has failed to weigh in and support the promotion of that service. We consider that it is important to maintain it. When the Minister meets the chairman of Northern Ireland Railways will he suggest getting together with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Transport with a view to promoting the service because it could be of great economic advantage to south-west Scotland and Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Bottomley: Perhaps I could ask the hon. Gentleman to come and see me, and we might do a joint survey on how many times hon. Members representing Northern Ireland have used the service in the past year. That would give an indication of what weight we should put behind the representations that have been made.

    Political Progress
    Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the main obstacle to political progress in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): We believe that the main obstacle is the absence of talks with and between the Northern Ireland political leaders about political matters. However, there is now a significant common understanding on the issues such talks might address and I am hopeful that the conditions for holding such talks may exist soon.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that while the different political parties in Northern Ireland understand each other's position, the Government's position is as clear as mud? Will the Minister come clean on the long-term policies of the Northern Ireland Office? Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has confirmed in writing that his objective is devolution, but that two fellow Members in the ministerial team have been canvassing in Upper Bann for a candidate who is opposed to devolution and wants integration? When will we get consistency in the Northern Ireland Office?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The Government's position on political progress in Northern Ireland is absolutely clear. We are committed to seeking devolved institutions in

    385
    Northern Ireland to allow locally elected representatives to have a greater say in the decisions that govern their constituents' lives. With regard to Upper Bann, I am told that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong yet again. His party is having some difficulty in convincing the electorate about why its members are always to be found in the voting lobbies with the socialists.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: As a general principle, does the Minister agree that in entering negotiations no party should be at a disadvantage? To ensure that the Unionists are not at a disadvantage at the negotiating table would the Minister accept that the Anglo-Irish Agreement should not be operating at full belt?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's first point that no one party should be at a disadvantage. With regard to his second point, he will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently made it clear that in the context of such discussions on possible future arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland, we would give serious consideration to any implication for the agreement that such arrangements might have. I can confirm that in the context of those discussions, we would also consider including any proposal for an alternative to the agreement that the Northern Ireland parties might put forward that would advance the underlying objectives that I believe we all share.
    Mr. Hume: Does the Minister agree that anybody who is serious about making political progress in Northern Ireland would want to address the relationships that go to the heart of the problem and have never been satisfactorily addressed? Those relationships are within Northern Ireland, within Ireland and between Britain and Ireland. Does he agree that if the Unionists, who say that they are British, do not trust the British Government to negotiate those relationships on their behalf, either with ourselves who share the North with them or with the Irish Government who share the island, then logically they should be willing to negotiate those relationships themselves?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I think that it is common ground between the Government and all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland that the relationships to which the hon. Gentleman refers must be addressed. That must be done first in the context of Northern Ireland, which means that the representatives of the Nationalist and Unionist traditions must sit down together, with the Government or without, to address those issues. In addressing them, other relationships will, of course, come into play.
    Mr. Andrew McKay: In view of the remarks by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), does my hon. Friend agree that less charitable people than I might think that one of the main obstacles to political progress in the Province is the intransigence of some of the political parties there?
    Dr. Mawhinney: We have been seeking to address the political future of Northern Ireland, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has devoted much time and energy to that. We have done that, recognising the legitimate concerns and aspirations of the various parties, and we have been seeking to cause arrangements to be put
    386
    in place that will enable them to talk together constructively with Government about an objective that I believe is shared by the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland.

    Extradition
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State For Northern Ireland what proposals he is considering on extradition.
    Mr. Cope: At the last meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, Ministers had a constructive discussion of arrangements for dealing with fugitive offenders. Officials were instructed to undertake a review of the situation and to report back to a future conference. My right hon. Friend will consider all proposals arising from this review.
    Mr. Corbett: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he share the confidence of the Irish Government that the 1987 extradition Act will remedy the defects of the last three cases which were before the Irish Supreme Court?
    Mr. Cope: The last three cases were, of course, disappointing, but we have to accept that they were the judgments of an independent judiciary on the basis of the then law. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, the law has since been changed. The whole point of the study to which I referred is to consider whether the arrangements are now satisfactory for the future.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the arrangements regarding the extradition of ordinary decent criminals—[Interruption]—are working perfectly satisfactorily? However, where the person sought to be extradited is an alleged IRA criminal, the law, the courts and the Government of the Irish Republic put every obstacle in the way.
    Mr. Cope: I would not entirely agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary. The phrase "ordinary decent criminals" is well understood in Northern Ireland and is in frequent use—I have become used to it myself —but it obviously came as a novelty to some hon. Members. The position in relation to terrorists has improved since 1985. That does not mean, of course, that the position is now perfect. That is why we are carrying out the study.
    Mr. William Ross: Surely the right hon. Gentleman understands perfectly well that after the McGimpsey case, which clarified the position in the Irish Republic, it was a foregone conclusion that any extradition requests brought under the 1965 Irish Act on extradition were bound to fail. Does he recall that when the 1987 Act was being passed in the Irish Republic the Prime Minister said that it would make matters worse than under the 1965 Act? In the light of that, what possible confidence can the right hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member have that we will get any IRA murderer extradited from the Irish Republic to face justice in this kingdom?
    Mr. Cope: I do not think that there is a sound legal basis for the hon. Gentleman's assertion about the effects of the McGimpsey case judgment on extradition. In view of the legal advice that I have received, I cannot support his assertion. In terms of his general question, I can tell him that of course there have been three refusals of

    387
    extradition for terrorists to which I have recently referred, but that compares with 38 refusals in the years preceding 1985 and, obviously, preceding the new legislation. Four terrorists have been returned to Northern Ireland since 1985, compared with only three in the preceding 15 years, so the position has improved. Of course we are not entirely satisfied—that is why we are having further discussions with the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
    Rev. William McCrea: How can the Minister assure my constituents that the Irish Republic is a friendly neighbour to Northern Ireland when at this moment it is harbouring known terrorists who have killed some of my constituents? Does the Minister accept that the present extradition arrangements are the laughing stock of the world?
    Mr. Cope: I do not accept that. If the hon. Gentleman has information and evidence to give to the Royal Ulster Constabulary which will assist us in catching criminals, wherever they may be on either side of the border, we shall be grateful to receive it.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the Minister aware that we welcome the establishment of a committee to consider the effects of extradition? We hope that it will reach a conclusion that will be acceptable to the vast majority of people within all of our islands. Have the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State considered taking the initiative with other colleagues in the Government and looking again at the actual convention on the suppression of terrorism to try to limit the effects of political exemption and to make its scope much narrower and much more acceptable to the majority of fair-thinking people?
    Mr. Cope: Yes, but the convention does not translate precisely into current legislation in many countries, not only the Irish Republic. It is a matter for agreement between the two countries involved. That is of the first importance. However, we shall pursue all those matters in the talks to which I have referred.
    Mr. Hanley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no place in the European Community for any country that protects those who commit political crimes? Would not it be a good idea, during the Irish presidency, to suggest a change in a constitution which helps to protect those who commit such crimes?
    Mr. Cope: I think that we are already adopting the best manner to achieve improvements between this country and the Irish Republic.

    Republic of Ireland
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Brooke: I last met Ministers from the Republic of Ireland on 20 April, following the Intergovernmental Conference. The subjects discussed then included the political situation in Northern Ireland, cross-border security co-operation, arrangements for dealing with fugitive offenders, the question of confidence in the security forces and the system of justice and cross-border economic co-operation.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the valid and constructive criticism of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that it has failed in its declared objective of bringing peace precisely because it contains no coherent strategy for the peaceful reunification of Ireland? Will he assure us that meaningful dialogue towards that end will continue between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Republic, whatever the outcome of his forthcoming discussions with Unionist leaders—including the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who is not exactly renowned for his contribution to the peace movement?
    Mr. Brooke: I pay tribute to the security co-operation between this Government and the Government of the Irish Republic in matter pertaining to cross-border activities. The hon. Gentleman's view of the purpose of the Anglo-Irish Agreement—at least in the gloss that he placed upon it—is novel, and not one which I share with him.
    Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people on this side of the St. George's channel—and, I suspect, many on the other side—welcome the recent visit to Belfast by Prime Minister Haughey to talk to business men there and regard that sort of contact as extremely sensible and fruitful?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is correct in his description of the visit of Mr. Haughey, though he came as President of the European Community to a conference which was devoted to European economic matters. The widespread view of those who took part in that conference was that his visit was worth while.
    Mr. McNamara: What progress has been made on the joint Anglo-Irish application for the cross-border element of the European structural fund, and when can we expect a statement about that?
    Mr. Brooke: We are still engaged in discussions, but progress on the outline basis has been made.
    Mr. Mallon: Is not it time that the Secretary of State told the House exactly what discussions have taken place with the Government of the Republic of Ireland about cross-border co-operation in relation to the terms of EC directives? May we be assured that this time we shall not lose by default through failure to have proper discussions about those matters?
    Mr. Brooke: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to structural funds or to Community regulations against which the Republic of Ireland was held to have offended and was taken to the European court. We have not yet had the conclusion of that matter. We shall wait to see the response of the Government of the Republic, but we have pressed on them that we expect them to adhere to the judgment when it emerges.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are unemployed in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of unemployment in Northern Ireland in March 1987 and March 1990.
    Mr. Needham: The seasonally adjusted unemployment figures for March 1990—the latest available—show that unemployment now stands at 98,400. The corresponding figure for March 1987 was 123,500. This represents a fall of more than 20 per cent. during this period.
    Mr. Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the political problems in the Province are attributable to structural weaknesses in the economy and former very high levels of unemployment? Does he agree that he has just given the House extremely good news? What was the trend in the Province in the early part of this year?
    Mr. Needham: The trend in the Province in the last three months shows a proportionate decline greater than that in the rest of the United Kingdom. The growth rate of the economy in Northern Ireland is standing up extremely well. As for the future, my hon. Friend is right to say that we must improve our training to meet the economic needs of the 1990s.
    Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the long term the best hope of reducing the disparity between Northern Ireland and United Kingdom unemployment lies in improving the skills of the work force? What contribution is the Training and Employment Agency making to that?
    Mr. Needham: The Training and Employment Agency will be crucial to our success. Its board has wide United Kingdom experience and, I am sure, will come forward with ideas about how we can best proceed. Our aim is that everyone seeking work should have a recognised vocational qualification within five years and that, by the year 2000, 60 per cent. of all those studying should have three national vocational qualifications or at least one A-level equivalent.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Each month the Department of Employment Gazette publishes unemployment figures by parliamentary constituency. If the employment situation is so good in Northern Ireland, why is unemployment in Northern Ireland constituencies so high that seven out of the highest nine unemployment figures occur in Northern Ireland constituencies?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties that we face in Northern Ireland because of the problems that we have with terrorism. He should, therefore, congratulate the Government on our achieve-ments to date in having an extremely successful inward investment programme, an economy which is growing very fast and the immense changes that are taking place in the towns, cities and villages of the Province.
    Mr. Ron Brown: As unemployment will always be high because of the security situation, is it not about time that the Government thought positively about withdrawing British troops from Northern Ireland? That would be a vital contribution to the Irish situation which has to be looked at time and again. It is about time that the Government made a decision on that.
    Mr. Needham: I can think of nothing that would do less for Northern Ireland's economy than if British troops were
    390
    to withdraw from Northern Ireland and security there were to become less stable. The key thing to do is to bring the communities together, continue with our programme of inward investment, improve training and continue along the path that has enabled us to succeed so brilliantly up to now.

    Security
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on steps being taken to improve cross-border co-operation on security with the Eire Government.
    Mr. Cope: Measures to improve security co-operation, particularly in the border area, are regularly discussed at Anglo-Irish Conference meetings, most recently on 19 April. In addition, regular meetings take place at all levels between members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana. Progress has been made, but where further improvement is possible the Government are committed to securing it.
    Mr. Riddick: Is it not the case that the Irish police in the border area are unable effectively to tackle IRA terrorists fleeing across the border from the north having just committed terrorist crimes because those Irish policemen are unarmed? Is not the obvious solution for the Irish Government to arm the Garda in the border areas or to place units of the Irish army on the border? Has my right hon. Friend raised those issues with the Irish Government and, if so, what response did he receive?
    Mr. Cope: We frequently discuss all such aspects, but those are operational matters which must be for the authorities in the Republic to decide for themselves.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. William Powell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Thursday 10 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. Powell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing public anger, resentment and anxiety about the waste of taxpayers' money by a number of local authorities, highlighted yet again in an article in the Daily Mail today about Ealing? Has not the time come for a full inquiry into the matter and would not the best thing to do be to establish a Special Select Committee of the House with full powers to call for persons and papers so that the true facts can be laid bare?
    The Prime Minister: I have indeed seen the report to which my hon. Friend refers and, if correct, it is a shocking indictment of the extravagance and profligacy of that particular local authority. My hon. Friend will be aware of the excellent work done by the Audit Commission in identifying waste and making recommendations and it would be better if those recommendations were taken up more quickly. Nevertheless, I heard my hon. Friend's

    391
    suggestion, as I am sure did my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. Bearing in mind that a large part of local authority spending comes from the taxpayer, he has a good point.
    Mr. Kinnock: In view of his obvious desire to be of help to her, has the Prime Minister thought of putting the poll tax review into the hands of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)? After all, one volunteer is worth 10 pressed men.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is well aware that the most unfair system of local taxation was rates.
    Mr. Kinnock: I hope that the right hon. Lady will reflect on the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had at least one good idea—annual elections for councils, which has been Labour party policy for some time. Does the Prime Minister recall that when local authorities were tested last week the result was a net 300 seat gain for Labour, a net 11 council gain for Labour and a major increase in vote share for Labour? On second thoughts, does she think that that is perhaps what the right hon. Member for Henley had in mind?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley had many good ideas in his article, which of course will be considered, along with many others in the community charge review, to see what modifications and adjustments are necessary. With regard to structural changes in local authorities, I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be well aware that those could not take place in the lifetime of the present Parliament. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley rightly said this morning that the present Conservative Government
    "would fight and win the next general election with the community charge in place."
    Mr. Tebbit: Will my right hon. Friend consider carefully the suggestion of our hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) that a special Select Committee should be set up to examine these matters? For instance, it could take evidence on the desirability of a roof tax and explore the possibilities as to how it could be implemented. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that it should be specifically precluded from questioning any members of the Labour party, however distinguished, about whether they voted Conservative in the Ealing borough council election?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend makes the point more powerfully than I could. The people who turned out the Ealing Labour council did a good day's work.
    Ms. Abbott: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Abbott: Has the Prime Minister read the small print in Tarzan's election address, which featured so prominent-ly in The Times this morning? Did she see the reference to the "virtuous circle" of falling inflation and a reduction in interest rates? Does she agree that, with interest rates at 15 per cent. and a rise in inflation due to be announced
    392
    tomorrow, she is so far removed from virtue in such matters that the best that she could hope for in a Heseltine Administration is a position as elected mayor of Dulwich?
    The Prime Minister: The level of inflation that the Labour party criticises today is well below what Labour was able to achieve during the greater part of its time in office. I remind the hon. Lady that there are more jobs in this country than ever before—that is the basis of prosperity.
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the excellent local election result in Hillingdon, where the Conservatives won control? Does she agree with me that the principal reason for that victory was their proposal for a community charge of £289, compared with the Labour proposal of £366—a reduction of £77?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I congratulate my hon. Friend, and I welcome the evidence that Conservative councils not only cost less but give better services. I note that, as my hon. Friend says, there will be a substantial reduction in community charge under a Conservative council; nevertheless, Hillingdon Conservative council intends to spend an extra £1 million on schools, to devote more resources to care for the elderly and the handicapped and to cut council committees from 100 to 30.
    Mr. Hood: When the Prime Minister visits Scotland later this week to pledge her full support for the poll tax in Scotland, will she also pledge her full support for the Secretary of State for Scotland as her friends on the Back Benches are insisting that he be sacked before the next election?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is one of the best Secretaries of State that Scotland has ever had.
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: My right hon. Friend may know that I have an interest in a certain football club. One of our sayings is that we never change a winning team. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that as she was our centre forward and captain in 1979, 1983 and 1987, she is not planning to change our winning team? Does she agree that our supporters would be dismayed if we put a reserve centre forward and captain on the field, notwithstanding the fact the Labour party has second-rate ideas, second-rate policies and, as their own supporters know, a sub-zero leader?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend and I share the same goal. With myself as centre forward and my hon. Friend on the right wing, we should make a winning team.
    Mr. Mallon: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mallon: As a major player on the world political stage for the past 11 years, the Prime Minister must surely welcome the breakdown of artificial barriers throughout Europe. As she surveys those changes, does not it strike her that the division of Ireland is an anachronism which cannot possibly work administratively, politically or economically? Would not it be the mark of real statesmanship if the Prime Minister were to dedicate her remaining time in office to solving that problem and in that way making a lasting contribution to a peaceful united Europe?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland have clearly expressed their wish to stay a part of the United Kingdom. So long as that is so, they will remain a part of the United Kingdom. I hope and believe that they will remain a part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: While many improvements in management and efficiency are needed in local authorities, has my right hon. Friend seen the report by PA Management Consultants which says that improvements so far have been a direct result of legislation passed by the Government? Will she confirm that it is not the policy of her Government to repeal that legislation? Does she agree that the policy of the Labour party to repeal local government legislation would be a disaster for everyone?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The provisions of the legislation meant that local authorities had to go out to competition for many services, as a result of which they got better services at lower cost. The Audit Commission has also been active in seeing what further economies can be made. I hope that its conclusions will be carried into effect.
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Prime Minister aware that the whole House will want to send its deepest sympathy to the family of William Cartman, the sixth British worker to be killed
    394
    in the Channel tunnel, a project which seems to be costing almost a man a mile? Will she make it clear that it is entirely inadequate for the five companies of Transmanche Link to be fined only £10,000 each for the death of another worker last February? Will she assure the House and construction workers that the Government will bring forward emergency legislation to make mandatory a prison sentence on an employer who is found guilty of gross negligence following the death or serious injury of a construction worker? When will the carnage stop?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we are concerned about that tragic accident. As the hon. Gentleman knows, m y right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be meeting the chief executive of Transmanche Link later this afternoon to discuss the safety of the site. Health and safety inspectors are investigating the accident, and they have taken immediate action. Two prohibition notices have been issued which have stopped the operation of the two tunnel-boring machines in the marine tunnels. It is too early to say what caused the accident. We all deeply regret it, and we send our sympathy to the bereaved relatives of the person who was killed.
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Shaw: I thank my right hon. Friend for her remarks about the employees and workers in Dover engaged on the construction of the Channel tunnel. On a different subject—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak for Dover."] —has my right hon. Friend had time during her busy day to read newspaper reports about the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who seems to believe——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister cannot take responsibility for that.
    Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises from Prime Minister's Question Time.
    Mr. Speaker: I must take the Business of the House first.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: May I ask the Leader of the House to announce the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business of the House for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 MAY—Private Members' motions.
Second Reading of the Pakistan Bill [Lords].
Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill [Lords], the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill [Lords], the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill [Lords], the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Bill [Lords], all of which, the House will be glad to know, are consolidation measures.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 15 MAY and WEDNESDAY 16 MAY— Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
At the end on Tuesday: motion relating to the statement of changes in immigration rules (HC 251).
At the end on Wednesday: motion relating to the Personal Equity Plan (Amendment) Regulations.
THURSDAY 17 MAY—Remaining stages of the Employment Bill.
FRIDAY 18 MAY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 21 MAY—Opposition Day (12th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject for debate to be announced.
Dr. Cunningham: Is not it abundantly clear that the House was persistently misled over the British Aerospace-Rover deal? Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement as soon as possible by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, so that the House may be given some frank answers about what exactly has been going on? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that to continue to cover up the facts of that case will do no credit to Parliament or to the Government?
Why has the Leader of the House introduced a new policy of denying debates on orders against which the Opposition have set down prayers, particularly when they relate to the poll tax? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his decision not to allow a debate on the Police (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which relate to the implications for policemen of the poll tax? Ought not the police to have a clear view of the Government's position on that question before their annual conference begins in a few days' time?
Would not such a debate have the additional benefit of allowing the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to explain to the House why he believes that the poll tax is so unfair and far too high? As the right hon. Gentleman has so much support on the Government Back Benches, would not a decision to hold such a debate, and to allow him to speak, be widely welcomed by Conservative Members too?
Does not the report of the Select Committee on Social Services provide a damning indictment of Government policy towards the poorest people in Britain? Does not the report expose as totally bogus the persistent claims by the Prime Minister and other Ministers that people on low incomes have been doing well and have been fairly treated
396
by the Government? Does not their treatment contrast starkly with the hugely favourable treatment given to people on high incomes, who have had major reductions in their tax bills?
Will the Leader of the House provide early Government time for a debate on the report of the Social Services Committee and the widening gap in treatment between the poorest people in Britain and those who are very well off?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Let me first of all reject absolutely the hon. Members's suggestion that there is any question of a cover up in relation to the British Aerospace-Rover affair. He knows perfectly well that that matter is subject to investigation by one of the Select Committees of the House at present—quite apart from the separate matter of possible leaks of the reports of that matter, but the issue is being investigated by the Select Committee on behalf of the House.
As regards the arrangements for debates on prayers the hon. Gentleman is also being unusually and unjustifiably severe. Last week, I said that the Police (Amendment) Regulations 1990 were likely to be raised in an Adjournment debate next week. As a matter of fact, I now understand that, because of his commitments overseas with the Home Affairs Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) will not be able to be present to initiate that debate. However, next week the House will debate two Opposition prayers, as I announced a moment ago. The Opposition will also have an Opposition day at their disposal at the end of next week, and if they wish to do so, they can make use of that day to give an opportunity to the House to debate the community charge and for my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to take part.
As for the report of the Select Committee on Social Services, of course the Government are concerned about the mistakes in statistics discovered in that context. The Government moved openly and swiftly to correct those figures in the public domain. The fact is that even those figures show that there has been an increase in the living standards of the poorest people, and that would not have happened were it not for the general prosperity of the economy under the Government.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: In the light of the representations made by the Liaison Committee regarding the importance of maintaining the link between Departments and the Select Committee system, could my right hon. Friend say whether he is yet in a position to take steps next week to facilitate the division of the Select Committee on Health and Social Services into two component parts, so that they continue to maintain individual Departments?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not in a position to add anything to what I told my right hon. Friend last week on that matter.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Who is responsible for determining the pay of people in the Refreshment Department of the House of Commons? Is it the Head of Establishments? Is it the House of Commons Commission? Is it the Services Committee? Or is it the Leader of the House? And is it true that this year the staff will only get a 4 per cent. pay increase?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have told the hon. Member many times, there are proper and established mechanisms for staff and unions to put their grievances and concerns about pay and for those to be properly considered by the management, the staff inspectors and the House of Commons Commission. As I have also told the hon. Member on more than one occasion, the House of Commons Commission will consider aspects of that matter at its next meeting.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the possibility of an early debate on defence matters, particularly as they apply to the unification of Germany, and the enormous implications that that will have for NATO and the Warsaw pact in coming years?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that I can precisely meet my hon. Friend's request, but I hope that we can arrange a debate on the Army shortly, and that before too long there will be the opportunity for a debate on European affairs in one way or another.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has the Leader of the House received an invitation to Denis Thatcher's 75th birthday party tonight, and will he be taking the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) with him?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not feel obliged to comment on that question.
Mr. Christopher Gill: In view of the amount of interest in political union within the European Community, will my right hon. and learned Friend grant a debate on that subject in the near future?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have already said, I shall be looking for a chance for the House to debate European affairs before too long.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Leader of the House prepared to make arrangements during the next few weeks for a special debate on the future of Antarctica, bearing in mind the fact that the Antarctic treaty nations will be meeting in Santiago in Chile to discuss the future of the continent? There have been a number of proposals for an environmental assessment to be made of the impact of mineral exploration on Antarctica and very loud demands from many countries for a wilderness park to be created in that very important continent. As the British Parliament is the only one which voted to support mineral exploration, which has been rejected by nearly every other signatory to the Antarctic treaty, does he agree that it is essential that the House debates the matter before the British Government representatives go to Santiago, so that they can represent the views of all of us in the House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer the prospect of a debate on that, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are concerned about the need to protect the Antarctic environment and believe that the policies they have been following are well directed to that end. They were set out by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in a written answer on 4 May.
Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that, on I May, the King of Belgium issued a royal edict endeavouring to override the
398
European Community directive on the use of non-hush-kitted aircraft in an endeavour to circumvent European law and to allow Ostend to continue to act illegally? Will he create an opportunity for the House to discuss the matter so that we can send a clear message to the European Commission that we are no longer prepared to allow mainland European countries to flout European law?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: While I am not aware of that precise point, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will certainly look into the matter, because we attach importance to compliance with European Community obligations and have the best possible record in that respect.
Mr. Harry Barnes: May we have a discussion on the state of the franchise? The estimated population figures for over-18s compared with local government registration figures for England show that there could be 500,000 people missing from the electoral register. Is it not the case that the poll tax is not reformable because it disenfranchises people?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no evidence whatsoever to support the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give further consideration to the pertinent question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) on the future of the Select Committee on Social Services? Is he aware that strong rumours—in fact, more than rumours—are going around the House that the Government intend to separate that Select Committee so that it can properly monitor the two separate Government Departments. Bearing in mind the important work of the Committee, it is important that the current Committee can complete its inquiries. Will my right hon. and learned Friend reach an early decision on to how the matter can be resolved, to ensure that the Select Committee structure can work according to the procedures laid down by the House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for offering what I understand to be a different point of view on that important matter. As I said, I cannot add anything further to what I said last week.
Sir David Steel: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his earlier answer about the lack of a debate on the workings of the poll tax? Does he recognise that it is desirable that discussions should take place in the House as well as in the columns of The Times? Will he enable the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to have a chance to explain to the House how it was that he resolutely opposed inflicting the tax on his constituents in Henley, but voted twice the previous year to inflict it on us in Scotland?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not have the impression that the House has lacked opportunity for airing its views on the community charge. As I have already said, the Opposition have an opportunity to bring the matter before the House on Monday week.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the shadow Leader of the House that the Select Committee on Social Services did not accuse the Government of fraud or dishonesty on the low income statistics and that a genuine mistake was made? It

399
is rather irresponsible for the Leader of the Opposition to accuse the Government, who have kept their promise to pensioners and who are spending more than any other Government on benefits, of fraud and dishonesty. The Select Committee did not, and we conducted the investigation.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The Government acted as swiftly as possible to publish correct figures in respect of those found to be mistaken. More generally, under this Government, pensioners' average total net income increased in real terms between 1979 and 1987 by 31 per cent.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Has the Leader of the House seen today's report by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which shows that many disabled people are not applying for their benefits because they are humiliated before the boards? That is due to the structure and to some shocking behaviour by doctors. Is not it deplorable that the people who badly need those funds are denied them because they are treated in this shabby, shocking fashion? Can we have a debate on this next week, please?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have not seen the report to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but I will bring his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the amendment passed at the end of the Committee on the abortion provisions in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill relating to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 means that there is now no time limit on certain abortions, such as those for mothers who might be considered likely to be physically handicapped or who might bear children who would be either mentally or physically handicapped? Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that that was the intention of the House? Will he find time for a debate on the Infant Life (Preservation) Act in view of that amendment, which is causing so much concern?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am certainly not going to answer a question about the implications of an amendment which I do not have before me and which I have not considered, save to say that it was one of many decided on by the House during those proceedings. Most of those who have commented on the way in which the proceedings were conducted declared themselves impressed by the accuracy and consistency with which the results were recorded. There will be an opportunity to consider the matter again when the House considers the Bill on Report.
Mr. Alfred Morris: I know that the Leader of the House will recall the debate nearly four months ago, on 17 January, about the parliamentary contributory pension fund when I spoke as chairman of the managing trustees of the fund. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the deep concern among hon. Members of all parties for a statement and, in particular, about the pensions paid to the widows of our former colleagues? Will there be a full response next week to the submissions made on behalf of the trustees and can we expect a further debate soon?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have been keeping him in touch with the progress of our various considerations on the matter, including the point to which he has referred and which concerns us all —the standard of benefits available for widows. I hope to be able to bring before the House proposals and the Bill itself before too long. I shall keep the right hon. Gentleman informed about the matter.
Mr. Derek Conway: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a small—I hope —minority of the charge payers of Shrewsbury and Atcham who are aggrieved at the level are keen to get their hands round my throat by the 1992 general election? Is my right hon. and learned Friend further aware that they are even keener to get their hands around the throats of the Labour-Liberal alliance which controls Shropshire county council and that they will not have the opportunity to do that until 1993? Will he therefore give the House an opportunity to consider amending section 7 of the Local Government Act 1972 to enable one third of the county councillors in England and Wales to retire annually, so that the community charge can be truly accountable for those presently suffering?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can understand my hon. Friend's anxiety to enable his constituents to make their feelings known to those who apparently represent their interests so inadequately, but I do not think that at this stage I can offer a Bill that would amend the structure of local government with the speed that he desires.
Mr. John Garrett: Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on the far-reaching changes that the Government are making in the machinery of government? Having spent a decade slaughtering quangos, they are now setting up scores of partly independent Government organisations or "pingos"—the so called next steps agencies. The changes will have far-reaching effects on the conditions of service of civil servants and could have substantial implications for the accountability of those bodies to the House. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow a debate on that apparently technical matter, which is in fact a fundamental question of public and parliamentary accountability?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that the Government will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his close interest in the matter. The changes that have been proposed along those lines have been pretty widely welcomed inside and outside the House, but I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's interest to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the civil service so that the House may better inform itself about the matter.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: In view of the serious anxieties that have already been expressed this afternoon from both sides of the House, will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to arrange an early debate on the safety crisis in the channel tunnel? Is he aware that many of us who have warned about this matter feel that it is nothing short of scandalous that it has taken six unnecessary deaths for the channel tunnel bosses to get a carpeting for their deplorable safety standards? Will he at least arrange a statement next week on this afternoon's meeting between the Secretary of State for Employment and the head of the construction consortium?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot say precisely how the matter may best be reflected in the House, but the fact that it has been raised and dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by more than one hon. Member during business questions underlines the importance of my bringing it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, and I shall certainly do that.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we supplement the work of the Select Committee on Members' Interests by having a debate on Members' outside interests, especially in view of the parsimonious attitude towards members of the staff? We have a set of double standards, with Tory MPs busy getting as many outside interests as they can but supporting the Government in their decision to give only 4 per cent. to the staff.
In the current issue of "Labour Research", 14 Tory MPs are listed as having failed to register their business interests. I know that the Leader of the House is concerned about the matter because he expressed his view during our debate on the conduct of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). Those MPs could then explain why they consistently vote for the poorest in the land to be penalised if they fail to fill in an income support form properly while getting away with similar behaviour themselves.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Let me make it absolutely clear that the terms and conditions of remuneration of the staff employed by the House are determined not by the Government but by the House of Commons Commission and other authorities representing the House as a whole. As I have already told the House, those matters are likely to be considered again by the Commission at its next meeting. They have nothing whatever to do with Government policy.
The registration of Members' interests is again a matter for the House. The House has made arrangements to deal with it, and the Select Committee is looking at the matter at present.
Mr. Barry Porter: Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to resist what will inevitably be an increasing clamour from the Opposition Benches for a debate on the British Aerospace-Rover matter? That should not happen until the Select Committee has reported. So far as I can see, on the evidence available, there is nothing—absolutely nothing—to suggest that what was in The Guardian has any substance. It was a good deal, well done.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am certainly content to accept the advice that my hon. Friend gave in the first part of his question.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Now that the people of Scotland have had over a year of the poll tax, and as the Conservative party was absolutely decimated in Scotland at the recent elections, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate to take place to give the people of Scotland a referendum on whether they want the hated poll tax?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The fact that the swing against the Government in Scotland was smaller than in any other part of the country shows that the longer the people of Scotland live with the community charge, the better they come to like it.
Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Mellon): Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen early-day motion 942 in my name and the names of other hon. Members about the problems of the Health Service in Leicestershire?
[That this House notes with great concern the proposals of Leicestershire Health Authority to make cuts in services, because of current financial pressures; regrets that the Secretary of State felt unable to offer any help when he met an all-party deputation of honourable Members from Leicestershire on 3rd May; and asks him to reconsider his decision urgently.]
Will he arrange for an early statement next week by the Secretary of State for Health to tell us what he intends to do about health authorities such as Leicestershire and others whose budgets have been badly affected by their inability to sell land due to the collapse of the property market?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot comment on the particular aspect of the matter raised in the last part of my hon. Friend's question. However, I remind him that the allocation of money to the Leicestershire district health authority is a matter for Trent regional health authority. understand that, this year, the district received significantly more money than last year and provided for a real-term increase in its budget of almost 3 per cent. I shall bring the particular point that my hon. Friend raised to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: As a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Leader of the House will know that he and his colleagues have been more than accommodating to the tobacco industry, mainly because it is a large employer of labour. Every Chancellor since the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in office has assisted the tobacco industry. Yet today we have had word from the tobacco industry that it intends to close factories in Glasgow, Bristol and Ipswich. The industry claims that the reason for shedding the labour is 1992. I do not believe that, and I am sure that the Leader of the House does not believe it. Surely we should have an emergency debate to discuss the activities of the tobacco industry.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I certainly will not try to pass judgment on the causes of structural change in the tobacco industry. I am sure that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor 1992 is the only cause. I shall bring the general point that he raised to the attention of my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I recently had a categorical assurance from the consortium that is bidding with British Rail to build the high-speed rail link that it will make no contribution whatever to the costs that would be incurred were there to be a Maidstone parkway station. Can we have an early debate both to enable the distaste of the people of Kent to be expressed at a private organisation levying such a burden on the community charge and to debate the whole way in which private Bill procedure is used to override the norms of planning procedures?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise a debate about the specific, relatively narrow point that my hon. Friend has raised. Clearly there may be further opportunities to debate the wider questions that underlie his point. I am

403
continuing my study of the private Bill procedure. Clearly there is a case for some changes. I hope to inform the House of our proposals before too long.
Mr. Alex Salmond: When can we expect a debate on a statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland on planning permission for test boring for nucler dumping at Dounreay? Will such a statement take into account the fierce local opposition to such dumping, including the 3:1 majority against it in the Caithness referendum last year? Can we have an assurance that such a statement will be made to the whole House of Commons, so that Scottish Members can question the Secretary of State for Scotland on it and that the information will not be sneaked out in the form of a written answer to some toadying Tory Back Bencher?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot say when any statement on that matter will be made. I shall bring the point raised by the hon. Gentleman to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who will no doubt reach his own sensible conclusion on the matter.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will accept that, because of Rover's great success, there is growing anxiety in the west midlands, and particularly in the Birmingham and Oxford area, about the continual sniping campaign against Rover. Thousands of jobs are at stake. The Opposition seem to think that they can gain some mean-spirited public advantage by attempting to drag Rover through the mud and mire.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that British Aerospace, which is investing £1,000 million in jobs and motor cars for this country, feels that it is fighting with one hand tied behind its back by the Labour party, even though that party says that it supports the workers? Let us have a debate on Rover. I believe that Rover, the public will and the workers will win. Let us have done with all the nonsense about £38 million. The £38 million is not as important as tens of thousands of workers' jobs in the motor industry.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the wider implications of the matter and emphasising the extent to which the way that the House and Parliament consider such matters can have an important influence on the employment prospects of the people of this country.
Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsbrough): I am sure —[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. A question has been asked, and we cannot have a debate across the Floor of the Chamber from the Benches below the Gangway.
Mr. Flannery: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware that an important report from the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts was published yesterday. It was, in many ways, a highly controversial report, which should have been published nine months ago; it could have been, but it was held up by the Conservative party. The report is possibly the most important that the three Committees on which a Tory Member and I have served since about 1980 have published. The education system is moving into some deep
404
trouble because of the shortage, and developing shortage, of teachers, as anybody who visits the staff room and talks to teachers will know. Could we have what will be an important debate on the subject of education, because that report encompasses all the various aspects of education? There is a great deal of argument about it today in the press, but everybody agrees that it is an important report.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: No one doubts the importance of the issues covered by that report, or the report itself, which was received by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in the past 48 hours. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government's reply to a Select Committee has to be properly considered and given first to the House. That will happen as soon as possible. The delay in the report's completion is no doubt due to the mishaps that befell the Committee during the report's consideration, including a change of Chairman following the leak of some aspects of the Committee's work. That underlines the importance of a proper investigation of such leaks and taking steps to prevent further such leaks.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind the implications of the report of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts for the funding of education and the fact that the block grant system of funding education is not working satisfactorily, may I join those who are calling on my right hon. and learned Friend for an early debate on education funding so that some of us can express our view that teachers' salaries at least should be funded centrally from the Exchequer?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That topic has been debated from almost every angle during the time in which I have been involved in politics—on the basis that whatever system is in place should be changed for something better because the grass is always greener on the other side of the procedure. Detailed comment on the report will have to await proper consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. David Clelland: May I join the appeals to the Leader of the House for a statement next week on working conditions at the channel tunnel? Could that statement include the involvement of the Economic League in the recruitment of labour for the project, and whether that has led to the exclusion from employment of trade union members with a history of agitating for safe working conditions?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman's specific point. I have already said that I shall bring to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment the wide interest in safety conditions on that project so that the matter may be properly considered.
Mr. Bob Dunn: The Leader of the House will be aware that most hon. Members wish to see a free and democratic Europe stretching from the Atlantic to, and including, white Russia. In the light of that, the House will be concerned as I am about the unfair and unfree elections taking place in Romania. If those elections are deemed unfree and unfair, how can the results be deemed otherwise? In the light of that, will the Leader of the House please arrange for a debate at the earliest appropriate time about the slide into anarchy that is taking place in Romania?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know that the whole House shares the concern for the future of the country and people of Romania and has high expectations for the electoral process that has been put in place there. For that reason, a number of steps have been taken to ensure the presence of a large number of independent observers at those elections, including, I think, some from the House. A wide interest is being taken in that matter, and the House will want to await with care the outcome of the report by the independent observers.
Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Will the Leader of the House find time to let the House consider the trauma that is suffered by many innocent victims in my constituency as a result of the Stevens inquiry? Does he agree that John Stevens would be better employed concentrating on the problems within his own division, which are now being investigated by the Surrey police force?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot agree with that proposition. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is following closely the progress of that investigation.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Will my right hon. and learned Friend the deputy Prime Minister provide time for a debate on security in Northern Ireland? The matter is urgent in view of the increased IRA activity, which is now worse than it has been for some years. The authorities have warned people about the danger of more and greater atrocities, the likelihood of which is, of course, much greater since the IRA has apparently been able to get its hands on Libyan arms stashed in the Irish Republic. The IRA has also been given encouragement by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Dublin, which confirmed the Irish Republic's claim to the territory of Northern Ireland.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Those matters will no doubt have been explored to some extent during Northern Ireland Question Time today. I shall bring the matters that my hon. Friend has raised to the attention of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: When can we have emergency legislation to amend, or better still to abolish, the poll tax, especially now that the issue is being fast exploited by ambitious Tory MPs such as the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) who is after the Prime Minister's job, and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who is after the job of the Secretary of State for Scotland?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman can always be relied upon to provide some exhilarating speculation, but I have nothing to say about that. The Government propose to complete their consideration of the scope and/or need for any adjustment in the community charge, and we shall do that at a measured pace with all deliberate speed.
Mr. Alistair Burt: Can we have an urgent debate on the specific subject of the effectiveness or lack of it of the European Community in dealing with human rights cases? I am thinking specifically of the failure of the European Community to act in concert in relation to hostages. Why are we all Europeans for some purposes, but the hostages are either French. Belgian, British or
406
Irish? Why cannot the members of the Community act together to secure their release? Why cannot the Community provide a forum to deal with the problem caused by the false imprisonment of the lorry driver in Greece? Why cannot it find a way to work together to resolve such problems? Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate during which we can consider that?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend raises two separate questions. He knows that the Government are represent-ing as vigorously as we can our concern about the continued detention of Mr. Paul Ashwell, and we are continuing to press with sustained effort the case about which we all share anxiety, the case of hostages wherever they may be detained. The members of the European Community have been seeking through political cooperation to enhance the ability of the Community to work together on that, but I readily agree that it still falls short of the ideal.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: Is the Leader of the House aware that a large number of parents, children and teachers from Tower Hamlets came to Parliament today to protest about the lack of hundreds of school places? Will he call an early debate to consider the position of education authorities which fail to carry out their duty to provide sufficient school places under section 8 of the Education Act 1944 and to consider Lord Justice Woolf's recent decision that that duty is not absolute, and the implications of that for children throughout the country?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The duty has been defined in that way since 1944. Of course, it is subject to the rulings of the court from time to time. I shall bring the hon. Lady's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give serious consideration to the possibility of a debate on Rover's takeover by British Aerospace? That would give the Opposition the opportunity to tell the House why they have had such a sudden change of mind on that issue. Is not it true that, in 1986, the Opposition bitterly criticised the Government when they tried to sell Rover to the highest bidder—Ford or General Motors? Are not they now complaining because we have not sold Rover to the highest bidder? Perhaps we have underestimated the extent to which the Opposition have converted to free market forces.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that we should be too optimistic about the Opposition's conversion to any set of consistent policies. They appear to be dominated by opportunism from beginning to end.
Mr. Tom Pendry: Will the Leader of the House, as the custodian of our interests, help the whole House by investigating the problem of answers —or non-answers—from Ministers? Talking to other hon. Members has shown me that it is a common problem. We are receiving non-answers to our questions, and the standard of reply is declining. Will the Leader of the House consider that problem, for the sake of us all?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not detect any general feeling that there has been any significant variation in the

407
standard of answers for many years. This Government certainly endeavour to provide the best possible information, consistent with the remainder of their duties.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Can we have a debate next week that would allow us to consider the Labour party's record when it was in control of the London borough of Ealing? We could then examine the revelations in today's Daily Mail and other newspapers, and I could express the concerns of my constituents. Some 14 of the 17 new councillors elected were Conservative gains across the borough of Ealing. We want to know why the Leader of the Opposition has consistently said that the Labour-controlled Ealing council gave value for money and was a good council, when it appears to have been guilty of serious maladministration. The people of Ealing wholeheartedly rejected the council's Labour members.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on yet again having drawn attention to the misdeeds of the Labour party in the borough of Ealing. I am glad to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on being a beneficiary of the efficient electoral decision by the people of Ealing.
Mr. Greville Janner: May I reinforce the plea of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) for a debate on Health Service provision in Leicestershire and the deterioration in the services that Leicestershire people receive? It is an all-party matter. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are enraged about their treatment, and not least about the cavalier way in which we were received by the Secretary of State for Health, who refused to reconsider the matter and who clearly had a closed mind. As the editorial in the Leicester Mercury said last week, the Government should take action. All parties are demanding that they do so.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not very well impressed by the style and manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman has sought to support the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham). I have already told the House that there has been a significant increase in the total resources available to that health authority. I shall bring the point, in its more precise form, to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider arranging a debate on the spread of satanism and devil worship in the United Kingdom and the involvement of children? [Interruption.] I well remember the reaction in the House 10 years ago, when I warned of the spread of child abuse. I was greeted with disbelief, but we now know differently. Two years ago, I warned of the spread of devil worship, satanism and black witchcraft—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Dickens: We now know that that is true because of the NSPCC report. Such a debate would help me to identify others in this House who are willing to stand up to those people. In all honesty, I think that the House of Commons is weak on this subject.
Mr. Skinner: There is the first suspect—Mr. Speaker, who wears a wig and is all in black.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: In view of my hon. Friend's self-proclamation of his powers of prophecy in respect of these matters, it would not be wise of me to dismiss altogether the warnings that he utters about devilish-sounding things in the form of satanism, devil worship and black witchcraft, but I cannot promise an immediate debate on the matter.
Mr. Ron Brown: I assure the Leader of the House that these days the only people who crucify one are those on the Labour party's NEC, and I speak from personal experience.
More important at this stage, may I voice my support for the demand that we have a special debate to discuss the middle east hostages question? Such a debate would be important for the House, for the families of those concerned and as a matter of principle. Or is the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the British Government still committed to a pro-Israeli policy, remembering that that country is responsible for a lot of the trouble in the area and for much of the terrorism?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that I should accept with alacrity advice from the hon. Gentleman about the hostages question. I assure him—the House must surely be in no doubt about this—that we are all continuously, seriously and desperately concerned about our hostages. Certainly the Government are.
To answer the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raised, I get the impression that he is complaining about the continued application in his party of red witchcraft. That must be a matter for him and his party to sort out.
Mr. George Foulkes: Did the Leader of the House hear the endorsement that the Prime Minister gave to the Secretary of State for Scotland? Did it remind him of what she said about other Cabinet Ministers just before she sacked them? In view of that, will the deputy Prime Minister give an assurance that the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) will be dealing with Scottish business in the House as Secretary of State next week and for the remainder of this Parliament?
The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Yes, next week and next year and the year after that.
Mr. Foulkes: The alternative being suggested—who is not the gabbier on the Government Front Bench below the Gangway—by certain Scottish Tory Members is causing alarm throughout Scotland.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can reply even more confidently. I am confident that my right hon. and learned Friend will be continuing to serve the people of Scotland and of the United Kingdom in a ministerial capacity for many years to come, well beyond 1992.
Mr. Bill Michie: I, too, was disappointed at the reply that the Leader of the House gave to the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) about National Health Service funding. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many health authorities are suffering from underfunding? Many early-day motions are

409
pointing that out, including one applying to Sheffield, which refers to underfunding for mental health. It would benefit Members in all parts of the House to be given time to express our fears and worries about the whole business of underfunding in the NHS.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The total resources available to the NHS throughout the country as a whole during Conservative control have grown by more than 40 per cent. in real terms. If Opposition Members wish to debate the matter more specifically, they can raise it on one of their own days.

Imperial Tobacco Factory, Bristol
4.18 pm
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The shock announcement at noon today of the closure of the Imperial Tobacco factory in Brisol, South with the loss of 696 jobs."
The announcement, which is the direct trading of jobs for land speculation in Bristol, stunned the work force and Bristol. The matter is important because Bristol, South is an area of long-term high unemployment. The work force are isolated because of poor, inefficient public transport. When the factory was built in 1970, the then W.D. and H.O. Wills promised us that, with the revolutionary design of its factory, it could convert production from tobacco to confectionery in a week.
Hanson plc, which owns Imperial Tobacco, is a vast and wealthy corporation and could have afforded alternative production. W.D. and H.O. Wills, Imperial and Hanson have historic links with Bristol and have made their fortunes on the back of the Bristol work force.
The closure has been announced as a result of the closures in the run-up to 1992. The Bristol work force will be unemployed, not because it lacks skills but because the company is too greedy to diversify.
I ask for an emergency debate because this important matter has implications for Bristol and for our manufacturing base. The Hanson corporation which advertises its international success, has brought unemployment to Bristol. For Bristol, 1992 means unemploy-ment, and that is a matter which we should discuss.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing an important and specific matter that she believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The announcement at noon today of the closure of the Imperial Tobacco factory at Bristol with the loss of 696 jobs."
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Lady has to say about the matter, but, as she knows, the decision that I have to take is whether to give her application precedence over the business set down for today or Monday. I regret that in this case the matter that she has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order. I therefore cannot submit her application to the House.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the three questions on the motions relating to European Community documents.
Ordered,
That European Community Documents Nos. 4699/90 and 4779/90, relating to health conditions for the production and marketing of live bivalve molluscs and of fishery products, and 4783/90, relating to animal health conditions for the marketing of aquaculture animals and products be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
That European Community Document No. 4796/90, relating to animal health requirements for marketing certain animals and products of animal origin be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.

411
That European Community Documents Nos. 4799/90 and 5598/90, relating to health rules for the production and marketing of milk and milk products be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Orders of the Day

  Broadcasting Bill
  Order for Third Reading read.
  4.17 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  We now reach a major milestone in the Bill's progress. After its consideration on Report during the past two days, with more than 17 hours of debate on the Floor of the House without any guillotine, we arrive at Third Reading.
  I begin by expressing my appreciation to those who served on the Standing Committee which had 38 sittings and considered every line of the Bill which now runs to well in excess of 170 clauses and 12 schedules. I hope that I speak for all those who participated in Committee and on Report when I say that I hope that no one will feel that that was time misspent.
  I have had the privilege of taking part in the Committee and Report stages of a number of major Bills, not least, in the previous Session, the Children Bill. I have always believed that Parliament has a role to play in the consideration of every Bill, which is not an optional extra in the process of government or some kind of tedious and necessary excursion to fill in time between the Government conceiving an idea and carrying it through, but a vital part of the process of ensuring that legislation has a fair chance of being coherent and convincing in its detail and hopefully fairly broadly acceptable in its principle.
  I said at the outset of Parliament's consideration of the Bill that I did not believe that a measure had ever been brought before the House that could not be improved in Committee. I would genuinely like to thank all those who took part in Committee; and the fact that we ended up yesterday and the day before with more than 700 amendments and new clauses—more than 500 of them Government amendments—reflecting our discussions in Committee, is a sign not of the weakness of the process but of its strength.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friends who participated in the Committee for the loyal support that they extended to me, and the tremendous effort that they put in. They each made their contributions: this was certainly not a Bill in which one was backed up by a group of silent hon. Members—far from it. I would not have wished it to be so. My colleagues rightly spoke out. I was grateful to them for giving me the benefit of their advice and assistance, and for their help in our meetings associated with, but held outside, the Committee on some of the vexed issues.
  As a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) constantly reminded us of the amount of work that Parliament—through that distinguished Select Committee —had already put into the Bill. He spoke in an exceptionally well-informed way, which reflected his commitment to the measure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) comes to the House after a career in broadcasting. He too showed a remarkable grasp of the issues, and a willingness to put forward his view—never in an overweening way, and never seeking to use his experience

  413
  to crush those of us who had not had the opportunity of working within the industry. He was always a tower of strength.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is another hon. Member who comes to the House having worked on the technical side of the broadcasting industry. I thank him for the benefit of his experience, and for his work in highlighting, along with other hon. Members—notably the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley)—the problems of the deaf. If every Minister were as well served by such loyal and devoted colleagues as I was in Committee, we would all have reason to be pleased.
  I want to make it clear, however, that it would have been impossible for the Committee to do its work without a full-hearted willingness to participate on the part of Opposition Members. I hope that I assisted that process by making it clear that I was not in the business of rejecting people's opinions just because they sat on a different side of the Committee. To the best of my abilities, I said, I would endeavour to weigh the arguments, and, if I was persuaded of the need for change, I would either make that change immediately—if I had discretion to do so—or advocate change to my colleagues.
  I have served on a number of Committees with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). He knows that I have the greatest admiration and respect for him as a parliamentarian who never allows narrow partisanship to come in the way of sensible debate and good progress. It is a sign not of weakness but of strength that Opposition Members are prepared to debate the measure seriously, rather than try to make partisan capital out of it. I have always felt that the weakness of the parliamentary system is never more exposed than when Committee stages are simply used as a mechanism for delay, unaligned with any serious attempt to join issue on the merits of the case.
  All three Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen won the admiration of all Conservative Members for the manner in which they put their points.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)?
  Mr. Mellor: I am coming to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). There was not one Committee member who did not play a full part in the debate. On Report I said—and I am happy to repeat it —that the hon. Member for Bradford, South has strong opinions, and obviously would not expect me to agree with all or even most of them. I said on Second Reading, however, that I respected his skill as a parliamentarian, especially on technical matters. I respected too the experience he had gleaned from his chairmanship of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. On Second Reading I gave him a commitment that I would study the Bill closely to see whether the arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny were adequate. I concluded in a number of instances that they were not and I have made changes. That was thanks to the hon. Gentleman's contribution.
  I understand that the Opposition and minority parties would not have introduced the Bill that we introduced. I do not seek to make party capital out of thanking them for the efforts they have made. That having been said and having been understood between us, a full-hearted attempt
  414
  was made to join issue and to recognise that, whether people like it or not, the legislation is likely to be around for a considerable time. If it can be improved, it should be. If it can have a broader consensus behind it, that is good, because broadcasting is fundamental to a free society and should never become a narrow partisan matter.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: It has been made one.
  Mr. Mellor: I do not believe that it has; certainly I do not see it as being partisan in the position in which we are today.
  I was able to accept a substantial number of the points raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I was only too willing to profit from his experience as a Minister and a lawyer. I hope he feels that he has made a substantial contribution to the Bill.
  It was a happy chance for all of us that the passage of the Bill coincided with the televising of Parliament and with what I believe has been an altogether beneficial renewed interest by the media, and then by the public, in the workings of Parliament. It was all to the good that the parliamentary Committee that was most the subject of media attention during recent months was the Committee on this Bill. No one who participated in Committee need feel ashamed of Parliament being displayed through the Committee to those interested in watching. One could face one's constituents and say that what we had done was a necessary part of the proceedings and was not a waste of time. Our debates in Committee were not like those which we have from time to time which can bring Parliament into disrepute because we seem to be more like members of a school debating society than of a forum discussing serious legislation. I am glad to have had a part to play in it all. I want to express my warm admiration for all who helped in the process.
  It may be worth pointing out the practical effects of the parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill. I shall enumerate briefly some of the points which arose in Committee and which the House endorsed on Report.
  There has been a thickening of the quality threshold for Channels 3 and 5 by the addition of the requirements for children's and religious programming and for high quality regional news, and of the power for the ITC to publish an illustrative specification of the elements of programming which it would expect to see in a diverse programme service. The quality threshold was always a serious and substantial concept. It has become even more substantial as a result of the changes which we have made.
  As a key part of that, I point to the enhancement of the regional content of Channel 3 services, including the introduction statutorily of the concept of dual regions, with the distinct regional programming which the statute now requires, the power for the ITC to require applicants to specify what regional resources and facilities they plan to use, and the requirement that Scotland should not be a single franchise area. These, and more, show that all of us, whatever reservations we may have from time to time about the way the system performs, strongly endorse, and believe that our constituents warmly support, the idea of a regionally-based Channel 3. That regional base has never been more firmly enshrined in statute than it is now, as a result of our work.
  Perhaps more important for many people, the amendments to the exceptional circumstances provision

  415
  now make clear beyond peradventure—to use that tedious legal phrase—that exceptionally high quality can displace the highest money bid. I hope that the overt striking of a fair balance between quality and price has been one of the major achievements of the Committee.
  We have recognised also the importance of training, through an amendment that allows the ITC to require applicants for Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences to state what training provision they intend to make to sustain their programming plans.
  I turn to describe briefly some of the changes made in respect of radio. I had the opportunity of telling the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland yesterday that, although I believe that most public attention has been focused on television, it is a significant Bill for radio—and radio is a most significant part of this country's media scene.
  I am particularly glad that we have made changes to the remits of the three new national commercial radio stations, to ensure a genuine enhancement of listener choice. Obviously, we cannot guarantee that merely what we do here will guarantee three effective commercial national radio stations—that will depend on the ingenuity of the franchise applicants, and on their willingness and ability to create a loyal listenership. However, we are well on the way to achieving that objective, and we have built the right framework.
  Constituents coming to my advice centre ask me, as I imagine they ask other right hon. and hon. Members, "What is the point in our saying anything about broadcasting, because they"—meaning some far-distant power structure—"will determine the issue." I make no bones about it—I did not appreciate at the outset how much popular support there is for the public teletext service. That is because I myself am not a regular user of it. I admit to being deeply impressed by the range of topics carried on teletext, and, interestingly—and I do not say this to knock the BBC, of which I am a firm supporter —by how much wider is the choice on Oracle than on Ceefax. That is an interesting reflection of how good the commecial sector can be when it really gets going. The flood of letters and representations from all sectors of the community is a sign of the importance attached to an Oracle-type service. It is an indication of the strength of our parliamentary system, not of its weakness, that such expressions of public will are not then rejected but bring a changed decision. That is what living in a sophisticated democracy is all about.
  It is the duty of Members of Parliament, as well as a pleasure and a privilege, to make clear to Ministers through forums such as the Committee the strength of public feeling. A number of right hon. and hon. Members did so in that forum, as well as in their private correspondence. It is the pleasure, if not the duty, of Ministers then to reconsider—and if they come to see things in a different light, not to be afraid to make changes. That was certainly true in relation to various other issues. I was glad to hack out some of the police powers that had been put in the Bill. That was done not with any malicious intent but as part of the inevitable scissors-and-paste work that goes into a consolidation measure, when one has to take out of an old statute pre-existing powers and fit them into a new Bill. Quite obviously, the original police powers
  416
  struck many people as excessive. Fair enough. That point was effectively made—and was, I hope, effectively answered by action.
  I have already referred to the role of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West. I should mention also my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), in relation to television subtitling services for the deaf. They were the subject of a highly effective campaign by the Deaf Broadcasting Association which had the support of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, and which gave the House an opportunity to consider the merits of the case and to set a far more challenging framework for progress by broadcasting authorities in that regard than otherwise would have been possible. I could go on but I shall not.
  Parliament has had a useful and worthwhile opportunity for scrutiny which has led to significant changes in the Bill. Other work still remains to be done and is carried over into the other place. We still need to put the finishing touches to the new arrangements for religious broadcasting, and I feel particularly grateful for the sensible way that colleagues have approached the subject. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) has been helpful.
  At a time when there is an unprecedented expansion in broadcasting opportunities, nobody wants to preclude decent. sensible, mainstream religious organisations from playing a part. but we do not want to open a door through which cults will come which are ever eager and have plenty of resources——
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Satanism and devil worship.
  Mr. Mellor: I shall resist adding to the debate on Satan worshippers, much as it would intrigue me to do so.
  There are also problems with unscrupulous television evangelists in the United States who we do not want to see here. Certainly people such as Billy Graham are responsible, but others have besmirched the principles of religion. One must consider the exploitive power of the media when coupled to unscrupulous messages. We are striking a balance which will permit the former, responsible people while keeping out the latter.
  There are many other sorts of activity—for example, cable and subscription piracy—where there is a lot more work to be done in the other place.
  I do not want to outstay my welcome, but I shall add a few more words. First, the Bill reflects a tremendous amount of public consultation which took place long before it came into being—for example, the Green Paper on radio and the White Paper on the Government's proposals.
  Mr. Buchan: And thanks to the Peacock report?
  Mr. Mellor: And the Peacock report, as the hon. Gentleman points out. Even if the principal recommenda-tions of a report are not accepted, it is significant because of the extent to which it focuses attention on the issue. When there are a set of robust conclusions the report forces either an agreement or a requirement to establish a separate set of opinions, if one wishes to take issue with it.
  I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), the Foreign Secretary, under whom I served as the Minister responsible for

  417
  broadcasting prior to the last election, and to my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary who did so much to prepare the Bill.
  Whether one likes every part of the Bill, there has never been a Bill which has been so carefully considered and prepared after such extensive public consultation.
  In no sense is the Bill a gratuitous addition to the body of statute. It would have been remiss of the Government not to recognise that new opportunities are provided by the remorseless onward march of technology for the enhancement of viewers' and listeners' choice. The Government would have been criminally negligent if they had failed to take advantage of that. If viewers and listeners' choice is to be enhanced, it has to be done within a statutory framework, which has had the endorsement of the House. The consequences for our community will be considerable and beneficial.
  In due course the Bill will rank as one of the major reforms of broadcasting in the past 50 years. Every decade or so history shows us that there are times at which a significant step forward is possible. In the 1950s we were able to create the ITV system. In the early 1970s it was the regional commercial network, and in the 1980s, Channel 4. Because people plainly respect much of what is broadcast and because there is an inevitable fear of change—the easiest response to change is to resent and regret it and to think that it is bound to make things worse—each major change was accompanied by voices saying that broadcast-ing would he seriously damaged. While it is always important to weigh arguments on their merits and not to hesitate to deal with them if they appear to have substance, I have taken comfort in the fact that most of the Cassandra voices were wrong about the previous changes.
  In 10 years many people will look back on the Bill and say that it was a good thing that Parliament seized the opportunity at this time. The benefits that flow from the Bill will be considerable and I shall briefly enumerate them: a tremendous expansion in radio, with hundreds of new local and community stations made possible, as well as three new national stations; in mainstream television, a far more open and publicly-understandable process for the granting of Channel 3 franchises with the quality of British broadcasting preserved by the selection process; a new Channel 5 which I expect to become a significant and welcome addition to the range of television programmes.
  The satellite revolution is upon us. There are two bold ventures involving a number of British channels on the Astra satellite as well as British Satellite Broadcasting operating on a high-powered satellite. I do not know whether those brave ventures will win an audience and it is not a matter for the Government to determine that issue in one way or another or to have a view about it. It is always good to be offered an enlargement of choice. It is a tribute to the entrepreneurial vigour of the British economy that people are willing to invest substantial sums of money to produce a range of programme services that are not about pap or the lowest common denominator of programming but are about, for example, Britain's first 24-hour news channel on Sky, or a whole range of new and welcome programming decisions on BSB, which will greatly enhance viewing for people such as myself who are interested in the arts. One of the good and most notable things about BSB is its commitment to arts programmes and to new production and the amount of money that it has put into them.
  418
  Obviously, satellite poses us a dilemma as well as an opportunity. Satellite television can be exploited by cynical people to peddle filth, and none of us wants that in an era when filth is not merely the odd bold blue film such as people may have misty-eyed recollections of seeing at rugger club parties long ago. The level of filth today can be damagingly exploitive, and the link with crime, in particular crime against women, cannot be denied. That is why we must welcome the Council of Europe's convention —I recommend the Patronage Secretary for his role in that —which allows us to deal with the peddling of unacceptable programmes across national frontiers and, in a quicker time-scale than any of us dreamt possible, gives us the ability to deal with such matters.
  We have set a framework for satellite broadcasting within which it will be possible for it to develop. So the face a British broadcasting will be altered by the Bill, but to the benefit of the public. It is patronising and wrong to suggest that the public have all the choice that they need at the moment. They have not. Experience shows that when the public are offered enhanced choice they seize it. For example, the new audience figures for some of the new radio stations in London—Jazz FM, for example—are a sign of how much people want extra choice.
  The Broadcasting Bill offers tremendous opportunities for the broadcasters. It offers an unprecedented expansion in British broadcasting so that people are not obliged merely to shuttle between the BBC and independent television, but have access to a host of independent production companies and satellite companies whose interests are advanced by the Bill. Instead of a complacent duopoly, we will have a free-wheeling, innovative and broad-based broadcasting industry that will serve the interests not merely of the United Kingdom but of a wider world community.
  Members on both sides of the House will agree that if we believe in the quality of British broadcasting, it should not be a well kept secret confined to these shores. We should recognise the opportunities for good British programme making around the world. My vision of British broadcasting is not merely that it satisfies a domestic audience with an ever greater range of good quality programmes, but that we are an effective base for Europe and for worldwide programmes. If the new ventures are successful, there will be an inexorable rising tide of demand for new programmes and I believe that we in Britain are exceptionally well placed to meet that demand. That is why I am proud of the Bill and proud that it will receive its Third Reading today.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. Robin Corbett: I thank the Minister for his kind remarks about the role of the Opposition and other parties in Committee and throughout the proceedings on the Bill. I also thank his officials for their assistance with the more complicated and technical parts of a Bill which started life quite large and has put on considerable weight since. I should also like to thank my colleagues on the Labour Front Bench and the other members of the Committee.
  There is only one question to ask about the Bill: will the television and radio services that it delivers be better, worse or simply different? The Bill is all about viewers and listeners, and their interests should be of primary concern. Certainly radio and televison will be different because of

  419
  the great expansion that new technology makes possible. We welcome that new technology and the extra choice and variety that it could have been used to provide.
  We believe that the Bill fails, however, largely because it abandons much of the sensible basis upon which our television and radio system in the BBC and commercial sectors has been built and developed. The cornerstone of that system has been the commitment to public service broadcasting, the "must carry" rule which has guided broadcasters about the essential core of what must be on offer to viewers and listeners.
  The Minister said that the new Channel 3 will be "a notch below public service broadcasting". That nice Mr. George Russell, the IBA chairman and midwife to the Channel 3 system, has said that it will be about 80 per cent. of what is now seen and heard. So it is admitted that it will be different, and worse, in the sense that real choices will be made not by those who watch and listen, but by those who can afford the cash to buy the right to broadcast.
  Yes, there will be more choice, with more channels and stations from which to choose, but experience in West Germany, France and Italy teaches us that the likely result will be more choice from a less varied menu. The Minister's "notch below public service broadcasting" will almost certainly mean fewer current affairs programmes and documentaries, fewer costume and other dramas and less educational and social action broadcasting—in other words, a general fall in fact-based programmes and an increase in entertainment-based ones.
  The Government claim that the Bill is about widening choice. The White Paper bravely stated:
  "The Government places the viewers and listeners at the centre of broadcasting policy."
  But the Bill abandons viewers and listeners to the outcome of what it terms the broadcasting market.
  IBA research tells us that about 50 out of every 100 viewers want fewer variety shows, 44 out of every 100 want fewer chat shows, and an impressive 55 out of every 100 viewers want more educational programmes, plays and drama. The demand for more health and education programmes comes from about 48 out of every 100 viewers, and 36 out of every 100 want to know more about science and technology. Lest that be thought an elitist plea, there is little or no difference between what those with more money watch compared with those with less money. The removal of the public service broadcasting provisions which have guaranteed such factual programming will leave those demands unmet because such programmes are among the most expensive to make, so the Bill fails on the test of a wider choice of a more diverse range of quality programming.
  The Bill is not all bad news. There has been a double victory for those forced to listen with their eyes due to deafness and hearing impairment. We welcome plans to ensure that, within five years of the start of the new Channel 3, half its programming will have to be subtitled. We also welcome the Government's change of mind about the need to preserve space for a commercial teletext service. Almost one person in every 100 has a hearing impairment and about 300,000 people are deaf. We are due only small thanks for the extra subtitling because those of us who can hear should have listened and responded earlier.
  420
  It is interesting that the Government did not leave that to market forces alone. They made the same admission about the need to require children's and religious programming. In other words, unless it is provided for in the Bill, it is unlikely to be done.
  Mr. Cryer: Does not the same apply to training? The Bill provided an opportunity to require an obligation for training, but it has been sidestepped by the Government and the Bill is much the poorer in that respect.
  Mr. Corbett: My hon. Friend is right about the omission of training from the face of the Bill, although to be fair to the Minister he took the point and has made some undertakings about what will be done in another place. We welcome the setting up of a training agency by independent producers and the television companies in Wales, setting a good example of what needs to be done in an immensely important sphere.
  There is much in the Bill that the Government were unwilling to change. Why on earth was there that silly insistence on removing the right of every viewer to watch one or other of the major national sporting events, as 87 out of every 100 people watch those great family occasions? Now, satellite channels watched by fewer than three in every 100 people can outbid the new Channel 3 or the BBC for the right to show the cup final, the Derby or test cricket. It is no use saying that it will not happen. The House will remember that when West Germany won the men's and women's finals at Wimbledon, fewer than four in every 100 viewers in West Germany were able to watch that live because the rights had been bought by a cable station.
  Why in heaven's name have the Government put the future of ITN at risk by insisting that its users—that is, those who fund it—should have only minority control? Non-profit-making ITN will become ITN plc with a need to make profit. That will either increase the cost of news collection or bring cuts in its activities. After the elaborate process whereby the Independent Television Commission will decide who can buy a station, why can the whole thing be put at immediate risk days after success because the Government will not agree to a moratorium on takeovers until the new licence holders have been able to turn their promises into screen performance?
  We argued long and hard about the need to restrict the holdings of newspaper owners in television. They are all treated the same in the Bill—bar one. Mr. Murdoch is able to own 35 per cent. of our daily and Sunday press and 100 per cent. of Sky Television. It is not only the Labour party which sees danger in that dominance of our media by one wealthy voice. The rules should not depend on where and with whom Mr. Murdoch eats his Christmas dinner. That is why an incoming Labour Government will ensure that Mr. Murdoch is given equality of treatment and a sensible period in which to divest himself of one or other of his interests.
  Poor Channel 5—born with just 15 lines of clothing, it stands parentless in an uncertain world. The Minister excited the House the other night with his vision of a national channel with 50 towns and cities opting out for periods of the day, although we still do not know what it will do for the rest of the time. The Government claim that the new Channel 5 will cover 70 per cent. of homes. The Minister's 50 cities plan will cut that to 60 per cent. of homes, thus making it of less interest to investors and

  421
  advertisers, especially as it will exclude large swatches of the better-off London and south-east area, which is of particular interest to advertisers.
  At the heart of our objections to the Bill is the way in which the Government plan to sell off the right to broadcast. Even the changes made to enable the Independent Television Commission to award licences to a bidder short on cash, but with substantially higher quality programming, do not meet those objections. Cash paid on top of what it is planned to spend on programming will mean less money on the screen and over the airwaves. The change will help, but in the end the highest bidder, or something near to that, will win.
  The Bill will not ensure a range of diverse programmes of quality. It will not guarantee innovation, excitement, experiment and expanded opportunities for views and voices not now heard. It puts the accountants in the driving seat. Instead of the system serving viewers and listeners, it is being used to serve them up to advertisers, and the viewers and listeners will be the poorer for that. That is why we shall oppose Third Reading.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: It saddens me that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) found it necessary to be so churlish. His speech was as phoney as the "doughnut" around him in the House. The House is now in the "infotainment" business. The viewers need to know that as a result of Mr. Peter Mandelson's directions, six hon. Members are sitting around the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, but that there are very few others on the Opposition Benches. The synthetic comments of the hon. Member for Erdington, I suspect, were probably drawn up by the same author, which is a great shame. In Committee, the hon. Member for Erdington was extremely generous and helpful. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister said, it was probably one of the most constructive and creative Committees on which any of us are likely to serve in this place.
  I thank my hon. and learned Friend for the generosity of his remarks and for his thanks to colleagues of all parties. I doubt whether any hon. Member would suggest that it has not been a pleasure to work with him in Committee. I doubt whether any hon. Member, in spite of the comments of the hon. Member for Erdington, seriously believes that we have not made real progress on the Bill.
  Etched on the heart of the BBC in Portland place are the words:
  "Nation shall speak peace unto nation".
  When those Reithian sentiments were expressed, the BBC really meant that the English nation shall speak unto other nations in the Queen's English.
  That world of broadcasting is changing. We face the imminent prospect of pan-European broadcasting. Seventeen television channels are already available to viewers in many parts of this country. A further 16 Astra channels will be available later this year. The Hughes corporation of America plans to launch a 100-channel satellite of digital transmission. The prospects are enormous and the opportunity for the programme makers is considerable. Only the British could regard the prospect of a tenfold increase in the size of audience available to them as a threat rather than a challenge.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's mathematics. Top viewing figures these days can reach about 20 million people. How will there be a tenfold increase with a population of about 56 million?
  Mr. Gale: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening and had been aware that I was talking about pan-European broadcasting, he would have grasped quickly that a potential Europewide audience of more than 400 million people will be available to programme makers in this country. As a programme maker, I regard that as a considerable challenge and opportunity.
  I regret deeply the churlish and vindictive attack that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made yesterday on the proprietor of The Times and other newspapers, Mr. Rupert Murdoch.
  Mr. Buchan: Does the hon. Gentleman work for Mr. Murdoch?
  Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman asks whether I work for Mr. Murdoch. The hon. Gentleman has sat through hours and hours of debate in Committee and we have sat for hours and hours listening to him. I suspect that, in due course, we shall have the fourth repeat of his speech. He should know by now that I do not have a declared or any other interest in any of Mr. Murdoch's operations. However, I have a considerable regard for the money he has invested in the future not only of print journalism in this country, but of satellites and the development of the satellite industry. I am talking about precisely that now.
  As was said yesterday, there are 22 national newspapers in this country which are owned by 11 companies. There are well over 1,000 daily and weekly, regional and local newspapers, none of which is in Mr. Murdoch's hands. The prospect facing the British viewer——
  Mr. Buchan rose——
  Mr. Gale: I will not give way at this point.
  The prospect facing the British viewer is of 47 or 48 channels of television by terrestrial broadcast and from satellite in the coming year. The prospect of four of those being in the hands of somebody who also owns a few newspapers is not a threat to democracy in any shape of form.
  My hon. and learned Friend knows that I should like to see the rules relaxed so that newspapers could acquire a greater share in the future of communications, whether television, radio or further newspapers. It is a great pity that the Bill does not yet permit local newspapers to have a controlling interest in community radio stations. As I said yesterday, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend, as a listening Minister, will have another go at that when the Bill reaches another place.
  In Committee and on Report, my hon. and learned Friend has created a piece of legislation that will pave the way for broadcasting in the year 2000 and beyond. I do not see it as a long-term Bill. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), repeating his Committee comments, has been proved right: it is a Bill for the early 1990s. It will cover the critical transition period between now and the year 2000, during which so many technical changes will take place. The digital communications systems that will carry voice telephony, data and entertainment will become inextricably linked. Satellite broadcasting and cable delivery systems will become more and more complementary. The Bill is a recognition of the

  423
  fact that there will be a transitional period in the United Kingdom home between the reception of four terrestrial television channels and the use of a whole range of interactive services, just a few of which will embrace television entertainment.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Minister made a number of major achievements in Committee, and struck a delicate balance between the need to preserve quality and the need to encourage investment in many new channels. He has provided in the Bill for groups of people who have not hitherto been provided for in legislation. We need to remember that. He has provided for the deaf and hard of hearing and has introduced measures affecting religious broadcasting and children's television. Children's television and religious broadcasting have always been there, but arrangements for them have never before been enshrined in law.
  As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has said, there is much more work to do—both here and in the other place. My hon. and learned Friend has said that he intends to do that work, and I believe that he is right to say that the Bill is a Bill of which, in the end, he will be justly proud.
  5.11 pm
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to some of the nonsense that has been talked not only in the past three months but in the past five minutes. I especially liked one of the comments made by the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who said that he did not work for Murdoch. I am pleased to hear it, because we now know that his support for the Bill arises not out of a desire for cash but from sheer ignorance of what its consequences will be. That means that we may eventually be able to convince him that he is wrong.
  I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Thanet, North say that the large number of different newspapers in Britain represented a wide spread of opinion and were a means of expression for many separate and individual voices. Five people—a fifth of the number of Labour Members in the Chamber at the moment and a twentieth of the number of people in the Strangers Gallery—own and control 93·9 per cent. of the national daily and Sunday newspapers. Five people tell the vast majority of British households what they should read and how they should think. The hon. Member for Thanet, North then asks why one man, Ruper Murdoch, should not own four television channels. That one man owns 35 per cent. of our national daily and Sunday newspapers and so speaks directly to a third of our people, yet the hon. Gentleman asks why he should not also own four television channels.
  At the heart of all thought is language. The word is precious, because he who controls the word controls our future. Communication is infinitely more important than any other matter that may be dealt with in legislation. Without a means of hearing truths and contrary truths, we cannot make progress and if one wants to cripple progress, one must inhibit people's freedom of expression. If five people are allowed to control 94 per cent. of newspapers —the major vehicles for the printed word—the truth will be obscured. That is what we face at present with newspapers, and that is why we are so anxious about the Bill.
  424
  What the Bill does—Professor Peacock said in his report that he thought this should happen—is to allow individuals monopoly powers without any regulation and without the basic controls necessary to ensure freedom of expression. The Bill will pass, not just to several people of the same kind but in some cases to the same person, the ability to bring what passes for the truth into British households.
  We have already seen what happens when control is passed to certain individuals. We see it every day in The Sun. Do British parents really want their children to grow up to read The Sun? Will that develop their personalities? Will it produce people who will create a civilisation of which we can be proud? Having seen The Sun, we have no excuse for defending what lies behind it.
  We are talking not about vague possibilities but about something that we can already see. We have seen the future that those who already own and control our newspapers want to give us, and we do not like it. The Government now propose to give the same person who has polluted the written word the ability to go on to pollute the spoken word. That is what the Bill will do, and no amount of amendment, and no amount of niceness and proclamation of love of the arts on the Minister's part, will change the fact that this is a rotten, disgraceful and cash-orientated Bill.
  I have debated with the Minister in the past, and I know that deep down he has a sense of civilisation. I am surprised that he, of all Ministers, should have lent his smooth words to the process of getting the Bill passed. The Minister claims that he has made concessions, and he has. I predicted one of the concessions for which a measure in the Bill already provided.
  There were originally two major faults in the Bill itself —quite apart from the pattern of ownership that might flow from it. The first was that it did not protect quality and truth, and the second was that it introduced repressive measures, including censorship. We have made some progress on quality. We are no longer simply giving away contracts to the highest bidder. The Minister has accepted that at least some regard should be paid to the question of quality before the contract goes to a high bidder. That is an improvement, and we thank him for it. We believe that he welcomed it himself.
  The principal effect of the Bill will be to flog off broadcasting to the entrepreneur. The Minister claims that the Bill gives freedom and the hon. Member for Thanet, North says that we are afraid of the freedom that it will confer. But the second main aspect of the Bill is its repressive and censorship measures.
  Hitherto, broadcasters have been subject to two restraints. The first has been the board of governors of the BBC or, in the case of commercial broadcasting, the IBA. The second has been a code to follow. Public and commercial television and radio have each had one authority and one code. The Government are now introducing another authority and another code. The Minister has doubled the extent of the restraints on and repression of freedom of the broadcaster to speak the truth. In addition, the Minister now proposes to involve the criminal law. I know that many hon. Members will say that the invoking of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 is a good thing. I would ask them to be careful about that. Saying to broadcasters, "If you get it wrong, you will face a criminal

  425
  charge," is a much more serious matter than asking them to obey a code and saying, "We will rap you if you do not do it."
  We now have two authorities, two codes and the criminal law. That means that we have six times as much restraint as we had in the past, because the criminal law applies differently north and south of the border. Someone broadcasting freely in Scotland may find himself charged in England, and vice versa. We have thus multiplied by a factor of six the restraints on broadcasters. Ultimately, the Minister has the power and the Minister's appetite for intervention has been whetted by the attacks on Kate Adie led by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), the invasion of the Scottish BBC and the seizure of the Zircon tapes, and similar further attempts to inhibit broadcasters' freedom.
  In place of the freedom that the Government boast they will create, we shall create an apparatus of repression and censorship of the genuine broadcaster. We shall sell Channels off to the purveyors of cheap near-pornography. That is what will emerge, and I am sorry that the Minister has lent his hand to it.
  It is no use Conservative Members saying that we are pursuing a vendetta against Mr. Murdoch. The vendetta that we must maintain is against the Government. They are a Government dedicated to profit makers and profiteers, and they are careless of the future of the civilisation of this country. That is why we shall vote against the Bill and why, when we return to power, the Labour party will introduce a broadcasting Bill that will represent the true civilisation of Britain, based on the needs of the people of Britain. It will give them proper choice of programmes. There is no choice if six channels purvey the same material.
  The Bill matters deeply because, at the end of the day, the only safeguard that we have against tyranny, brutality and the power of those who already possess power is the freedom of the word, so that we can expose injuries when we see them, speak freely and involve people in freeing the word. At the beginning of the day, tyranny starts by locking up the freedom of the word. The future freedom of Britain depends on us freeing the word as never before. Television and radio are too precious to leave in the hands of the few and the powerful. That is why we shall change it when we return to power.
  5.21 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: My speech will be brief—I am sure that the House will be glad of that.
  When the Bill was published, the Christian people of this country were outraged at its proposals. They wondered why the Government had not only left them out completely but put up barricades against them. I am glad that today, on Third Reading, the Minister who guided the Bill through the House took on board the representations made to him. He was gracious in receiving deputations and listening to them. He was gracious in listening to the arguments put to him. Today I say, on behalf of the Christian public, that Christians are pleased with what has happened. They realise that the Minister has accepted what they had in their minds and hearts.
  The Minister realised the strength behind the arguments put to him and the need for a guarantee in legislation that there will be room for the propagation of the Christian faith and for children's programmes.
  426
  Everyone in the country is indebted to all who took part in all the stages of the Bill. The Minister himself admitted that strong representations had been made to him from hon. Members on both sides of the House and by various bodies. He was glad that he could take them on board. We look forward with confidence to what he will do in another place. We trust that, at the end of the day, the people of this country will have in practice what they seek and that the new Broadcasting Act will guarantee them the things they want by right of choice.
  As I said in Committee, after all, we have the power to switch off. We must see that the choice is there. When the choice exists, people can make their choice according to the standards by which they govern their life. I sincerely thank the Minister for what he has done on Christian representation.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Minister began this debate as if it were a prize-giving ceremony. He could be forgiven for feeling a little discontented that some of the prizewinners have not responded with the spirit of generosity that he showed. The last occasion on which I was present as a recipient at a prize-giving ceremony was at my school. The presiding donor was none other than the late Lord Reith, a fellow Glaswegian, who sought to inspire in all of us a commitment, not to the benefits of public service broadcasting, but to the entrepreneurial flair that had led to the establishment of broadcasting as a medium for selling on a mass scale the new technology that was invented in the early 1920s.
  Speeches in Glasgow remind me of another, perhaps more famous speech than that of Lord Reith. It was delivered by that considerable Conservative, F. E. Smith, as lord rector of Glasgow university. He shocked the genteel by speaking of the availability of glittering prizes for sharp swords. There has been about the debates on the Bill some sense that there are glittering prizes in the future of broadcasting. While our task has inevitably and properly been focused on the consumers of broadcasting, we should be living in an unreal world if we did not think of the considerable commercial excitement about the possibilities that are opening up with the advent of new technology.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) was enjoyable, as his speeches always are. He managed almost to enthuse us with a sense that the great growth of the technology in which he clearly revels will bring in its train the prospect of a greatly enhanced consumer experience, and that great enjoyment will flow from the adoption of new techniques of broadcasting.
  Most of our debates in Committee and on Report inevitably focused on ensuring that the proliferation of services does not simply mean the replication of the same, and, indeed, a declining, quality of broadcasting. At this stage, it is right to ask ourselves whether we have succeeded in ensuring that the quality as well as the diversity of broadcasting will be enhanced.
  I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are immensely excited by the technical possibilities of which the hon. Member for Thanet, North spoke. We believe that the creation of new stations and Channel 5, the multiplication of local radio stations and the evidence of foreign investment in cable in the past 18 months are wholly

  427
  welcome. All those developments bring genuine potential for innovation. However, we cannot just leave it at that. Alas, the Bill does not usher in the age of change in the 1990s with the due regard to the quality requirement that should be at the centre of the debate about broadcasting.
  The smack of earlier debates was that they were dominated more by the Treasury and Department of Trade and Industry than the Home Office Ministers who have ushered the Bill through Parliament. I do not hold any individual Minister responsible for that. I agreed with the short speech made on Report yesterday by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). He said that the Bill should have been about an auction of quality. If that had been so, we should have seized the opportunity and the methods that we have used in the past of distributing lucrative franchises. None of us has ever forgotten the view of Lord Thomson that they were a licence to print money.
  The methods of allocating those franchises in the past have been too opaque. There has not been much innovation or excitement, but a tendency for those who have enjoyed their franchises for a long time to take a conservative approach. I shall not be unduly upset if there is some turnover of ownership as a result of what is happening. However, we have missed an opportunity by not introducing a tendering process that focuses on quality, not cash.
  Looking at the Bill as it stands after all our deliberations, I think that the Minister has served Parliament and the country extraordinarily well. He was right to linger as he did on the remarkable way in which the Committee worked. It was a remarkable experience to watch minds being changed by the process of debate. I think particularly of the change of approach that came over the Committee during the consideration of the national radio channels. By the end, it was clear that there was a consensus that internal diversity was less important than pre-franchise-allocation differentiation of the channels. That sort of development was immensely welcome.
  When the Bill was first brought to the House, I was among those who called for a pre-legislative Committee to take evidence and try to reach a consensus in that manner. I still think that it would have been a good idea, but in the light of the way in which the Committee has worked, it was clearly much less necessary. Would that other Bills were handled in a comparable way, and the Minister deserves our congratulations for that.
  As a former junior Minister, I have, in my day, handled extremely complex legal Bills, and I greatly admire the way that he handled the Bill on his own. It was quite remarkable that he was unassisted by other Ministers and has come up with a large number of amendments that are the fruit of our deliberations. His style has greatly assisted the legislative process and I hope that I shall have the opportunity of serving with him again in Committee.
  The Bill as it stands leaves the other place with much to deal with. I fear that the provisions that allow takeovers to occur within a short time of licences being issued may make the tendering process something of a mockery. It will have the potential to disrupt the ITV system just when a period of stability is required, and it may take more money out of programming.
  428
  The Government were unwilling to accept the hostility of ITV to multiple bidding and the opposition of a number of hon. Members, including me, to dual ownership. It is clear that dual ownership will put at risk local ownership, investment, local knowledge and local programming. I hope that that matter will be returned to in another place and that one bid, one licence will prove the final outcome.
  It is also to be regretted that we do not have a statutory underpinning for the requirement of networking, for it is recognised that that is necessary for the stability of the system and the viability of smaller companies. Quite rightly, much attention has been paid to the strengthening of the quality requirements, particularly the amendments to clause 17(3) which were tabled at a late stage. The auctioning of the franchises marked a victory for the Treasury over broadcasting. As I said, I would prefer a tendering system that allowed a company to be chosen on what it offers in terms of diversity, quality and investment in the region.
  Independent Television News is inadequately provided for, and is the result of an unhappy compromise between the market and monopoly. What has been done looks like the punishment of the ITV companies for the success of their investment in ITN. The Bill creates a private commercial monopoly, effectively protected from com-petition and free, as a result of the great national base, to invade other people's markets, and for whom television news could prove to be a means, not an end. An improvement is required on that. On Report, I spelled out the options that remained.
  There has already been some heated exchange in the House this afternoon about cross-media ownership. A period of reflection is needed to ensure that the debate is about monopoly, not simply one owner. The principle that cross-ownership is wrong is supported by almost all hon. Members. There is a huge potential for News International to become the keeper of the gateway for all companies using the Astra satellite by providing an encryption service. It is reasonable to anticipate that the rewards will be as great as the current losses.
  The principle that cross-ownership is wrong must be protected, but a solution must be reached to enable News International to make a proper return on its risk before it is required to disinvest. I broadly agreed with the view expressed by the Minister last night that the amendment moved on that subject, which would have required a test of 3 million viewers, was not wholly adequate for the purpose. However, the principle that the amendment was seeking to advance seems to be the right one to pursue.
  I think that he was hinting, or even stating, that, if the position changed, the Bill allows, by subordinate legislation, a disinvestment requirement to be brought forward. It is no part of my argument that that disinvestment should be punitive or expropriatory, but clearly it would be totally unacceptable for News International to dominate in a way that is peculiar to itself and contrary to all the arguments accepted by the House on the evils of cross-ownership.
  The Government have got the legislation on listed sports events wrong. Such events should be available on terrestrial channels, and the Bill will be resented by many people if the result is to take family occasions off the screen and create the same position as can be seen in the Federal Republic of Germany, where German viewers have been

  429
  deprived of the opportunity to watch their champions winning Wimbledon because the event had been bought up by a cable company.
  In our debates, the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) has properly focused a good deal of attention—perhaps more than any other member of his party—on censorship. I have considerable sympathy with what he has said. The Bill has erred in establishing yet another external Government-appointed organisation to act, effectively, as a censor of broadcasting. Effective regulation by the Independent Television Commission internally, and by the BBC, is the way that we should have proceeded. I am afraid that the Government have created an unnecessary quango with potentially evil consequences.
  The Minister is right to say that the changes in relation to radio brought about by the Bill are immensely important, although they have—he will not deny it—played second fiddle to television during much of the discussion on the Bill. The Minister has done much to ensure the future of commercial radio by agreeing to tighten the quality and pre-designation requirements of the national stations. However, I fear that community radio will suffer adverse consequences because of a lack of public investment and proper provision. That may mean that choice will be extended hardly at all to many parts of the country, and there will be still less choice of listening. As a result, we could see a considerable contraction of programme content.
  I regret that the Bill does not provide for cross-subsidy of the transmission costs of local radio. That will deprive large areas of the benefit of local radio and there will be many white areas on the map. The Government have made a remarkable gesture by recognising the case for extending support for the Gaelic language in Scotland. I welcome the principle of that and many of the proposals that have been made for using the £8 million. There is much to be worked out if Gaelic broadcasting is to be effective in practice. I listened with interest to the suggestion yesterday by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that a Scottish equivalent of S4C might be the way to proceed rather than to expect the existing stations to carry Gaelic broadcasting at peak viewing times.
  Mr. Buchan: In view of my strictures about the rest of the Bill, I should like to comment on Gaelic broadcasting and on the money that has come forward. I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming that. It is a glimmer on the horizon and provides a little freedom for us all.
  Mr. Maclennan: I share the hon. Gentleman's view about that, just as I agree with some of the other things he said about the Bill.
  I congratulate the Minister of State on an extraordinarily good job in improving one of the worst Bills with which the House has been confronted. I think that we can now live with the arrangements that have been made. I am not one of the Cassandras to whom the Minister of State referred, who believe that all will be doom and disaster as a result of the Bill. However, it remains to be seen whether our hopes for quality will be realised. The Bill will be strengthened if the other place takes account of what I have said.
  5.43 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) spoke about the stamina of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State. I agree with him about that. We became used to seeing that stamina in Committee, but the 17 hours that my hon. and learned Friend spent at the Dispatch Box in the past two days were something else. He was there until the early hours of this morning and the quality of his answers and the way in which he dealt with the issues never wavered. Such quality has been at the heart of our debates on the Bill. The Minister of State and I share a love of football and classical music. I am not sure whether his stamina has been gained by watching too much of Chelsea or whether he drew strength from listening to Wagner and other classical composers.
  I pay tribute to everyone who worked on the Committee. We had an interesting four months and I certainly enjoyed our sittings. I wish that more of our proceedings could be conducted in such a good-natured and constructive manner. In Committee and on Third Reading we have seen occasional skirmishes between my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), but they were the exception rather than the rule. I should also like to pay a small tribute to two silent members of the Committee. I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), who is the Minister's PPS., and to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) who is a most good-natured and helpful Whip. I said to him at the start of our proceedings that we would end up better friends than when we started.
  Mr. Mark Fisher: Sycophantic schmaltz.
  Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman seems disturbed about that. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has said, it is important for people outside to see that Parliament works in a constructive and good-natured manner. Sometimes the brief interludes that people are fed from Parliament's proceedings give entirely the wrong impression.
  My main interest in the Bill relates to the future of Channel 3. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State spoke of the work of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Perhaps I may be allowed one further reference, which goes to the heart of the issues. The report of that Select Committee emphasised that
  "at the heart of the matter is the quality and range of services provided, and their financing, not the means of their delivery".
  The report also said that
  "whatever criticisms are made legitimately at home, abroad British Television is seen to be amongst the best, if not to be the best in the world."
  All members of the Committee had that ideal very much at the back of their minds. We wanted to maintain those standards in a future in which there would be much more competition, especially for Channel 3. Channel 4 has its remit strengthened even more by the Bill and its financial arrangements are more secure. That is also the case for the BBC, which for the foreseeable future will have the licence fee—another issue that Parliament will have to consider. Channel 3 has none of those things.
  It is important to strike a proper balance in terms of underpinning the elements of the public service

  431
  broadcasting commitment that Channel 3 has had in the past. That should be maintained, while recognising that it would be wrong to require too much from Channel 3 which has to compete for its revenue in the market place. We cannot provide the guarantee of funding that a more deep-seated or detailed remit for public service broadcast-ing would require.
  Much of our discussion in Committee centred on the practical measures that we needed to put in place to ensure that the bidding process was sensible and an improvement on previous arrangements. In the past two days there has been a justified welcome for the key amendment to clause 17(3)—the exceptional circumstances clause—which the House debated yesterday. It is important that the other place does not overlook the clarification of the bidding process when it considers the Bill. Even in this debate, it is worth reminding ourselves again that unless a bidder's programme proposals, his financial arrangements and the level of his bid dovetail together, the ITC will be perfectly justified in rejecting that bid.
  Throughout the debates on the Bill, the Opposition have said that the proposals place too much emphasis on money and not enough on quality. The exceptional circumstances clause is now in place, although, as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister knows, I want him to consider whether the wording is absolutely right. However, that clause in itself is a clear incentive to the ITV Channel 3 bidders to bid up quality. There is a quality hurdle in the mechanism, but there is no money hurdle or threshold because the Bill does not say that a bid must be for a minimum amount. It specifies a range of obligations which underpin quality. Above all, they underpin the regionality of the Channel 3 structure.
  My hon. and learned Friend knows that I see as very important the need to ensure that the Channel 3 regions remain a vital and important part of the broadcasting scene in Britain. That is important for those of us with constituencies a long way from London. Many of them, such as Yorkshire Television, Tyne Tees Television, Granada and the Scottish regional stations, have achieved great results, not only within the United Kingdom but throughout the world and have justifiably won many prizes for their programmes. They have brought an important breadth to the cultural life of the regions through their support for the arts and for drama. That is why we must protect the regionality of Channel 3, and the Bill does that.
  Not only did my hon. and learned Friend the Minister accept my key amendment on regionality in Committee, but having thought about the matter further he introduced another amendment on Report, which was accepted, to make it clear that when considering the facilities, studios and staff that a Channel 3 bidder will need in the regions, the ITC can request details of those arrangements and take them into account in assessing whether the bid is satisfactory.
  Some concerns about the Bill remain, and they were enumerated during our discussions on Report. I am sure that the other place will take account of them. However, the issue of networking still remains. My hon. and learned Friend is right to allow the industry a little longer to reach some agreement. Nevertheless, he recognises that the commitments given by bidders cannot be a shot in the dark
  432
  —there must be a clear understanding of the financial implications of the network when they formulate their bids and put together their financial proposals.
  I am still concerned about takeovers and I am firm in my belief in the need for a moratorium. My hon. and learned Friend has agreed to reconsider that. I hope that he will not take too much account of the fact that, regrettably, when the matter was put to a Division in the House, it was heavily defeated. I hope that he will fully appreciate the importance of that issue.
  All those who served on the Committee will recognise the quality of the briefings from both the IBA and the ITVA. When the Bill is enacted, when all its measures are in place, when we see the expansion of opportunity in television and radio which will result from the Bill, it will undoubtedly be thought of as "Mellor's Bill". However, we will also remember that nice, sensible Mr. George Russell, whom we discussed on many occasions. He will have the blueprint that he wanted for the future of Channel 3 in the allocation process. It will then be for ITV to make the best of it. I have no doubt that, as it has done in the past, it will do so in the future.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: In taking part in a Third Reading debate not having served on the Committee, I feel as though I might be intruding in a private meeting. After hearing the remarks of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I wonder whether I have intruded into a love-in. It is obvious that a deep affection has developed between many of those who served on the Committee. However, although I may suffer from the disadvantage of not having served on the Committee, that may enable me to have a slightly clearer view of the process which has led to the Bill and the current position as it passes through its final stages in this place.
  The Bill began with a Prime Minister with a congenital tendency to meddle, especially in areas that she does not understand. She has a rather unpleasant dislike of members of my union, the ACTT, and of journalists in general, although with the odd exception. She decided that television and radio broadcasting was another area of our national life in which she should meddle. She decided that a Bill was the right way to do that, despite the fact that, as many hon. Members have said, British broadcasting is outstanding, as are British television programmes. Some hon. Members may have seen a programme which was shown after our debate on Tuesday night. It was an hour-long documentary on ITV about the second world war from the D-day landings to VE day and told the story of the relationship between Eisenhower and Montgomery. It was outstandingly well produced with tremendous library footage. There was nothing clever—no trickery was involved—just a good story, well told. I wonder how many such productions will be possible on the fancy channels of the future.
  After the Prime Minister had decided to meddle, the next stage was for the former Home Secretary, who has now moved on, to undertake the job of giving a philosophical veneer to what was happening. He coined the immortal phrase that the new broadcasting system would be like browsing in a good bookshop. That was how he described the multitude of cable and satellite channels that are to come. It was then all-change at the Home Office, and the Bill was delivered to the Minister of State.

  433
  The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be the Government's odd job man, to be shunted from one Department to another—I believe that it is called a sweeper in the trade. He has been quite amiable and has made one or two concessions——
  Mr. John Greenway: Only one or two?
  Mr. Grocott: I do not question the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made concessions, but I have a feeling that he has been aware all along that he has been dealt a duff hand and he has had to make the best of it.
  The Bill rests on two false premises. The first is the fallacy of technology. It is believed that, somehow, technology must drive the change in broadcasting. I do not want to patronise the Minister. Those who hit television tangentially—and the Minister hits plenty of television studios—tend to become mesmerised by the technology. I regret to say that some people have made a living from it, including the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who seems perpetually mesmerised even though he knows and understands what it is all about. Technology in television is the servant, not the master. It is rather like someone interested in newspapers being obsessed by the production process rather than the quality of the news coverage. What matters in television is the quality of the programmes, not whether the screen can be spun around or the programmes delivered by satellite or cable, bounced off the sun, the moon or whatever. A simple story well told, such as the documentary to which I referred, needs no fancy technology or delivery system—it needs good quality programming. As has been said repeatedly and effectively, the new channels by no means guarantee better delivery and better quality programmes.
  The second fallacy, which is the Bill's fundamental and abiding weakness, is that the free market will somehow deliver. The Minister has had to concede time and again that the free market does not deliver. He had to do that through the increased regulations relating to religious and educational programmes on Channel 3. They will not be delivered by the free market any more than regional televison could have been delivered by the free market. They can be delivered only by regulation.
  The Minister has not made satisfactory concessions but at least he has admitted that problems may lie ahead in relation to the whole business of takeovers, which proves that the free market philosophy is fatally flawed. The Government's idea of a free market in this respect seems to be that anyone with the cash can take over a company.
  The free market fatally fails to deliver in all areas. It will fail to deliver in networking. We can achieve a proper networking system only by regulation and control. In other words, the whole notion of the Bill is based on a fallacy, as are the Government's policies in other areas. It is no different in principle from the view that if cash is allowed to reign supreme in the National Health Service, everybody will get a good service. In fact, it simply means that the rich get the best doctors and hospitals. The same is true in education—if it is left to the free market, the rich will get smaller class sizes. Only by a form of regulation that is democratically accountable can we have a good service that is available to us all.
  There is no more perfect a characterisation of the failure of the free market than the argument about the restricted availability of sporting programmes—the famous list to which reference is constantly made.
  434
  Conservative Members who believe in the operation of a free market in broadcasting are saying that if, for the 2 per cent. of viewers with access to satellite television, the sponsors of Sky wish to buy Wimbledon, the cup final or any of the listed events and have the money to demand exclusive access to those events, they can enjoy those programmes, and for the 98 per cent. of the rest of us who do not have that access it is just tough luck. That is the logic of the free market. If Conservative Members do not believe that, they do not believe in the operation of the free market. Opposition Members believe that sporting and other events of that kind are part of our culture and heritage. The beauty of the British broadcasting system is that no wealthy group can decide to have such events for their exclusive use and enjoyment. We rest our case on the belief that broadcasting is at its best when it is available to everyone, when it has the money to make quality programmes and when it is able to build on the best of what has existed before.
  The Bill is based on a fallacy and was conceived in spite. It has been developed on the basis of a phoney philosophy which does not stand up to examination. We want a properly regulated means of controlling this wonderful technology, with the incredible access that it gives to millions of our fellow citizens, so that it may expand choice and enrich the community. For that reason, we shall vote against Third Reading.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The speech of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) shows that Opposition Members do not understand what the Bill is about, mainly because they have not taken a step backwards to appreciate what is happening in broadcast-ing. The Bill will not change broadcasting and television. They are changing anyway.
  The hon. Gentleman proves that he has no confidence in the ability of anyone to do anything that is not laid down and tightly drawn in legislation, preferably drafted by the Labour party. History shows that he is wrong. Opposition philosophy in this area was wrong in the past, and it will prove to be wrong on this occasion.
  When the BBC began, it was technically difficult to put any television programmes on the air. The engineers had a tight grip on the BBC. When ITV started, the big fear expressed by Labour Members in debates similar to this was that it would not be possible for independent people to come in and produce quality programmes, and that even the necessary engineering resources would not be available to them to screen such programmes.
  The technology has changed so dramatically that none of the equipment that is now used—cameras, editing and graphics equipment and so on—is more technical than the average hi-fi system. So, without enormous technical back-up and having to cope with the huge problems that existed in the past, it is possible to screen good-quality television programmes, using people whose talents are not in technical areas but in wider artistic, current affairs and news backgrounds. Modern technology allows such people to bring their talents to television and radio. Because those new opportunities exist, and because a massive number of new radio and some new television stations will be established, the Bill will enable all those talents to be brought to the fore.

  435
  It is not for us to say what those talents must be. We should not lay down in legislation what we mean by quality programmes or say how the inventiveness that exists today should be brought to the fore. That is the way in which the Labour party views this issue, and its philosophy does not work. We must simply lay down a framework that will enable new developments to work, and the Bill will achieve that process.
  Many more people will seek to establish television and radio stations. Some will fail. Some will introduce ideas that have not occurred to any of those who have taken part in these debates. I welcome the fact that people from totally different backgrounds will have a part to play.
  At the same time, the Bill will help to protect our remarkably good television system. BBC 1 and 2 will still be the cornerstone of British television broadcasting. It is remarkable how the BBC, when faced with a challenge, as it is today, responds by providing an improved service.
  Those who now work for the BBC and who worked there during the 14 years when I worked for the BBC agree that it improved greatly with the advent of ITV, and improved further when Channel 4 came into being. I have absolute confidence that the BBC will improve yet again as it faces the latest challenge.
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman is almost entirely wrong in recalling what happened with the advent of independent broadcasting. I was involved in it in the 1950s. We were anxious to prevent it becoming cash-dominated. All sides of the argument eventually reached agreement about that, as the various reports produced at the time, including Pilkington, show.
  That happened because it was subject to the type of regulation that enabled good programmes to be made and diversity of opinion to be expressed. It was through regulation that commercial independent television was able to help the television process. It increased the number of public service channels and opened up freedom of expression. But the Bill will prevent new ideas from developing unless it can be proved to the satisfaction of the licensees that money can be made from them.
  Mr. Hughes: In Committee, the hon. Gentleman made an interesting and detailed speech. However, he made the same speech at almost every sitting and it became slightly less interesting as time went on.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Cheap.
  Mr. Hughes: It may be cheap, but it is true. The hon. Gentleman would seize every opportunity to say that he was the only member of the Committee who understood what was going on. I am not sure that everyone agreed.
  We will still have BBC and Channel 4—the Government's creation. There was no expansion of broadcasting under a Labour Government. If we had wanted to cheapen broadcasting and to change what would be available for minority groups, the Bill gave us the chance to do so. But it was never our intention to change the format of Channel 4, and it has not been changed. We will also have Channel 5. That will not be available to everyone, but it will be the first national television channel based outside London. Surely everyone would welcome
  436
  that new focus for a national channel. That is a remarkable feature, for which the Bill and the Minister will be remembered.
  We will also have new radio stations, bringing diversity and catering for many different tastes. However, I have one worry about the new radio stations. Too much power may have been given to those people whose powers in allocating the Channel 3 franchises have been diminished —the chattering classes and their representatives who did so badly in the past when it came to allocating Channel 3 franchises; the people who gave us the original London Weekend Television, putting together a pack of nonsense, and the people who gave us Harlech television.
  Their piece de resistance was TV-am. Everyone who worked in television and television news knew that they could not put a television news organisation on the air with the promises that were being made, and that proved to be true. The only people who believed it were those at the IBA. But those people are still around and they will probably have too much power when it comes to allocating radio franchises.
  The IBA has been responsible for a sad feature of the incremental licences that have been given. For example, Sunrise Radio, which operates in west London and in part of my constituency, is an Asian radio station, but at peak time, in the mornings, it does not have Asian programmes. It has a white disc jockey playing music from the top 40 on the basis that Asian children like that sort of music as much as anyone else.
  But they can listen to Capital Radio or Radio 1. Sunrise Radio was supposed to offer something different and if it does not do that at peak times, it is not offering something different. It was the IBA which persuaded it to adopt that policy, on the basis that it would be more profitable. That is a shame and, before the Bill becomes an Act, we must ensure that that does not happen to the hundreds of new radio stations.
  Every time that broadcasting has expanded in Britain, it has been trailed as a disaster. We need only read the speeches from Labour Members on every occasion to know that. However, that has not proved to be the case in the past and I do not believe that it will be this time. On the details of the legislation, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister listened to those who felt strongly about something and, where the lobbying was logical and sensible, he changed the Bill accordingly. But there has been no change to the central thrust of the Bill and its important framework for ensuring that we take advantage of the expected expansion. It is because of that twin-track approach that we shall have a successful expansion of broadcasting; and most of the credit for that must go to my hon. and learned Friend.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Like the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), I was not a member of the Committee, so I take this opportunity to congratulate those who were on their good work in improving the Bill. I include in those congratulations the Minister, who showed flexibility in considering the various points put to him and ingenuity in bringing about the changes in the amended Bill. I mention not being a member of the Committee not as a criticism, as may have

  437
  been thought when I spoke on Report, but in case I mention matters which I am sure were thoroughly discussed in Committee.
  I hope that the Minister will not think me churlish if I criticise certain aspects of the Bill. For example, I am disappointed that, even with the changes, the highest bidder will be awarded the contract. That is not a good thing. It would be much better if quality alone were to prevail.
  The aspect of the Bill which has given most concern to my constituents is that relating to religious broadcasting. I have received an enormous number of letters and petitions from sincere Christians who felt insulted by the implication in the Bill that, somehow or other, all Christians are so untrustworthy that they could not own a television station or run a programme. Thank goodness matters were improved on Report. I hope that they will be further improved in another place, but some honest and sincere people still have great reservations. I look forward to seeing even more improvements.
  It is sad that all citizens in a democracy cannot be treated equally, regardless of class, creed or race. I welcome the strengthening of the regional requirements, which should ensure that we have a credible regional application, and the support shown on Report for networking—a system which is recognised as essential to enable regional companies such as Ulster Television to give viewers a full range and variety of local, national and international programmes.
  I was encouraged by the Minister's appreciation of the difficulties faced by Ulster Television and his recognition of the care which will be needed in awarding the franchise to Northern Ireland. Ulster Television is one of the smallest independent television companies. Its advertising income is only 1·5 per cent. of ITV's total. Broadcasting in a divided society such as Northern Ireland requires impartiality, accuracy and sensitivity—an exceptional responsibility.
  A former Home Secretary said:
  "In Northern Ireland there is much violence and sadness. But there is, too, a rich and varied life and a caring community in which neighbour helps neighbour. It is this that Ulster Television showed, and, by showing, encouraged its growth. This showed that not only does Ulster Television serve Northern Ireland, but is also a vital part of it."
  That must be guarded when it comes to the Northern Ireland franchise. I hope that that will be remembered when the licence is awarded.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Simon Coombs: There are so many stages in a Bill's process through the House that—if one is to take part in all of them—then towards the end of that process it seems that there is little left to say. That has never prevented the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) from speaking, however, and it will not stop me tonight.
  Let me say to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott)—who will have to read it in Hansard—that in a free market there must be sellers as well as buyers. He spoke about listed events as if there were only buyers among television companies, but there are also the sellers of the rights to those listed events. If they decide that it is in their interests to have large audiences for the televising of those events, they will not sell to those who claim exclusivity in the form of satellite coverage.
  438
  I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my hon. and learned Friend the Minister on the way that he has guided the Bill's progress. He has often been helpful to me and my colleagues, not only in Committee but on many other occasions when it was necessary for us to call him out to discuss matters. Before we began work on the Bill, he had the reputation of being a hard man to move—other than, on occasion, to anger. I can think of one occasion in Committee when his patience was tested by the impish hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), but he resisted firmly. As other hon. Members have said, the Committee stage of the Bill was remarkably good-humoured and good-natured.
  I approach the Bill with a specific interest in the British cable industry. It is not a commercial interest; my constituency contains the oldest of the existing cable companies—Swindon Cable. Considerable progress has been made in resolving the problems of the cable industry in this country, and I am delighted that we have made the right moves to ensure that the present surge of interest and investment is sustained. After a long period when cable could have been said to be in the doldrums in this country, I believe that it is now on the verge of an explosion of activity. Clearly it was right for us to try to ensure that nothing was done to put that at risk.
  With the vast increase in the number of programmes available on cable, we will see a rapid increase in the number of operating cable stations and a steady increase in the number of people who subscribe to cable. We must therefore avoid any temptation to make it easier to cable. small pockets of densely populated areas, and thus exclude other less densely populated areas from the benefits of cable. I say "benefits" because we want to help to avoid a rash of satellite dishes across the country. They are already to be seen in many parts of London and elsewhere in the south of England, and they will spread north unless we ensure that the television of the future can be obtained through underground cable rather than satellite dishes. For that reason if no other, members of the Committee were anxious to see that the cable industry had a fair wind for the future.
  On the subject of religious broadcasting, I pay tribute to a number of people whom I will not detain the House by naming individually. Between them, they have run an effective campaign to ensure a victory for common sense. In a Christian country, we should allow Christians to receive programmes that reinforce their faith; I am thinking in particular of Vision Broadcasting from Swindon, which brings much pleasure to my constituents and to many others around the country who can now receive its programmes through cable. I am grateful to the Minister for making it possible for the company to continue to make high-quality programmes for Christians in this country.
  Another classic exercise in democracy was the campaign to ensure the continuation of teletext on Channel 3 and Channel 4. To begin with, we were told by the Government that we could be satisfied with a teletext service on BBC 1 and BBC 2, and that Ceefax would be sufficient. I have nothing against Ceefax—it is a good service and I use it extensively—but Oracle is better. I hope that Ceefax will respond to such remarks and endeavour to be as good: I am sure that in the future it will be.
  What was clearly undesirable was that the element of choice should be taken away. Therefore, it was necessary to mount a campaign—both in Committee and elsewhere

  439
  —to ensure that Oracle, or something like it, was preserved on Channel 3 and Channel 4. There was a great deal of lobbying, both of Committee members and of other hon. Members. A public-relations exercise among the viewers—not surprisingly—ensured that an enormous majority of Oracle users voted in favour of their right to continue to use Oracle. There was a wise reaction to that by my hon. and learned Friend. Oracle is too good a service to be lost. If it is to be lost, now that the Bill has been amended, it will be because in the event of a competitive tender it must give way to an even better-quality bid for the same essential service. We must accept the possibility that that will occur.
  The issue of quality was at the heart of many of our Committee debates, and many of our debates in the Chamber over the past 72 hours. The Bill has been improved in that respect. Its wording is better than it was when we started, but there is still the essential problem of who is to judge what quality is. Many words have been spoken and written by hon. Members and others about that thorny issue, but I am not sure that anyone knows the true answer to the question, "What is quality?". Politicians must avoid the assumption that their tastes are right for the public at large. Apart from anything else, as there are 650 hon. Members there is the potential for 650 different answers. Nevertheless, we must show humility in what we impose on the public, and I defend the right of my fellow citizens to watch soap operas and game shows if they wish. I hope and believe that a 20, 30 or 40-channel capacity will also make possible the continual cricket by day and classical music by night to which I look forward in the new world of television in the 1990s.
  The key to success in this venture in commercial television is, inevitably, money. Will it come from advertising, or from subscription, in sufficient quantities to support the technology explosion that we inevitably face? I believe that money from advertising will follow quality programmes for the ABC 1 audiences with buying power, but it will also follow popular programmes for mass audiences. Television in the 1990s will be broadly similar to the television that we have had for the past 10 years. There will not be the great differences that Opposition Members fear and for which—perhaps—some Conservative Members hope. The great change is that there will be vastly more choice: that I welcome. For that reason, the Bill should now make progress and be subjected to further detailed scrutiny in another place.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: May I apologise to you and to the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, for missing the opening of the debate? I was out busily trying to save badgers. I look forward to reading the Minister's speech in the next edition of "News from Stamford Bridge".
  The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) made a good point about satellite dishes. I know that he understands more than most the technology and the desirability of cable. I tend to support him. We tried in Committee to ensure greater control of satellite dishes, but because they are subject to planning control under the town and country planning legislation, we could not deal
  440
  with the matter in the way that it should have been dealt with. The House will have to address it, because satellite dishes are an intrusion.
  Surely technology could produce something less obtrusive. Sky Television and others are considering the matter. Many places, such as council estates and conservation areas, are ruined by satellite dishes. I do not know whether Sutton borough council has got a judgment yet on the case that it is taking about the siting of satellite dishes, but we shall read the judgment with great interest. Something needs to be done. Unfortunately, we could not do anything through the Bill. If we are to have a proliferation of channels, it must be done through cable and not through satellite dishes.
  Since I was elected in 1983, I have been a member of Committees on many Bills—I think, well over 20. It is normal for major Bills to be heavily amended in Committee. One reason is that they were half-baked to start with because so often it has been a case of legislation on the hoof and the Government themselves were forced to amend their own badly drafted legislation. I do not think that I have taken part in the Committee stage of a Bill which has been so heavily amended as the Broadcasting Bill on the basis of argument and representation in Committee.
  There are two reasons for that. First, the original Bill was unpalatable and unacceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the House and to those in the industry and around it. That lesson was well learned by Ministers and certainly by hon. Members in Committee. We received from various organisations excellent briefings that we were able to put to effective use. I recall that many a speech was ridden home on the IBA briefings and the support that we got from the BBC and various advisers, including unions like BETA——
  Mr. Bob Cryer: And ACTT.
  Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his unnecessary prompting.
  There was a second reason for the amendments: we had leading the Bill a Minister who was far more open-minded than is normally healthy for Tory politicians in these days of sudden death by handbagging. We are grateful to him for what he was able to do. He had, as they say in the parlance, a good Bill. All the paeans of praise that have been descending upon him must worry him slightly, because the only way for him to go now is down. I would not wish that on him. Someone else has received the black spot from Blind Pugh in being asked to administer the poll tax; the Minister has escaped that fate, which is clearly worse than death.
  The Minister has emerged as the acceptable face of Tory extremism. Because of that, the Bill is less bad than it was, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, it is still unacceptable. The provision that there shall be no moratorium after a franchise has been granted must be changed in another place. If the will of the House means anything, there should be a moratorium. The only disagreement was on how long it should be and on when it should be triggered. I hope that a moratorium will be delivered in another place.
  The decision on listed events was appalling. The universality element has disappeared from what we all recognise as important events. I accept that most of them

  441
  are sporting events. My partner would not be upset if the world cup finals were only on a channel which had an audience of 200 to 300—in fact, she would be delighted —but it would be a national calamity for the great majority in the House and elsewhere. Some television satellite companies which are losing a great deal of money —£2 million a week in the case of Sky—will not hesitate to put in megabids in order to try to sell more subscriptions. That is perhaps the only way that they can succeed. That is a great mistake, and another error that should be rectified in another place.
  Despite all the improvements, the Bill is still unacceptable. It is still driven far more by the cash nexus than by the philosophy of the highest quality for the greatest number. All through the proceedings, the Labour party has defended proven quality and the high standards of public service broadcasting in Britain. In that sense we make no excuse for being seen as conservative, with a small "c". We know that what we have got is good, and we are not sure that what is on offer is better; indeed, it may risk what is good. That being so, we have taken a position of defence of standards that are well proven. Everything is capable of being improved. To risk everything might appeal to the political gambler, but we believe that it is no way to treat broadcasting.
  Broadcasting is vital to the maintenance of democracy. I do not think that one overstates the case by putting it in those terms. Television influences all our lives. That is why politicians are so interested in television and why we spend so much time trying to get on television. That was why the great majority of us welcomed the television cameras into the House. We know that, through television, we can let people know what we are doing in their name, for good or ill.
  That is why television is so important. It shapes our lives, it entertains and it educates. For all those reasons, it is far too important to be left to unregulated market forces. We must not allow mega-millionaire megaloma-niacs to strut round acquiring television channels in the same way as they buy up newspapers. I do not single out Rupert Murdoch, because there are others like him in the industry. He is no better and no worse than many others. The concentration of power in the media should worry us all. If we allow the media to be concentrated in the hands of the malevolent, we will be like putty in their hands, and they will try to shape us and the industry.
  Yesterday, the Labour party was accused of operating a vendetta against Sky Television. That is not true. Certainly we have a lot to complain about with regard to other parts of Mr. Murdoch's evil press empire. If Tory Members were subjected to the vile calumnies to which we are subjected through neo-Nazi comics like The Sun, they might feel as annoyed as we are at times, and with considerable justification. That is not a vendetta against satellite television or Sky Television in particular. If there is a vendetta in the House, it is being waged by the Government against the British Broadcasting Corporation, and is supported by some of the nastier right-wing elements on the Tory Benches.
  The Government realise the power of broadcasting. They realise that impartiality and objectivity will never serve the interests of the Tory party. Whatever St. Mellor may believe—I give him the benefit of the doubt on this —I think that it is the objective of many of his hon. Friends to provide people with 57 varieties of the same sort of rubbish—chewing gum for the eyes—because that is the
  442
  way to divide and rule; he who controls the channels of communication exercises real political power. There is a grave risk that that will be the case.
  The Bill still leaves too many facets the subject of hopes and prayers. The Minister's intentions are not necessarily shared by the kind of people who will try to move in for the kill when stations are up for grabs. The Government are wrong to adopt a high-risk strategy towards the future of broadcasting. Public sector broadcasting is one of the few things of quality remaining in this country, and one of the few for which we are admired around the world. Public sector broadcasting is one of the few things that we still do well—yet here we are, throwing it all up in the air and seeing how the pieces land. That is not something that I or anyone else who is involved in, or who cares for, broadcasting wants to see.
  I can only console myself with the knowledge that it will be a Labour Government who will be around to see how the Act works out in practice and to repair the damage that it may do.
  6.40 pm
  Sir Giles Shaw: I shall try to bring the debate a little nearer to the ground, following the outbursts of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I apologise to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for not being present for the whole of the debate. I was in the Chamber when it began, and I am delighted and somewhat proud to be involved in its closing minutes.
  The scheme that the Committee and the House has considered over many hours aims at providing a framework for broadasting that will last through the present decade and into the year 2000 and beyond. It is not often given to this House to do that. No wonder the Bill is large and comprehensive, and no wonder it has been amended in a massively constructive way, and has occupied so much time. The Bill is pretty unusual in its content, scope and timing. It originates from a number of initiatives, some generated internally within the Home Office, and others externally by public debate and investigated by committees set up for that purpose. The most recent of them was the Peacock committee, but it was by no means the only source of potential change.
  It behoves us to remember that one of the questions posed to the Peacock committee, but whose answer to it has not been adopted, concerned the future financing of the British Broadcasting Corporation, to which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West rightly paid substan-tial tribute. That significant question remains to be answered by the corporation, bound as it is by the licence fee, itself determined by retail price increments and by the fact that, as the operator of two major television channels, it will have to compete for audiences against an increasing range of programming from ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, and so on.
  I am aware that, if Labour were in government, it would take the corporation within the Exchequer and provide for it from the national grant. That may say a great deal for the ease with which such a thing can be done, but not much for maintaining the impartiality of the BBC. I shall leave that on one side. I raise the issue merely because it is one that still has to be addressed in the longer term.
  The Bill creates a large number of opportunities in respect of audience choice, with which we all agree: the

  443
  development of sufficient talent to fill the time available on radio, terrestrial and satellite television; and attracting sufficient funds to make it all work.
  As to choice, although I can understand the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) curling up in agony in his place as he contemplates viewing choice going beyond the bounds of what he considers to be artistically or culturally acceptable, the fact remains that the generality of choice has lifted the coinage of human understanding in a way that is beyond debate. It has broadened educational and cultural opportunity, and has increased the knowledge that British society has of itself and of other societies. No right hon. or hon. Member could deny that. ITV has extended the frontiers of knowledge as the BBC alone did for generations, and for that we are profoundly thankful.
  It is true that, in terms of increasing one's knowledge of what is going on in the world, satellite television, although in its infancy, has the capacity to transmit information from all around the world in a much more diverse way than has ever before been possible.
  As to talent, I share much of the anxiety that has been expressed. One knows that talent can be purchased by the lowest common multiple of those who want to expose the largest possible audience to that talent, because talent does not come cheap. Good talent is in demand by various buyers of television programming—as it is by buyers of radio or printed material. Talent is not produced in great quantities. It comes almost by definition by a process of refinement that allows the most talented people to enjoy world stage demand at world stage fees. The question of whether sufficient talent can be developed is a major one in the development of Channel 3 and Channel 5.
  Investment really gives the clue, because it will be the determining factor. There is plenty of opportunity for investment, but in the case of cable television, for example, the impetus has all come from Canada and the United States. It is equally notable that investment to date in British satellite television has come largely from Australia. The United Kingdom has not yet shown itself to be bursting with enthusiasm at the prospect of investing in the new television station. I hope that it will change its mind, and I trust that the result will be healthy, competitive, creatively viable and profitable television—and the same goes for cable and satellite broadcasting.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. Alistair Darling: In view of the time constraints, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) will forgive me if I do not follow his arguments.
  Throughout the Committee stage, the Minister was most helpful, and we appreciate that. There is no doubt that the Bill is infinitely better now than when it started out. Some would say that it would be difficult for it to be otherwise. I pay tribute to the Minister for listening to the arguments and for making improvements to the Bill— sometimes at his own suggestion, sometimes at the suggestion of others. I shall say nothing further by way of a eulogy to the hon. and learned Gentleman, because enough has been said—and other points that divide us deserve consideration.
  Major flaws remain in the Bill. We accept that broadcasting is set to expand over the next few years. As
  444
  the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) said, everything is changing. But changing technology itself does not guarantee choice. It increases the potential for choice, which can only be to the good—but additional channels do not necessarily mean that there will be more choice. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) pointed out, that will depend on the quality of the programming.
  The Bill should provide a framework that allows for innovation and expansion, while at the same time insisting on quality, to ensure real choice for viewers and listeners. Instead, the Bill has essentially been driven by a desire to deregulate. That has been tempered, but it was the driving force behind the legislation. The cash bid for the right to broadcast is still at the centre of the Bill, and that is its major failing.
  We are told that we should not worry about a fall in the quality of Channel 3, because there will remain the cornerstones of the BBC and Channel 4. Those cornerstones will cease to exist if they no longer have to compete in quality terms against Channel 3. ITV taught the BBC and Channel 4 a thing or two about drama output. If quality is cut because of pressures to win a franchise, the incentive for the BBC and for Channel 4, and for Channel 5 if we ever see it, to achieve excellence will diminish. It is wrong to argue that Channel 3's quality can decrease because the BBC and others will remain.
  I have yet to understand why it is right to run an open competition involving a cash bid to win the franchise initially, but then apply a different regime thereafter—so that, once a successful applicant is in the saddle, he is there for life. As I said in Committee, it is the most glamorous form of closed shop that has ever been dreamed up.
  Serious matters remain unresolved and they deserve further attention in another place. Bidding has been tempered, but the quality threshold in clause 16, although it has been increased, is still subservient to the requirement that the highest bidder will win the day.
  I know that the Minister has tabled amendments which state that, if the quality of the lower bidder is exceptional or of substantially higher quality, the Independent Television Commission can choose that bidder. But we must note the superlatives. The quality of the lower bidder does not have to be slightly better, probably better or almost certainly better—it has to be exceptional, or substantially higher in quality.
  Almost certainly that means that the highest cash bid will win the day. If it does not, we can look forward to battles in the courts to decide who gets the right to broadcast. That fatal flaw at the heart of the Bill is one reason that we cannot support it tonight. Price and quality should be considered side by side. The Minister said that in Committee, and that is what many people inside and outside the Committee believe. Notwithstanding the amendment and the Minister's sentiments, the Bill means that the highest bidder will win unless the lower bidder is exceptionally better. That is difficult to assess or to establish.
  There are other problems. There have been safeguards and additions to the requirements for strong regional television, but they will be set aside if there is a host of takeover bids after the auctions. I hope that, when the Bill is considered in another place, note will be taken, as my hon. Frieod the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, of the strong feeling in the House—at least among those hon. Members who have expressed an

  445
  opinion—that there should be a moratorium on takeovers. We think that it should be for three years, but two years would be better than nothing.
  Otherwise, once the franchises are initially allocated, there will be a flurry of takeovers by those who seek to broadcast without having to cross the quality threshold, such as it is. That cannot be good for regional broadcasting or for the quality of broadcasting in general.
  The lack of a networking agreement gives us serious anxiety, and not just because those bidding need to know what they will get, as the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, but because it is important if the smaller television companies are to be safeguarded. If there is no networking agreement, there is no reason why the larger companies cannot exploit their dominant position as they did in the earlier years of the ITV network.
  By the time the Bill returns to the House, if it includes no networking agreement, I hope that the Government will further amend the Bill, if necessary giving the ITC powers to insist that such an agreement exists.
  Another flaw is the lack of cross-media ownership. If the Government can accept controls on cross-media ownership in every aspect of the Bill except for Sky Television, surely the case is made. I cannot understand why Sky should be the only organisation exempted in practice from cross-media ownership. To listen to Conservative Members, one would think that we were totally against cross-media ownership. If the Government accept the need for it in most cases, they should accept it completely.
  I do not want to see a battery of controls in broadcasting. The framework should allow people to get on with it, but unless there are guidelines within the framework to influence the development of broadcasting during the next 10 to 20 years, we run the risk of not getting greater choice. We will have more channels, but we will simply have more of the same.
  That is clearly illustrated by the likely pattern of local radio development. The same standards are not set for radio as for television. It is all very well to have hundreds of radio channels,but if they all broadcast the same pop music, there is no choice. I should have liked greater insistence on the creation of a variety of channels, which would appeal to a broad range of people. I welcome the Minister's move on national radio channels, because at least one would be different.
  A similar problem arises with satellite television. I cannot see the gain to society if more new technology means that fewer people can watch sporting events. What is the point of new technology and new satellites if it means that fewer people can enjoy the football or Wimbledon finals? I do not agree that sporting organisations will not sell out to the highest bidder. Everything we have heard suggests that they will.
  I hope that cable television will develop. Two nights ago, we discussed developments which will help cable television companies. I want to help them and the people who are supposed to watch cable television. I was about to say that the sooner those companies get off the ground the better, but perhaps that is inappropriate. The sooner that cable television starts to produce the goods, the sooner they will build up the credibility that they do not have at present. I conclude where I started. Technology is changing. Programme makers have a lot to be proud of, as British broadcasting is respected throughout the world, but if we are to ensure that it remains in that happy
  446
  position, we must have a guarantee of quality. If the only choice is to switch off the television or radio there is no choice.
  As long as cash overrides quality, I fear that there is a risk that the quality of Channel 3 television and radio will be diminished, not increased, as a result of the Bill. We have an opportunity; all is not yet lost. The Government have made some changes and we welcome them, but the central flaw in the Bill is that cash is the driving force arid that the market knows best. The market does not always know best. The Government have a duty to provide a framework and at present that is lacking in the Bill.
  If Britain is to remain at the forefront of broadcasting, the Bill needs additional improvements. Until it gets them we must decline to give it a Third Reading.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Mellor: With the permission of the House, I shall say a few final words as the Bill passes on its way to another place.
  After 38 sittings of the Committee and 17½ hours on Report, I fear that my final words cannot be very original. I apologise to hon. Members who may have heard it all before. Perhaps the best way for me to show my appreciation of British broadcasting is by emulating it and making speeches that are good on repeat.
  I thank all those hon. Members who participated in the debate for the kind words that they have spoken about my stewardship of the Bill. I genuinely appreciate that.
  I understand that differences between ourselves and the. Opposition over the Bill remain, but I believe that people will look back on the Bill as a major development for British broadcasting, with beneficial consequences.
  There will be a proliferation of community radio stations, which will enhance listeners' choice. I do not agree with the description by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), for the simple reason that the criterion in the Bill is that, to get a licence, a station must enlarge listeners' choice. The fact that there were dozens of applications for some 20 incremental licences which were recently awarded clearly shows that there is no shortage of demand from broadcasters, and there is plenty of evidence—the success of the Jazz FM station in London proves this—that the listener wants greater choice.
  Throughout the passage of the Bill, Opposition Members have seemed to want commercialism as an optional extra to commercial television, but commercial television has to be commercially viable to succeed. We have striven to strike a fair balance between regulations which preserve that which is best in British broadcasting and creating a competitive framework so that proper commercial decisions can be taken. That is particularly fitting for Channel 3, which has had a declining market share in recent years, and would protect it from the rigours of the 1990s when it will not have a monopoly but would have to compete against another terrestrial channel, Channel 5, for which we have made provision, and against satellite channels for advertising finance.
  We have given Channel 3 the elbow room that it will need to be competitive, while ensuring that no one can get a Channel 3 franchise who is not properly qualified or has not surmounted a rigorous quality test. If, having surmounted that test, one of the applicants soars over it so much better than the rest, even if he is an under-bidder

  447
  financially, he can win the franchise. That is one of the key elements to have emerged during the parliamentary stages of the Bill.
  I believe that it is a good Bill. It has been well and thoroughly scrutinised, and deserves to go to the other place with the approbation of the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 180.

  Division No. 200]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Alexander, Richard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Dover, Den

  Allason, Rupert

  Dunn, Bob

  Amess, David

  Durant, Tony

  Amos, Alan

  Eggar, Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evennett, David

  Ashby, David

  Farr, Sir John

  Atkinson, David

  Favell, Tony

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Forman, Nigel

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forth, Eric

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Benyon, W.

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Freeman, Roger

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  French, Douglas

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gill, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bowis, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Gorst, John

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gow, Ian

  Brazier, Julian

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bright, Graham

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

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

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gregory, Conal

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Grist, Ian

  Burns, Simon

  Ground, Patrick

  Burt, Alistair

  Grylls, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Hague, William

  Butler, Chris

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hannam, John

  Carttiss, Michael

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

  Cash, William

  Harris, David

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hayes, Jerry

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Churchill, Mr

  Hayward, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Colvin, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Conway, Derek

  Hind, Kenneth

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon John

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

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Cran, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Critchley, Julian

  Irvine, Michael

  Curry, David

  Irving, Sir Charles

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

  Jack, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Janman, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  448

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Key, Robert

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rost, Peter

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knapman, Roger

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Knowles, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Latham, Michael

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lilley, Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Speller, Tony

  Maclean, David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Squire, Robin

  Madel, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mans, Keith

  Steen, Anthony

  Maples, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mates, Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mellor, David

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Thompson. D. (Calder Valley)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thorne, Neil

  Moate, Roger

  Thurnham, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Tracey, Richard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tredinnick, David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Neale, Gerrard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Viggers, Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walden, George

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Watts, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wells, Bowen

  Owen. Rt Hon Dr David

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Paice, James

  Whitney, Ray

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wilshire, David

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wolfson, Mark

  Pawsey, James

  Wood, Timothy

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Yeo, Tim

  Portillo, Michael

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Price, Sir David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Mr. Goodlad and

  Redwood, John

  Mr. David Lightbown.

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Battle, John

  Allen, Graham

  Beckett, Margaret

  Alton, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Armstrong, Hilary

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

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Blair, Tony

  Ashton, Joe

  Blunkett, David

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Boateng, Paul

  449

  Boyes, Roland

  Galloway, George

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Buchan, Norman

  Gould, Bryan

  Buckley, George J.

  Graham, Thomas

  Caborn, Richard

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Canavan, Dennis

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Clay, Bob

  Henderson, Doug

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howells, Geraint

  Crowther, Stan

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Ingram, Adam

  Dewar, Donald

  Janner, Greville

  Dixon, Don

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dobson, Frank

  Kennedy, Charles

  Doran, Frank

  Kilfedder, James

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Fisher, Mark

  Leighton, Ron

  Flannery, Martin

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Flynn, Paul

  Lewis, Terry

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Livingstone, Ken

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Livsey, Richard

  Foster, Derek

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Foulkes, George

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Fraser, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fyfe, Maria

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  450

  McFall, John

  Robertson, George

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  McKelvey, William

  Rowlands, Ted

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ruddock, Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Madden, Max

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marek, Dr John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Meale, Alan

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

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I & Bute)

  Snape, Peter

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Soley, Clive

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Strang, Gavin

  Morley, Elliot

  Straw, Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Turner, Dennis

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Vaz, Keith

  Mullin, Chris

  Wallace, James

  Murphy, Paul

  Walley, Joan

  Nellist, Dave

  Warded, Gareth (Gower)

  O'Brien, William

  Wareing, Robert N.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Patchett, Terry

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Pendry, Tom

  Wilson, Brian

  Pike, Peter L.

  Winnick, David

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Prescott, John

  Worthington, Tony

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wray, Jimmy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Radice, Giles

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Reid, Dr John

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Richardson, Jo

  Mr. Ken Eastbam.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Ms. Dawn Primarolo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It relates to the judge's announcement today that the poll tax capping of Bristol, Basildon and Doncaster cannot continue until the result of the judicial review of the appealing authorities. Has the Minister given notice that he will come to the House to make a statement on the serious chaos and disarray of the poll tax legislation and on the destruction of local authority services as a result of that legislation?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have not received requests for a statement on this or any other matter.
  Dr. John Marek: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will remember that a Bill similar, if not identical, to this Bill was tabled last Session and in previous Sessions. The title was certainly the same. You will also know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the sponsor of a Bill, if certain hon. Members have objections, usually tries to see those hon. Members to see whether an accommodation can be reached. On previous occasions when the Bill was before the House, as far as the Opposition are aware, no such approaches were made by the sponsor. The Bill is here in almost exactly the same form for yet another Session. When there is such a long list of private Bills, why has this Bill been given precedence, when it should have been at the end of the queue?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In accordance with past practice and precedents, many factors have to be taken into account in determining which Bills shall be brought before the House for debated proceedings. The Bill has been treated no differently from any other. The hon. Gentleman's first point is a matter for debate rather than a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may have come to your attention that Ministers announced this afternoon at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that infections related to bovine spongiform encephalopathy have been found in a domestic cat. That information was available to Ministers earlier, so they could have come to the House to make a statement. It is clear that all the assurances that we have had on mad cow disease no longer hold. Have Ministers made an approach to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for permission to make a statement in the House? This is a matter of serious public concern.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not received a request on this or any other matter. I am sure that what has been said will have been heard on the Treasury Bench.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  London Regional Transport has a general duty to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services for Greater London. It must pay due regard to the current transport needs of Greater London and to the efficiency, economy and safety of the operation. Millions of pounds are being lost each year because the
  452
  system lacks security. It is important that those who use the system and who pay for its service should not suffer the cost while leaving many to get away without paying. According to the annual survey, it is calculated that no less than £26 million a year is currently lost on the underground and £15 million a year on the buses. That loss is far too big to be acceptable.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Inevitably, it is difficult to calculate losses because as the money has already been lost, it is hard to say how much it was. What is the basis of the calculations and figures, bearing in mind that they must be an estimate based on a notional loss each day or each week?
  Mr. Thorne: The hon. Gentleman is right. The figures are estimated and calculated by people who specialise in such work. They calculate how many people travel on different modes of transport and they establish visually those who pay and those who do not. They are thus able to take a record. They are professionals and we rely on their expertise.
  Mr. Peter Snape: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech. Following the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), will the hon. Gentleman tell us for how many years the losses have been taking place and why over those years London Regional Transport, which the hon. Gentleman represents tonight, has not taken on adequate staff to prevent those losses?
  Mr. Thorne: The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) should know far more about the subject than most of us because of his previous experience. He will know, therefore, of the difficulty in assessing tickets as they pass through the barrer and of the difficulty in seeing whether they are in order. We are beholden to take advantage of the modern technology currently available to us. I do not think that there is any suggestion that fewer staff should be employed; it is merely suggested that they should be deployed differently. That is only sensible. It would be silly of us to try to rely upon the systems that were in operation when the hon. Gentleman was collecting tickets on the railway many years ago.
  A proper system for reducing that discrepancy is needed, and that is why the Bill has been introduced. It is similar to a measure passed last Session to give penalty fare powers to British Rail. There are many conditions of which the Secretary of State has to be satisfied before the measure can be introduced. He has to be satisfied that there is adequate staffing, that sufficient machines are available, that the arrangements for monitoring defective machines are adequate and that ticket inspectors are properly trained. There must be adequate publicity about the introduction of the system and there must be a disputes and appeals procedure. The Secretary of State must examine those important matters carefully and diligently. It would be wrong to assume that the Secretary of State was uncritical about standards——
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is already a criminal offence not to pay one's fare? Can he explain why we need to introduce the Bill, which would impose a smaller penalty than would at the moment be imposed on a person convicted of dodging his fare? Will he confirm that

  453
  London underground is looking for a much lower standard of proof, as opposed to increasing the penalties and tackling the problem properly?
  Mr. Thorne: I cannot accept that. I am afraid that the present system for prosecuting people who evade their fares is extremely complicated. Such prosecutions require a great deal of legal preparation; they have to go through the courts, which is an extremely time-consuming procedure. These days, it is much more usual to have standard penalties and they have come to be accepted for many small road traffic offences. If people are travelling on the underground system, it is right and proper that they should obtain a ticket before they start on their journey, and it is quite wrong that the majority of passengers who pay their fares should be expected to carry this additional burden. I cannot, therefore, accept that the old method is right or proper.
  Most of us have suffered the inconvenience of using machines that are not up to standard. In the past, many justifiable criticisms have been made of ticket machines, especially those that are required to give change. Technology, however, has moved quickly, and it is now possible to produce extremely reliable and effective machines at underground stations. Ticket machines are now available 99·9 per cent. of the time and can give change. In addition to the booking office, there are never fewer than two machines at any station, and at busy stations there are many more. With that in mind, we must grasp the opportunity to take advantage of modern technology, thereby reducing the volume of evasion and fraud in the system.
  Mr. Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, late at night, unstaffed underground stations represent a considerable peril to old people and women? If ticket and change machines are available instead of staff, fewer people will want to travel late at night and people in difficulties will not be able to find anyone to give them assistance. If one is in danger of being mugged, a ticket machine is not much help.
  Mr. Thorne: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The stations to which I am referring usually have at least one person in the ticket office and one on the barrier. If those people are not on duty, the gates have to be left open. That affords much better protection than can be given in stations that operate an open system which does not require ticket delivery and collection on the spot but relies instead upon tickets being checked during the journey.
  Questions will be asked about the security of the system. On the London underground the volume of traffic is such that it is not possible for tickets to be checked on trains as they are checked on British Rail. The present maximum fare on LRT is £2·90 and a penalty of £10 is appropriate. On the docklands light railway, and on the buses, the penalty is £5. That represents a major difference between the present proposal and any system proposed for British Rail. The present proposal takes account of the lower charges on the docklands light railway and the buses. The penalty has to be geared accordingly.
  Validation of tickets has been a major problem on the docklands light railway, and the system has therefore been replaced so that tickets are now validated on issue. The checking of tickets at peak periods has become impossible because the railway is so busy. Staff can do much, and they
  454
  should be much more involved in the success of the operation. Staff will be fully consulted before implementation.
  Although fraud has always been a factor, it has substantially increased in recent years. That is unacceptable, especially for genuine, honest fare-paying members of the public, who represent the majority of those who use public transport. It would be wrong to allow those who wish to indulge in fraud to get away with it for any longer than can be avoided.
  It is important that we realise that there will be major provisions to ensure that travellers who are not trying to evade their fare will be able to call in aid an excuse. Passengers will not be liable to pay a penalty fare if no facilities for ticket sales were available at the station at which the journey started. If the passenger transfers to the London underground or to the docklands light railway from British Rail and the British Rail station at which he started his journey had no facilities for the sale of tickets, or if a notice was displayed at the station at which he started his journey—whether a British Rail, underground, or docklands light railway station—stating that it was permissible for passengers to travel without a ticket, or if an authorised person in uniform informed the passenger to that effect, he will not be liable to pay the penalty.
  If a person is asked for his ticket or authority by a London underground or docklands light railway authorised official, and says that he could not obtain it for one or more of those reasons, it is for London underground or the docklands light railway authorities to prove that his reason is not correct. The onus is on them. If a passenger wishes to invoke one of the reasons later, he has 21 days to do so from the day after the completion of the journey. Only then comes the transfer of the burden of proof. If the passenger does not provide an explanation in such terms on the spot or within 21 days, he has to prove that one of the defences applies. That seems to be an effective and sensible way in which to conduct the arrangements.
  It is important that we should introduce the measure as early as possible so that we may take advantage of the available modern technology and substantially reduce the number of people who are defrauding their fellow passengers—a number that is likely to increase if we do not take firm steps against such practice.
  When a measure similar to the present Bill was debated last Session, hon. Members referred to the automatic ticket gates. Technically, the gates form no part of the arrangements provided in the Bill, as it is possible to have penalty fares without the gates and vice versa. But the two matters are inter-related to the extent that the automatic gates will act as a check on up to 80 per cent. of journeys, as that is the number of journeys that end or begin in the central area.
  The gates have been in operation for two years now and London underground has considerable experience of them. In spite of the campaign of vilification against them, the gates are safe and they work. They were reviewed by the railway inspectorate and an independent firm of consultants and—with the exception of some matters of detail—given a clean bill of health. They work, by which I mean that they check tickets very well, and they are safe. So far from being the safety hazard that people predicted they would be, the gates increase the area available for evacuation in an emergency because there are far more gates than there were narrow exits in the days when tickets

  455
  were collected manually. The gates are normally attended, and when they are not, they are left open, so there is no risk to the public. Because the gates are staffed, they pose no problem for the handicapped or for people with children or shopping because they can be let through a wider gate, although it is the general rule that passengers should go through the normal gates whenever possible.
  The real test of the gates is passenger acceptance. That has been achieved to a large extent. Criticism has reduced to only a low level and there is no evidence that passengers are having any difficulties with the gates. Even now London Underground is considering other improvements. An experiment is being carried out at three stations—Victoria, Green Park and St. James's Park—to test a touch-and-pass system. Under that system the ticket is simply touched on a pad on the gate. It does not have to be fed through the machine. The experiment has been running for only a short time but seems to be doing well.
  We must acknowledge that the sums of £26 million per year for London Underground and £15 million per year for buses are large. They must be made up by the honest fare-paying passenger. It is entirely wrong that fare-paying passengers pay more than they need to, particularly at a time when we are anxious that the general public should use public transport as much as possible to relieve congestion on the roads. The House should be encouraged to vote the Bill into law at the earliest opportunity.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: With two of my hon. Friends, I have tabled a blocking motion to the Bill. It says:
  "On Second Reading of the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill to move, That the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months."
  In fact, I do not want the Bill to be read a Second time today, in six months or at any time in the future. The wording of the motion is such that we have to say that we wish it to be read in six months' time. Parliamentary language often confuses people. The purpose of the motion is to block the Bill. I wholly oppose the Bill.
  Mr. Denis Skinner: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cohen: Certainly—my hon. Friend is an expert on parliamentary language.
  Mr. Skinner rose——
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: We do not want the back of the hon. Gentleman's head.
  Mr. Skinner: What is wrong with it?
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) is a Whip.
  Mr. Skinner: Yes, he is getting ready for Friday. He comes in on Fridays and shouts "Object" to all the Bills, including Bills to give more money to pensioners and abolish standing charges. He is there to stop things like that—he has a cruel job. I do not know what the people in Sheffield think, but I keep drawing their attention to it.
  To come back to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), will he explain to the public—especially the people in the Strangers' Gallery, although
  456
  we are not supposed to refer to them—what a blocking motion is? There are not many times in parliamentary procedural life when one can do a job for the general public. The textbooks explain what a blocking motion is. People write books and tell us what it is all about, but when we get them it is different. My hon. Friend should explain slowly what a blocking motion is. He might get on telly—indeed, I will bet diamonds that he will be on the Parliament programme tomorrow.
  Mr. Cohen: I do not know whether I will get on the television, mainly because my explanation is not likely to be particularly good or erudite. I am not so great an expert on these matters as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If an item is chosen for the television, I hope that it will be the joke that I am about to tell about London Regional Transport. Run by the present lot in charge, with the backing of the Tory Government, it is a bit like a cocktail—a long slow queue. Increasingly, there are long slow queues at the bus stops. That is my joke for the telly.
  I am not an expert on blocking motions. The promoter, London Regional Transport, is trying to jump the queue and bounce the Bill through the House without proper discussion. That is why points of order were raised at the beginning of the debate. The Bill is the equivalent of a Bill introduced in the last Session of this Parliament. It was blocked on that occasion and went no further. It was not allowed to be carried over into this Session. London Regional Transport still wants it to jump ahead of all the other Bills, but it will not get away with that. My hon. Friends and I are alert to that game. We have put down our names as objectors to force this debate and we hope to force the Bill out. The blocking motion means that the whole thing will be put off for six months.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I did not think that my hon. Friend's joke was very good. If he wants to get himself on television, he would do better by explaining the blocking motion. Will he confirm that the whole idea of blocking the Bill for six months is so that the promoter can talk to the people who object to the Bill and attempt to find a compromise to meet their objections? I have been approached by London Regional Transport about the Bill. My hon. Friend's name is the first on the blocking motion. Has he been approached by or had any discussions with London Regional Transport?
  Mr. Cohen: That is an excellent point. As my hon. Friend says, the purpose of the blocking motion is to allow the promoter of the Bill to meet the hon. Member whose name is on it to see whether the objectors' fears can be allayed. I objected to the Bill in the last Session of Parliament and in the Session before that. In all that time, the promoter has not come to discuss my objections to the Bill.
  I recently received a letter from some public relations person or manager at British Rail. Unfortunately, I do not have the letter with me. It was remiss of me not to bring it. If some hon. Member wants to keep talking while I run across to my office for it I could read it out to the House. As that is not feasible, we shall have to forgo that. I received the letter just two days before this debate, asking whether I wanted to meet the person who wrote it. We have been busy recently in the House. Members of Parliament are busy people. I have had a series of meetings on vitally important issues this week. I have an

  457
  Adjournment debate on the Health Service tomorrow. I was looking forward to debating the subject with the former Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), but he has been moved sideways—or promoted, I do not know which—by the Prime Minister. I now have to face a new Minister who has no idea about the Health Service. I also had to brief myself for this debate. How could I find time to meet a representative of British Rail at one day's notice?
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend had to read an article as well.
  Mr. Cohen: That is right. I had to read the article by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) about his attitude to current political issues.
  Mr. Skinner: What did my hon. Friend reckon to it?
  Mr. Cohen: I shall not respond to that as I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not allow it.
  If local authorities should be accountable, so should LRT. It should stand for election every year, especially when it wants to introduce a Bill that will cost the public more money.
  My hon. Friend asked about the Henley formula for local authority elections. He wants that formula to operate according to a level set by the Government of what a council's spending should be. If a council spent in excess of that level it would have to hold an election. That is politically manipulative. Only Labour authorities would have to have elections every year. I will not mind the system because when a Labour Government returns to power we shall set the level for Conservative councils so low that they will have to hold an election every year. The Labour councils will not have to hold an election every year. If the Government play political games with the level of spending and the poll tax, we should do the same. Unelected quangos should also face an election.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. If London Regional Transport were still under the democratic accountability to which it was subject when the Greater London Council was responsible for transport, issues such as that presented by the Bill would have been thrashed out in an open forum. There would have been consultation with all involved, including people with interests such as that of my hon. Friend.
  Would my hon. Friend join me in utterly condemning the decision that has just been made in the House of Lords to uphold the Secretary of State's decision to allow county hall, from where we used to exercise democratic control over London Regional Transport, to be turned into a hotel? Does he not agree that that is an insult and Labour party spokesmen must pledge tonight the Labour party will take county hall back by compulsory purchase when it forms the next Government?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I realise that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is still on his preamble and getting warmed up, but I am sure that he will resist the temptation put to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) which would be quite out of order in this debate.
  Mr. Cohen: I shall resist that temptation and say only that I agree that it is an absolute disgrace and scandal that London is the only capital in the western world without its
  458
  own democratic regional government. The result is the chaos that we see all around London, in all services, including transport. That is why Bills such as this one come before the House—Bills which are ill thought out, badly backed up by statistics and about which no one has been consulted. Such Bills are bad for London. We need to get a democratic forum back into London.
  In an earlier intervention my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) talked about what consultation we had had, and, as I said, I received a letter in the past two days, which was derisory. In today's post I received a statement on behalf of the promoters in support of the Bill's Second Reading. I have glanced through it to see what points I could raise in the debate and found two straight away. First, the corporation claims that fare evasion is
  "currently estimated at £26 million per year on the underground and £15 million per year on the buses."
  The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) talked about those figures, but where is the proof? Such figures were mentioned in our previous debate on the subject, and the one before that. Automatic ticket barriers were put in, allegedly to try to reduce those figures. Some £.150 million was spent on trying to reduce the figures, and yet the same figures are brought out yet again in support of the Bill without a scrap of evidence to back them up. I do not believe them.
  Mr. Snape: Does my hon. Friend recall that when the powers-that-be decided to inflict on this city and others throughout the United Kingdom the system of operating buses with only one person, many of us warned that such a system would lead to widespread fare evasion for obvious reasons? We were ignored then and the Bill is a belated attempt to patch up that gap which, particularly in this city, should be taken care of by the provision of buses operated by two people. That would help not only to reduce fare evasion, but would considerably reduce traffic congestion, not only in London, but elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Cohen: I agree that there is a level of fare evasion that runs into millions of pounds during the course of a year. As my hon. Friend said, that is made worse by one-person operation and every time the fares rise higher than the inflation level. That has been the case year after year as the Government have taken away the subsidies. However, I do not believe that those are the figures quoted in the statement. They might be, but where is the evidence and proof? There is none whatever.
  Secondly, the statement says:
  "the level of penalty fares payable would be—

  (a) in respect of any bus journey or any journey solely on the Docklands Railway £5; and

  (b) in respect of any other train journey, £10."

  In my view, £10 is much too much—it is a punitive fine. Why is the docklands light railway getting favourable discrimination? Yet again, the Government are pumping money into the docklands at the cost of the rest of London, and giving those people in the docklands privileged treatment.
  I put down a parliamentary question about how much the Government had spent solely on publicity and advertising for the docklands corporation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover will be interested in this point because he is always interested when money is misused. I found out that the Government gave the docklands corporation—just for publicity and advertising,

  459
  nothing else—£17 million in the past eight and a half years. That is due to go up another £10 million in the next three years—£27 million in 11½ years. That money could have been much better spent on public transport throughout London. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has good ideas about how that sort of money could be spent. There is discrimination in favour of docklands travellers, and we are given no reason why that is included in the statement. We can only conclude that it is part of the discrimination against the rest of London and the rest of the country.
  Mr. Skinner: Is that where Dr. Death lives?
  Mr. Cohen: Yes; he is one of the Limehouse founders.
  Mr. Skinner: He is doing all right.
  Mr. Cohen: I should not say this, and my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) advises me not to do so, but I will just say that I am sure that Dr. Death pays his fares when travelling on public transport. In fact, I doubt whether he travels on it at all. When he was in government he got into the habit of going around in chauffeured cars, and I bet that that is what he still does. Ironically, that is also what the board members of London Regional Transport do—they rarely use the public transport that they inflict on the rest of London, but go around in chauffeured cars.
  I was on the Committee which set up the London Regional Transport quango when the GLC was abolished and democratic control and democratic public input were taken away. There was a clause in the Bill allowing money to be spent on the board going around in chauffeured cars. I raised that in Committee.
  Mr. Skinner: Were they Daimlers?
  Mr. Cohen: We were not told, but I suspect that if they had the chance they would have Rolls-Royces because they are happy to waste public money, as we have seen with the automatic ticket barriers. The statement raises more problems than it solves, and we have received it on the very day that the Bill is debated in the House. Such a consultation process is desultory.
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: I do not want to divert my hon. Friend, but has he considered the possibility that, as a quid pro quo for penalty fares, a penalty in the reverse direction should be imposed on London Regional Transport, perhaps by way of a fare refund to passengers who repeatedly have to endure the lack of escalators when they are out of order for months and months? We are not getting the service that we are paying for. As people who pay our fares and use London Regional Transport a great deal—although we are provincial Members of Parliament, we have to use London transport—we do not get the service for which we are paying. The escalators simply do not work.
  Mr. Cohen: That point was well made by my hon. Friend. I support the idea of reverse penalties, which should apply when lifts are not working. I know that in Walthamstow Central the lifts were not working for six to eight months. The last time I was there they were working,
  460
  but last year they were out of action for six to eight months. If LRT had to pay all the passengers because of that, it would soon get the lifts back in order.
  Mrs. Wise: Many elerly women passengers—there are more elderly women than elderly men—are prevented from travelling at all if escalators are out of order. Women with infants and babies find that transport in London is beyond their reach if an escalator is not working.
  Mr. Cohen: I agree with my hon. Friend. Such deficiencies mean that people cannot use the public transport on which they rely. Because of the way the brain functions, when one steps on an escalator that is not working the brain thinks that it is. I am sure that we have all experienced that. It is a normal brain pattern to make allowances for moving escalators. One could easily fall down the stairs and suffer severe injuries.
  Mrs. Wise: It is even more dangerous for a woman carrying a toddler.
  Mr. Cohen: That is right. Earlier I spoke about the docklands light railway. I used that railway to go to a concert with my foster lad. It was a very good concert given by "Simply Red". Being a socialist, I was pleased to see "Simply Red' giving an excellent concert.
  Mr. Skinner: What kind of music does "Simply Red" play?
  Mr. Cohen: It plays sort of jazz and pop. My foster lad and I and everyone in the audience enjoyed the concert immensely. It was easy to get to on the docklands light railway because one almost falls out of the station—I forget which one it was—and into the concert hall. Just before the concert started, it was announced that the docklands light railway was not running back because the electricity had been cut off. The hall was packed with people and they were virtually stranded in the middle of nowhere on the Isle of Dogs. My foster lad and I had to walk back in pouring rain. Such breakdowns happen regularly because the Government, with the help of LRT, carried out a shoddy and rotten job on the railway. A shovel being pushed into the ground is enough to stop the tube. The Queen got trapped in a train.
  Mr. Skinner: On the tube?
  Mr. Cohen: The Queen does not travel on the tube. The docklands light railway is overland and passengers can get a view of the Thames and see all the building work that is going on. Apparently the Queen was travelling on that railway and some fellow put a shovel in the ground, which interfered with the electricity and the Queen was trapped in the train. The system is quite appalling, and because it was made on the cheap we are getting all these problems.
  Mr. Skinner: Is that why Prince Philip keeps saying, "Pull your finger out"?
  Mr. Cohen: His comment might have had some bearing on that, but I do not blame him becase he would not want his wife—I would not want to see anybody's wife— trapped on a train for a long time.
  All those people, myself included, were stranded on an appallingly wet evening and the situation was potentially quite dangerous. LRT should have paid fines to the people whom it had lumbered in that way. It put on a couple of buses, but they were small, cheap buses.
  Mr. Skinner: Did the Queen take a bus?
  Mr. Cohen: I do not know whether LRT laid on a bus for the Queen. I think that it was a Rolls-Royce. One of the directors had to stay in his office that day and could not go out for his expensive lunch at Claridges because his car was being used to carry the Queen. I think that that was the case, but I am not sure. He probably had two lunches the next day at the taxpayer's expense.
  Mr. Skinner: Was the whole Royal family there?
  Mr. Cohen: I think that it was just the Queen putting on a public relations show, and in many respects she does that very well.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to listen to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), but it is exceedingly difficult to do so when there is a running commentary going on.
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover spoke about the monarch not paying any poll tax. She gets away with not having to put up any money to finance London Regional Transport even though she used it on that occasion. If I was stuck in a train, I would not want to put up any money for London Regional Transport. Many Londoners are packed in like sardines—it is worse every morning and they pay dearly for it in fares and taxes. Now they have to fork out poll tax as well. I shall have more to say about that later.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I travelled on the tube this morning to come here. I had to stand with my hands down in my fraction of space and almost all the other passengers in my section could not move. How will the people checking fares move through such a compartment?
  Mr. Cohen: It will create chaos. I have been on the tube four times today already. It was crowded at midday, well after the rush hour. Three inspectors got on one of the trains on which I travelled, but in the cramped conditions that my hon. Friend describes it will be impossible for even one inspector to do his job.
  Mr. Skinner: It is a relief to come to this place—there is plenty of space here.
  Mr. Cohen: Yes, it is a blessing. There are not many hon. Members here for the debate. There are not many Conservatives here because they do not care about London Regional Transport. They do not travel on it. We rarely have a debate on LRT. Yet on one of these rare occasions, Conservative Members do not have the decency to turn up. I get a couple of letters every week from constituents complaining about bus and train services. Conservative Members must receive such letters, too. This is a rare chance to debate the matter, but they cannot be bothered to turn up.
  There is a silver lining, however. Having travelled on the tube today and been caught in the congestion, it is a pleasure to come here to a relatively quiet House and to have a bit of walking space to make a speech or to shuffle up and down the Benches. That is quite an advantage. There is little opportunity to debate London Regional Transport. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) served on the Committee that considered the Bill that set up LRT'. He did sterling work in raising issue after issue of concern to Londoners. The
  462
  then Ministers derided my hon. Friend's concern about congestion, lack of investment and all the other problems. Of course, he has now been proved right.
  When LRT took over from the Greater London council —the democratically elected transport authority for London—the Government pledged that, because there would be no democratic debate in LRT's board—its members were appointed, not elected—Members of Parliament would fulfil the role of elected councillors. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West argued that, because of problems with time and because Members of Parliament must consider national issues, they could not do such a good job as the elected local councillors had done.
  Nevertheless, the Government pledged that there would be an annual debate on LRT, under the umbrella of the levy order. Because of the introduction of poll tax, the levy order has been dropped. Londoners still pay towards LRT. The Government have reduced the grant to London local authorities, so poll tax bills are higher than they should be. We can no longer have the annual debate because the levy order has been dropped, so democratically accountable Members of Parliament cannot raise issues on behalf of their constituents.
  I wrote to the Leader of the House and complained bitterly about that, but he said that it did not matter. He said that there would be many other opportunities for hon. Members to raise points about LRT, such as during questions.
  Mr. Tony Banks: We cannot get in during questions.
  Mr. Cohen: That is right. Question Time is no substitute for a proper debate. If an hon. Member does not have a question in the top 10, he is unlikely to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. Many other national transport issues are involved.
  Having received that reply from the Leader of the House, I assumed that he meant that we could raise points in debates such as this. Perhaps that is why this Bill from LRT has jumped the queue. It is a conspiracy. The Leader of the House is trying to help me by allowing LRT to jump the queue. That is no way to deal with these matters. We are discussing a specific item about penalty fares, so London hon. Members probably do not know that they can raise other issues to do with LRT. Perhaps that is why they are not here. I had it on the good authority of the Leader of the House that we can raise other matters, and I shall do just that.
  Mrs. Wise: My hon. Friend mentioned democratic accountability. Is he aware of the good work of the GLC in making the then London Transport more accountable? Even more should have been done, and the GLC should have had a tighter grip on London Transport. My hon. Friend may not be aware of the many important changes for the benefit of women and, indeed, for the continuing good business of London Transport.
  For example, the then chair of the GLC women's committee, as an elected councillor speaking on behalf of the women of London, approached London Transport with the full facts and figures about the obnoxious advertising that was a positive danger and that caused great distress to women. She prevailed on the then board of London Transport to alter its policy and to show more respect for women. She pointed out that women were afraid to travel because of the feelings aroused by those

  463
  advertisements. She was able to do that because there was democratic accountability. All that valuable work has now been cut off.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Who was the chair of that committee?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that hon. Members will recollect that we are dealing with penalty fares.
  Mr. Cohen: I certainly recollect that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course, we are talking about fines. If deeply offensive advertisements appear on tubes and buses, LRT should be made to pay compensation to those who find them distressing.
  Mrs. Wise: London Regional Transport has not dared to revert to London Transport's policy. That democratic accountability still has a ripple effect. However, the longer that London is without a democracy the greater the danger that the gains will be lost.
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She referred to the chair of the GLC women's committee. I can reveal that it was none other than Councillor Valerie Wise, my hon. Friend's daughter. She was well trained in democratic accountability and good policies for women and for London's passengers in general. Of course, Dave Wexall also did excellent work. He has a fantastic record. If we compare how transport was run under the GLC and how it is run by the new lot, Dave Wexall comes out with flying colours. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West contributed a great deal to the improved policies and democratic accountability. The former leader of the GLC, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), played an important part.
  I sense that you are about to stop me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, we could do with a higher political profile in London. Someone like my hon. Friend——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman. I realise that he is being tempted by some very tempting interventions, but I am sure he will direct his remarks to the Bill.
  Mr. Cohen: The point about accountability is important. London Regional Transport has its hands on the money. Under this Bill, it will also have its hands on the penalty fares. It is already abusing the system with all the cuts in services. There are declining conditions—filthy stations and congestion.
  Mr. Skinner: The £26 million to which reference has been made is a flea bite compared with the £6 billion-worth of fraud that took place in the Common Market and which the Tories voted to permit. Let us not forget that, after a debate in which my hon. Friends and I said that we did not like the idea of £6 billion-worth of fraud occurring in the EC, the Tories, led by the Prime Minister, voted, in effect saying, "That's okay, because it's the Common Market."
  It is clear that we are talking about fraud, in this case said to be worth £26 million. In view of my hon. Friend's knowledge of this subject, he should explain clearly what is likely to happen to that £26 million. I have come into the Chamber to listen to my hon. Friend, whose knowledge of this subject I respect. Will he say what the new model Labour plan is for London Regional Transport? Will he
  464
  throw out a few ideas about what the future holds for LRT, without our needing to potter about with private Bills?
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will contribute to the debate later. Meanwhile, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) to encourage him by being forthright. Let us have a little adventure and imagination.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am all for adventure, so long as it is within the context of the Bill.
  Mr. Cohen: I agree with money being spent on the tubes and buses for the benefit of Londoners and passengers generally. I fear that, if we pass the Bill and LRT gets its hands on the money, it will go straight to the Treasury, which will then further reduce the subsidy to LRT, which has been cut already. We know what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will do with the money——
  Mr. Skinner: Build bigger gates at the entrance to Downing street.
  Mr. Cohen: Exactly—provide bigger gates to No. 10. In that context, I can reveal that there is a secret underground railway system from the Ministry of Defence, No. 10 and other Government Departments to certain destinations. I would like to bet that penalty fares will not be imposed on that tube line. I want the sponsor of the Bill to say whether its provisions will apply to the Prime Minister when she jumps on the secret tube that operates from No. 10 Downing street and takes her out into the country when there is a revolution. Will a penalty fare be imposed on her if she does not pay her fare? Do inspectors exist with authority to go on that secret line?
  We must have answers to those questions because, while my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover may be right to say that the additional money will go on bigger gates at the entrance to Downing street, some of it may go on improving that secret underground system, so enabling the Prime Minister, bureaucrats and top civil servants to enjoy it. Whatever happens, the public will not get the benefit of the money.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I hope that my hon. Friend is not dodging the question of what will happen to the £26 million. I understood that the case for the Bill last year was that £26 million was being lost. That was claimed before the automatic gates were introduced. Was not the idea of the automatic gates—apart from chopping people up—to stop that fraud? How much fraud is going on now, and how much is likely to be saved as a result of the Bill?
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right to say that the excuse for introducing these mechanical rottweilers, as the automatic ticket barriers can be described—let us not forget that people have been badly injured when the gates have closed on them—was to reduce the £26 million of evasion. There was no proof last year that that was the loss. But now, the mechanical rottweilers having been introduced at many stations, we are told that £26 million is still being lost. As a result, LRT is apparently introducing what is described as a touch-and-pass system.
  Mr. Skinner: What is that?
  Mr. Cohen: It is for the sponsor to answer my hon. Friend's question. I believe that it will operate on tickets the way in which goods are passed over a magic eye at

  465
  Sainsburys. A photographic eye will open the barrier, I gather, although we have yet to be told whether barriers will be associated with the new machinery. The fact that LRT is moving to a new system so quickly, having spent £150 million installing ticket barriers, is an admission that there has been an appalling waste of money by the unaccountable, Government-appointed board of LRT.
  Let us compare that expenditure of £150 million with the £26 million that it is claimed is being lost through evasion. It is said, "The Conservatives cost you less." What a waste we have witnessed already. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover was right to speak of the waste that has occurred in the Common Market. We could also refer to the fraud at Harrods——
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: About £600 million.
  Mr. Cohen: Worth millions, as my hon. Friend points out. There has not been a glimmer of action from the Government on that. We do not see any private Bills on that subject. What about the Johnson Matthey fraud?
  Mr. Skinner: About £100 million.
  Mr. Cohen: That involved millions, as my hon. Friend says.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Sedentary interruptions are putting the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) off his stride. They are most unfair.
  Mr. Cohen: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Only last week, a mugger snatched a suitcase from somebody in the street and made off with Treasury bonds, which are apparently exchangeable for cash, worth £292 million. Frankly, something stinks over that. I do not believe that an individual could have got away with a crime such as that. Organised people must have been behind it.
  Mr. Skinner: How did the mugger get away?
  Mr. Cohen: He probably made off on the tube, having paid his fare. Apparently no inspector was in evidence to ask him to open his suitcase, as will happen to others on the tube.
  As I explained, the money that is raised will go to the Treasury and be wasted, as it has wasted £83 billion of North sea oil revenues. This will be a drop in the ocean by comparison. It will be used as a bribe at the next general election and, when that is over, it will finance huge tax cuts for the rich. In other words, somebody who has not paid his fare will be caught and the money raised by that means will go to the rich, rather than to LRT to run a better service for its passengers.
  The railway inspectorate's report on one-man operated trains has been censored. We do not know how dangerous such trains will be—for example, they may have to stop deep in tunnels—but when they are introduced, fare evasion will increase, just as it did on the buses.
  High fares also mean greater fare evasion. When fares go up way above the rate of inflation, as they have done, more people cannot afford them and so are encouraged to try to avoid paying. There should be better ticket facilities at every station—not just machines but ticket offices with staff. At the moment, with one person at each ticket office there are big queues, and that encourages people in a hurry to dodge a queue and not pay their fares. They are
  466
  desperate to get into work, yet they see train after train going. They are afraid that the boss will fine them—not London Regional Transport—by docking their wages if they do not get to work on time. Staffing is a key element.
  In line with Government policy, LRT can spend as much money as it wants on white elephants such as ticket barriers—just like the channel tunnel and other such projects—but the purpose is to cut staff; to put people out of work who would otherwise be doing a good job and playing a role in safety. The Government do not care how much money they spend on throwing people out of work. They see that as weakening trade unions.
  Mrs. Wise: Is my hon. Friend aware of another hazard that arises from the introduction of machines which accept £5 notes? If a machine goes wrong, because of the lack of staff, a passenger must wait and wait. It is embarrassing to have to elbow a queue aside for attention, but people simply cannot afford to leave their £5 note in the machine. That illustrates the need for more staff to help in the issuing of tickets, which in turn will reduce fare evasion.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Machines which will take an arm and a leg.
  Mr. Cohen: Taking £5 for a fare is taking an arm and a leg.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Preston makes heir point well. Lack of staff could lead to terrific disruption and perhaps even a punch-up. People who cannot get their change to see them through the day could cause a fuss while lots of other people are waiting in the queue. I do not have a narrow mouth, as witnessed by my long speech, but many station entrances do, and that makes the automatic ticket barriers dangerous.
  The frustration created by not being able to obtain change or by waiting in a queue could lead to a serious punch-up and even loss of life. When that happens, LRT and its board will disclaim all responsibility. They will say that it was nothing to do with them because they were not there, and they will not have been there because their staff will not have been there.
  I have said where the money from such penalty fares will go under this Government, but under a Labour Government it would go towards improving the service for passengers. We had a voluminous report on the terrible tragedy at King's Cross, but many of its recommendations have not been carried out. LRT has only just got round to banning smoking on the underground, but it has not banned the shops on the stations from selling cigarettes. Many other recommendations have not been implemented. Safety drills have not been implemented. Again, staffing is crucial to safety procedures. I am sad to have to say that the lessons of the King's Cross fire have not been learnt.
  Often, when I travel on the tube, I can see that something has been going on. Too many people are waiting, or a platform is empty, and one knows that something has happened. A couple of weeks ago, I was travelling home by car after a late vote in the House when I saw fire engines outside the Embankment station. Luckily, it was late at night, but if it had been the rush hour, the station would have been very busy, because many people, even Members of Parliament, change lines there. There could have been a terrible accident. Fires are still occurring.

  467
  The lessons of King's Cross have not been learnt, and one reason for that is that there is no money to improve safety measures and to clean up stations. Stations and trains are squalid and dirty. The seats on the train that I travelled on today were falling off; they were uncomfort-able and filthy. Many cleaning staff have been cut. It is most unpleasant for Londoners to travel in such conditions. Even when a train is relatively uncongested, it is most unpleasant to have to sit in such filth and squalor.
  The Labour party has said that it will move in the right direction, but I hope that we will put money into safety, into a big clean-up of the underground and into reversing the cuts on the buses. Many pensioners make great use of the free bus pass which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West and I were instrumental in winning, with the assistance of all London's pensioners. But what is the good of having a pass without the buses?
  Mr. Tony Banks: I take this opportunity to make it clear from the Front Bench on behalf of the Labour party that, when we form the next Government, one of the prime responsibilities of the new London council, which a Labour Government will install through elections in London, will be for transport and transport planning, and many of the good points which my hon. Friend is making in his excellent speech tonight will, I am sure, be embodied in future Government policy.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will return to the Bill.
  Mr. Cohen: We are talking about a £10 penalty and, given the level of fare evasion, that will be a lot of money.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The fines last year were £10 and £5. I understand that, in the past 12 months, there has been a certain measure of inflation. My pensioners reckon that it is about 15 or 16 per cent. I gather that the Government will announce an inflation figure of 9·9 per cent. tomorrow as a fantastic triumph. If there has been 10 per cent. inflation, should not the penalties be £11 and £5·50? Does my hon. Friend accept that, in the Bill, the Secretary of State has power, by order, to increase the figure? Will he inquire of the Minister whether he intends to increase the penalties some time within the next couple of years?
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend has made some telling points. First, he asked why the level of the proposed fine would not take inflation into account. That is because London Regional Transport has given no justification for wanting a particular level of fine: the figure has been plucked out of the air. The point about the Minister being able to alter the fine at random, and without the House debating it properly, is associated with what I said earlier about the rights of debate being taken away from London hon. Members.
  That is another reason why we should reject the Bill tonight: it is a blank cheque. Notwithstanding the £5 or £10 specified in the explanatory statement, the day after the Bill was passed, the Minister could say that the Government were increasing that figure to £25 or £50. The House would have no control over that.
  I am not convinced that we should go along the route of penalty fines, but money spent by a future Labour Government would be spent on improved safety,
  468
  improved services, keeping fares down, better staffing and better cleaning on our buses and in our stations. That is what the people want.
  Mrs. Wise: Does my hon. Friend agree that any penalty or punishment is effective only if people are caught? The elaborate arrangement of barriers is extremely effective —I fear, too effective: I am nervous in case there is a fire. Even with that effective barrier system, if people continue to evade fares, how can they be caught in the future?
  The imposition of a penalty in a Bill is not the same as imposing it on a person. LRT has said that as it will take fewer criminal prosecutions. Does that make it less likely that people will be caught, and more likely that people will take the risk of a £10 fine, rather than the disgrace of a prosecution? Surely that would work against LRT.
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I shall refer to on-the-spot fines later, and whether they will lead to a criminal record.
  In my opinion, the barriers have not worked. The problem is that LRT seems to be putting its efforts into what could be a violent campaign. If the inspectors—such as the three that I saw this morning—cannot get their fare, presumably there will be a punch-up if people try to escape without paying. I can envisage a "Rambo of the LRT": there will be films about "The Bill"—the "Transport Bill" along the lines of "Starsky and Hutch" and "Miami Vice". There is only a small amount of fare evasion, but a would-be script writer for the BBC, the IBA or Sky Television could perhaps create a series called "Tottenham Court Road Vice".
  Mrs. Wise: Has my hon. Friend read clause 5 (2)(a) of the Bill? It excludes from penalty anyone who finds that, when he started to travel,
  "there were no facilities available for the sale of the necessary fare ticket for his journey."
  Is my hon. Friend aware that that is quite a common occurrence? I can envisage much nervousness being engendered in passengers who are forced to travel without a fare, and may have to argue the toss about whether they are travelling illegally, or whether that had been thrust on them. Although the Bill excludes them, I can envisage some unpleasant incidents. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be better to have staff to issue the tickets in the first place, instead of thrusting apparent evasion upon people?
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that clause. Apart from the nervousness caused to passengers who could not obtain a ticket, trying to prove that there were no facilities available at the station where they boarded will be almost impossible, especially when they are surrounded by three burly inspectors. In many cases, I suspect that the money will be forced out of people by intimidation. There should be an absolute guarantee that staff will be available to issue tickets at stations every minute of the day, but there is nothing along those lines in the Bill.
  There has been virtually no consultation. LRT has imposed many cuts—for example, on the 38 and 55 bus services that used to run from Leyton garage. That cut was arbitrary. I tabled early-day motion 630, which says:
  "That this House condemns London Regional Transport for cutting the 38 and 55 bus routes from Leyton; notes that this is not only means a reduced service to the public enforcing upon them bus changes, longer waits, extra cost and less safety but also a threat to the jobs at Leyton Bus Garage; and

  469
  is further angry at the unaccountable way in which London Regional Transport made this decision effectively ignoring hundreds of letters and a thousand plus signed petition opposing the cuts."
  Now the number is approaching 2,000.
  I received a copy of a letter from Mr. Le Jeune, who is a public relations officer at LRT. It was addressed to the second sponsor of my motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). The letter said that there had been consultation before the cuts to the 38 and 55 buses were made: it was a public relations diatribe.
  LRT did indeed consult; the reply from 1,800 people was that they did not want the cuts. However, it went ahead with them. It was nonsense to say that people were consulted. It is no good consulting people and then not taking any notice of what they say. There has been chicanery on the part of the public relations people in LRT.
  In March, London Labour Members of Parliament received a letter from the chairman of LRT. He said that the other system of consultation with Members had not been working—I did not know that there was one—and that he would arrange a one-off dinner for London Labour Members. A dinner is a poor substitute for a democratic input of information, but we were to have a dinner. I intended to raise at it the cuts in the Nos. 38 and 55 bus services and the objections of the 1,800 people. Surprise, surprise—the dinner was cancelled. LRT is not interested in an input from the people. Now the dinner has been set up for late July. That is the consultation that is to take place with London Labour Members. It is absolutely derisory.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is wandering away from the Bill; I am sure that he will come back to it.
  Mr. Cohen: I was setting the scene in regard to consultation about the Bill. I have already mentioned the short letter we got from the sponsors and the statement we got today in the post. That statement is full of holes. There has not been proper consultation with hon. Members or with councillors. I do not think that there has been any consultation with London councillors. I do not think that there has even been consultation with trade unions. Why does not the statement tell us what the trade unions think about the Bill? When the Bill was before us last Session, I asked what the trade unions had to say because their members may suffer violence as a result of the Bill. Yet again it comes before us, with not a word about what the trade unions think. If they have been consulted, the consultation has not been of much use.
  What consultation has there been with the public? Have there been any advertisements in the underground to let people know that the Bill is going through Parliament and that they have a right to make suggestions to LRT or to their Members of Parliament? I have not seen any advertisements. I suspect that most of the public have no idea that we are discussing the matter, because LRT is not interested in telling the public about its plans.
  Mrs. Wise: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not just a London matter but that the transport arrangements in the capital affect people who travel to London for many purposes from all parts of the country? Even if there had been excellent consultation arrangements for London
  470
  Members, it would be grossly inadequate if Members generally were not consulted. It is the concern of all hon. Members.
  Does my hon. Friend further accept that it was probably a great service to him that LRT cancelled the consultation dinner, because many of his constituents might have misunderstood it if he had gone to a dinner with LRT when their bus services were being cut? My recommendation would be to insist that LRT consults properly at meetings which are held for the purpose and which are open to the public.
  Mr. Cohen: I agree with my hon. Friend, but when there is no other opportunity to raise the concern of my constituents, I have to take whatever opportunities I can. It is not for need of a dinner that I would go—I probably go to fewer dinners than other hon. Members—but it would be a rare opportunity to raise the concern of my constituents.
  I intended to co-ordinate the March dinner with the handing in of postcards signed by many objectors in my constituency. When the dinner was cancelled, we went along with the postcards and the petition against the cuts in services. LRT refused to accept the petition. I was forced to send it to the then Minister, even though I knew what response I would get from him. That is a joke as well. All he said was, "Thank you for the petition, but it is a matter for LRT."
  I suspect that the new Minister will say the same when he has got his feet properly under the table, because that is what he did in regard to the Health Service. Previously, I raised with him the budget deficits and the chronic and life-threatening underfunding of local health authorities. He replied that it was a matter not for him but for the local health authority——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not dealing with the Health Service; that is miles away from the Bill.
  Mr. Cohen: I am talking not about the Health Service but about the pattern of Minister's behaviour when they get petitions.
  When there are protests over the working of the legislation, passengers may be beaten up by inspectors, or an innocent bystander may be caught in a terrible fracas. As a result, relatives may write to their Member. If the Member tries to take the matter up with LRT, it will say that it is not accountable. If the Member passes the complaint to the Minister for Public Transport, he will say that it has nothing to do with him but is a matter for LRT.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish was right to point out in an earlier intervention that penalty fares will be an opportunity for the application of a lower standard of proof. That was pooh-poohed by the sponsor, the hon. Member for Ilford, South, but I cannot see how there can be anything but lower standards. An inspector will tell the passenger to pay up because the law says that he must do so. The passenger may say that he was not disobeying the law because there were no facilities to buy a ticket at the station where he got on the train. He may even quote the provision to which my hon. Friend the Member for Preston has referred, but the inspector will tell him that, if he does not pay up, he will go to court and get a criminal record.
  I foresee an additional problem. I am not straying from the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but just this week I read in a newspaper about two people impersonating social

  471
  workers in an attempt to get access to children. That was a shocking case, and I hope that they are caught and dealt with. Impersonation takes place. I can envisage impersonation on trains.
  All someone needs is a uniform; some poor London Transport inspector may even be mugged for his uniform. Someone impersonating an inspector will be free to roam up and down every train, collecting penalty fares. There is nothing in the Bill to say how that will be stopped. LRT may say that it has transport police, but the problem of impersonation has not been covered. Some people will stop at nothing to make a few bob. Desperate individuals will see it as an easy way of conning the public.
  There is no mention in LRT's statement of whether a person will get a criminal record under the new system. Paragraph 5 of LRT's statement confirms:
  "This penalty would be payable on the spot or within 21 days but, if the passenger refuses to pay the penalty, the Corporation could, and do intend to, institute civil, rather than criminal, proceedings for recovery, except in cases involving flagrant dishonesty when prosecutions will be brought."
  It is all very well saying that, but advert after advert warns that people must buy a ticket if they are not to get a criminal record. We must be clear whether a person risks a criminal record following the implementation of this legislation.
  What will happen to the information about a person's name and address, which must be given when the spot fine is paid? Data are already exchanged between Government Departments and provided to other organisations that should not receive them. Information provided in connection with the poll tax ends up with all kinds of credit agencies and senders of junk mail.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can my hon. Friend explain how the inspector can be sure that he has been given the right name and address? Is there not a danger that individuals will give false information, so that a person who was never involved ends up with a criminal record? Also, how will payment within 21 days be enforced if the information is false?
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes two excellent points. If false information is given, the fine cannot be enforced. That implies that inspectors will really have to lean on the individual, demanding to see proper identification. If it is not produced, all kinds of heavy tactics might come into play. A person who happens not to be carrying any identification may find himself taken to the police station and criminalised.
  It is even possible that people will maliciously give the name and address of a person they do not like—perhaps a neighbour. The Government are currently into a campaign of encouraging people to snitch on their neighbour. That is how the poll tax will develop. When the Government start running anti-scrounger campaigns, they will say, "Snitch on your neighbour. Who lives with your neighbour and should be paying poll tax?" The Government will encourage the public to snitch under this Bill as well.
  In these days of modern data transfer, there now exist minicomputers and microcomputers. Within a few years, inspectors could be walking around carrying a micro-computer into which they will be able to enter the name
  472
  and address of the fine payer, which information will then be transferred on to a large database at Broadway, or wherever the offices are. An innocent person could find that his name has been entered into the records, yet he will have no chance to have it deleted. His first problem will arise when he is brought before the court and denies that he was the individual concerned. The magistrate may say, "I don't believe you. You are fined anyway." That individual's good character will be besmirched.
  Under the Data Protection Act 1984, the public cannot have access to police records to see whether any information that they contain is incorrect and to have it corrected. Both the police and the security services have exemption from the provisions of that legislation. Some poor individual named by another as a fare dodger may find his name entered into the police records, with no opportunity to have a correction made. The advertisements warn "Get a ticket, not a criminal record." They feature a man who has a respectable job in the City and who is likely to lose it because of his criminal record for fare dodging. An innocent person could find himself in the same situation because of the Bill.
  The sponsor referred to a dispute and appeals procedure. Come off it. How will that work in reality? The dispute procedure will be a blooming great punch-up.
  Mrs. Wise: Paragraph (2) of the preamble, on page 1 of the Bill, states:
  "It is the general duty of London Regional Transport pursuant to section 2 of the said Act of 1984, in accordance with principles from time to time approved by the Secretary of State and in conjunction with the British Railways Board, to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services for Greater London and in carrying out that duty London Regional Transport shall have due regard to (a) the transport needs for the time being of Greater London and (b) efficiency, economy and safety of operation".
  Later, it is stated that it is in pursuance of those objectives that LRT is presenting the Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the current state of London's transport services, and given the duty placed on LRT to ensure
  "efficiency, economy and safety of operation"
  and that the capital's transport needs are met, it is extraordinary that the only measure that LRT has seen fit to put before the House is one dealing with fare penalties?
  Does not my hon. Friend agree that LRT should concern itself more with a great many other matters? If fare penalties were but one aspect of a comprehensive programme of improving London's transport, the House might look with more favour upon the Bill. In the circumstances, is it not extraordinary that LRT can state its general duties but then go on to present the provisions that are in the Bill?
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill by no means represents part of a comprehensive package covering the capital's transport needs as a whole, or in respect only of LRT's
  "efficiency, economy and safety of operation".
  It is the only measure that LRT has put before the House. We have never been asked to consider fare levels, congestion, or the filth and squalor that are all part of the same issue.
  "London in Need", a report by the London Boroughs Grants Committee and the London Research Centre, states:

  473
  "Recent events such as major accidents on both the Underground and British Rail have led to a loss of confidence in the safety of London's transport systems."
  Safety was one of the items referred to in the Bill. The report goes on to criticise ticket barriers and says that:
  "The cost of travel by public transport in London is high. According to the Association of London Authorities, fares are higher than any other city in the EC. That creates particular problems for people on low incomes, who may be unable to afford a car and are reliant on public transport."
  That is a good point well made. Such people will be encumbered with penalties as well.
  I have here the latest edition of the "Capital Transport Bulletin"—no, not the latest, but the March-April edition. I have not seen a May edition yet. It is probably the latest edition. It contains an index of public transport fares for 1987 which shows that London was well ahead of Oslo, Copenhagen, Vienna, Dusseldorf, Helsinki, Zurich, Dublin, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Madrid, Tokyo, Geneva, Brussels, New York, Chicago, Luxembourg, Los Angeles, Toronto, Sydney, Paris, Montreal, Lisbon, Houston, Milan, Nicosia and Athens. Fares in some of those cities cost half or a third as much as fares in London. In 1987 the only city with higher fares was Stockholm, which has a small and wealthy population compared with London.
  Since 1987 there have been fare rises well above the rate of inflation. It would not surprise me if we did not have the highest fares now.
  The "London in Need" report also says:
  "Women have less access to private transport than men and, because many are carers of young children, elderly people and people with disabilities, they tend to suffer more from the inaccessibility of transport systems and irregular services."
  I should have thought that that would have been covered by a comprehensive package in the part of the Bill which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston. It mentions economy, efficiency, safety and the transport needs of London travellers.
  Personal safety is a major anxiety for Londoners when they walk or use public transport. The report continues:
  "While overcrowding is a problem during peak hours, deserted trains and stations are also a problem, particularly late at night. When questioned about travelling by public transport at night, female respondents to a survey by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust in March 1989, said they were most uneasy about travelling by underground, followed by British Rail, and were least worried about travelling by bus. There is a need for more staff and better lighting at stations at night."
  The need for better lighting has not so far been mentioned. London Regional Transport has given no sign that it would spend the money which it intends to raise by penalty fares on such things as better lighting. I doubt if it will.
  London Regional Transport has had a vast amount of money passing through its coffers. Fares have increased substantially over the period that it has been in control, but the money has not gone on lighting or safety. In the Bill all we get is a small part of a package about penalty fares and not the comprehensive improvement that it needs.
  The "London in Need" report also said:
  "Two women-only taxi services are currently operating in Hammersmith and Lambeth; there is a need for similar schemes to be set up in other areas."
  London Regional Transport is not interested in that but it is supposed to provide public transport, to work for the public.
  Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept—and he may dwell on this for a little while—that LRT's investment in
  474
  ticket machines is in contrast to the large number of escalators which are supposed to carry thousands of people every day but are out of use, being repaired in many underground stations? That leads to congestion, danger and difficulty for thousands of people. Surely LRT's first concern should be the thousands of people travelling on its services, but they would appear to be its last concern.
  Mr. Cohen: That is a good point, and my hon. Friend the Member for Preston mentioned it earlier. I shall repeat what I said to her. There should be penalty fines in reverse. British Telecom has set up such a system, although it is pretty weak. I am not sure that it has ever paid out under the system, but it claims to pay if it does not provide a good service. London Regional Transport should do that. However, if that were enacted, as LRT is run so incompetently at the moment it would never stop paying out. LRT would not be able to run a transport service because it would be continually paying out. It is incompetent and makes vicious cuts that are against the public interest, such as those to the 38 and 55 bus routes in my constituency.
  Mrs. Wise: Has my hon. Friend thought about the peculiarity of the Bill's long title? It states that the Bill empowers the charging of penalty fares, but it goes on "and for related purposes". I have looked through the Bill and I cannot find any related purposes. I can find only provisions relating to penalty fares and that is why I am so critical of the Bill. Could it be that LRT has some plan to introduce other clauses that have not yet been disclosed if the Bill receives a Second Reading and reaches Committee? Otherwise, why should those drafting the Bill take the precaution of including the phrase "and for related purposes"? Has my hon. Friend any ideas about what those related purposes could possibly be?
  Mr. Cohen: That is a good point. We have already heard that the Minister has powers to make regulations to increase fines at will without telling the House. There have been a couple of private Members' Bills, including the one last Friday that was diluted somewhat by my amendment —it was the best I could do in the circumstances. The Computer Misuse Bill was brought to the Floor of the House without police powers, but when it reached Committee it suddenly included some stringent search powers. The Sexual Offences Bill about kerb crawling is to be debated tomorrow. I admit that there needs to be legislation to deal with men who kerb crawl, but all of a sudden inserted into that Bill are considerable police powers, which I suspect will be aimed more at women than at men. If the Bill receives a Second Reading tonight, I wonder whether strong police powers will be inserted into it backed by the Metropolitan police and London Regional Transport. The Bill is about collecting fares, but in my view it is also about increasing violence and intimidation. LRT will need those powers if it is to use such methods.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I would not want my hon. Friend to mislead the House. There are some stringent rules that apply to private Bills which cannot grow in scope because of the rights of people to petition from outside. The Bill can be only narrowed in scope.
  Mr. Cohen: I appreciate that and bow to my hon. Friend's expertise, but I am worried about the Bill's related purposes. I remind my hon. Friend what happened when

  475
  automatic ticket barriers were first introduced. I cannot remember all the details, but we had specific assurances that their use would be strictly limited, that other entrances would be open at all times and that they would be staffed to assist people who had problems using the automatic ticket barriers. But within a short time the alternative entrances had been blocked off and people were forced to use the automatic barriers. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish raised the matter and pointed out that it was a breach of the undertakings that had been given at the time.
  I am worried that the Bill provides for related purposes as LRT will latch on to that to breach any undertakings that are given or say that any breach is covered by that phrase. I understand my hon. Friend's point that the Bill can be only narrowed in scope, but I wonder why the phrase was used in the first place.
  Mr. Cryer: It may well be that LRT has some order-making powers. Previous private Bills that have become Acts grant order-making powers in the form of byelaws to such bodies as LRT. It may well be that the idea is that, once the Bill is enacted, it will be possible to produce more bylaws within the framework of the Bill and to say that they are related to the legislation which has the authority of Parliament. I say that because it is amazing that Parliament has granted so many powers to so many people over the years.
  Mr. Cohen: That is a good point. I must bow to the great expertise of my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Denton and Reddish, who have a wealth of experience from Committees about the procedures and workings of the House. Their points are especially relevant.
  It is likely not only that regulations can be made to substantially increase the fines—and perhaps for other, unknown purposes—but that there may be byelaws, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South suggested. Everything hinges on the phrase "and related purposes". We do not know what we are buying, if that is the correct word, if we pass the Bill on that basis.
  The Bill refers to the "transport needs" of London. Penalty fares are allegedly a part of London Regional Transport working for London's transport needs as a whole. What about the disabled? The report by the London Research Centre for the London Boroughs Grants Committee says:
  "People with disabilities have limited access to transport in London; this restricts their access to employment, education, leisure and other opportunities. The absence of lifts at most Underground stations, a lack of staff at stations and a lack of information about the ability to interchange from one mode of transport to another, inhibits the ability of people with disabilities to travel in the capital. While the number of Dial-a-Ride journeys made in 1988/89 rose to over 540,000, a condition of LRT funding only allows them to be short ie to no more than one mile outside borough boundaries."—
  a ridiculous restriction
  "Greater operational integration between the various types of transport service in London is needed and Dial-a-Ride should be able to provide longer journeys."
  I agree. There is nothing about that in the Bill although it talks about the "transport needs" of London, and about "efficiency, economy and safety". If disabled people
  476
  cannot get to their place of employment, that does little for London's economy and discriminates against the disabled. There is nothing in the Bill for the disabled.
  The position for the disabled is becoming worse. I have heard enormous protests from those concerned with dial-a-ride and from the disabled about the regionalisation plans of London Regional Transport. I see that you are becoming anxious, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I do not know why. I am talking about the transport needs of London as a whole.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I am becoming anxious because the Bill is about the penalty fares of those travelling without valid tickets. The hon. Gentleman's remarks seem to have little to do with that.
  Mr. Cohen: I was wondering whether penalty fares would apply to disabled people travelling on the system as a whole. There is already great discrimination against disabled people travelling on the system. They have to seek permission before they can travel on the tube and the buses are appalling as well. I referred to the booklet "Capital Transport Bulletin" of the Capital Transport Campaign. The campaign has drawn up a petition which says:
  "Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House take necessary legislative action to require that all new buses and coaches purchased from 1992 by operators in the United Kingdom be accessible to all people with disabilities including all wheelchair users."
  That petition will come to the House and I hope that it has a great horde of signatures.
  Presumably, a disabled person who tries to use the underground without permission could find himself having to pay a penalty fare. Let us suppose that a disabled person went up to the ticket office and said, "I should like permission to travel on the tube" and the member of staff concerned said, "Nothing to do with me, guy; I don't know what the rules are." That disabled person could then find when he had boarded the train that an inspector came along and asked him, "Where is your permission? Penalty fare imposed!" That could happen. I do not know whether it will, but it certainly could and, if it does, the disabled will be discriminated against once more.
  Let us suppose that disabled people use the dial-a-ride services. Will penalty fares apply on dial-a-ride? I should not think so, but it must be said that there is a dispute between the dial-a-ride committees and LRT at the moment, and a huge row about the regionalisation proposals. I could read the House some of the letters that I have received. Presumably, if LRT does not get its way, it will punish the dial-a-ride associations, and penalty fares may be one way of doing that.
  Mr. Cryer: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on circumstances in which a disabled person obtains access but does not have a ticket because there is too much of a hurry or because he is busy handling a wheelchair? Is it not likely that if he is accused of not paying his fare and is therefore subject to a penalty fare, he will seek to avoid further action? Clause 9(1)(a) provides that no action is to be taken if the passenger has paid the penalty fare to the person providing the service. The disabled person might well feel that the easiest way out is to pay the fare and get the authorities off his back. The Bill thus allows for a potential intimidation of disabled people who already face great difficulties in life without having such obligations thrust upon them.
  Mr. Cohen: Yes, I think that there is an element of intimidation. I have given some examples already. I think that the Bill will lead to the intimidation of able-bodied people—let alone disabled people, always supposing that they can gain access to the transport system in the first place, which a lot of them cannot because LRT has been slow to improve access to buses and train services.
  As I said, there are many problems with the dial-a-ride system. One local resident in Waltham Forest, Mr. Docking of the Walthamstow Older Persons Forum, complained about it. He said that the regionalisation—I presume that he also means the penalty fares or other penalties imposed by LRT on disabled people—
  "will take away all local control. Should this change come about it will affect the most vulnerable persons in our community, the old and impaired, and those who suffer from some disability and cannot always use public transport. Also, there are many of our older community who are afraid to use a normal bus service at night when they wish to make a visit. The more difficult it becomes to obtain a Dial-a-Ride bus the more people become homebound. This change, should it come, could cause a number of things to happen—fewer buses to cope with a greater number of people. A complete breakdown of the system unable to cope with the already unsatisfactory booking system. and shorter journeys. Dial-a-Ride has already suffered by a shortage of buses. Are we now beginning to see the end? Is this what London Transport would like to see? When are we going to be consulted on the changes that affect our way of life—or are we just to settle for a cup of tea and a chat and accept what we are given?"
  They do not even get a cup of tea and a chat but they are certainly being told that they must accept what they have been given.
  We have not had satisfactory answers from LRT about its plans for the regionalisation of dial-a-ride. These matters are related to the Bill, and I make no apology for referring to the state of the underground or the cuts in the 38 and 55 bus routes for the very reason that I gave at the beginning of my speech. We have been refused the opportunity to debate LRT issues in the House and the system entails no local democratic accountability.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is puzzling that London Regional Transport preferred to take the time of the House to introduce this measure on penalty fares rather than deal with some of the serious issues to which he referred? Would it not have been far better if it had not introduced a Bill such as this but suggested to the Government that, if we need a system of penalties, it should be introduced across the whole country, not on a local basis? It would have been far better to introduce a Bill to improve London transport along the lines that my hon. Friend suggested.
  Mr. Cohen: That is the case. We are still waiting for a comprehensive set of proposals for London Regional Transport on which the London public can be fully consulted and can have an input in decision-making. We need proposals that will make a significant improvement in the transport system. My hon. Friend is right that penalty fares should not be a small part of a piecemeal package for London—the rest of the package is non-existent—which does not apply to the rest of the country.
  The Government should have said to LRT, "Go to the back of the queue on the penalty fares issue. First, we want to extend to the rest of the country the system introduced by the GLC of free travel for pensioners." That should have had a higher priority than penalty fares.
  478
  It is not simply a matter of fare dodging in London. There is a lot more to the matter, such as safety, cleaning up the tube and introducing lower fares. Those points should also have come higher.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has rightly dealt extensively with the system. I refer him to the original cause of the Bill, which is the entirely unsubstantiated claim on which we have received a trivial and meretricious document from the promoters—who receive large sums of money for doing very little—about the amounts that are lost through fare dodging. We do not support fare dodging. LRT should have known that the cost would be dwelt on because it has been dwelt on before. Will my hon. Friend explain that there are still fare dodgers on conductor-operated buses —Routemaster buses on central routes and one-man or one-woman operated buses on other routes? Does he agree that the expensive ticket equipment that is supposed to work superbly, which was installed at a cost of many millions of pounds, was supposed to stop people getting on trains without a ticket anyway?
  Mr. Cohen: That is right and it was touched on in the earlier part of the debate. The figures presented in the statement by LRT were completely unsubstantiated. LRT failed to come to any conclusions about the impact of the ticket barriers on fare dodging. It has simply churned out the same figures again. If the figures have not changed, automatic ticket barriers were a complete waste of millions and millions of pounds. The people responsible should be sacked for wasting public money.
  Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the old argument about sacking incompetent managers is long gone? They should be transferred to repairing the escalators at the same rates of pay as the people who usually do the work.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us keep to penalty fares.
  Mr. Cohen: The point has been made and I shall take Mr. Deputy Speaker's advice and not dwell on that matter, but clearly high salaries are being paid. I expect that high salaries will not be paid to the inspectors. I saw three inspectors on the train this morning. They were women, put in the front line of potential violence. It may be that the fact that they are women will mean that violence will not take place. Their gender might help to stop violence in some cases. But it is typical of LRT to put women in the front line of the potential risk. I bet anything that those women are not highly paid but low paid for the risk that they take.
  We should discuss in the House whether it will be the policy for inspectors to go round in threes to collect the penalty fare. A much better job for them would be looking after women's safety, rather than collecting the penalty fares. There should be good intercom systems so that if women are employed in the job—I do not begrudge them being employed in protecting other passengers because they do a good job and there are, quite rightly, women police officers—there must be a rapid back-up available.
  In this discussion on penalty fares we have not heard what back-up inspectors will have. Will there be any? A train operated by one person might stop in a deep tunnel and there might be violence due to a dispute over a penalty fare. What sort of back-up would there be for inspectors

  479
  in the middle of a dangerous fracas? We have not heard a word about that in all the various times that the Bill has come before the House, which is quite scandalous.
  No penalty fines will be imposed on those using the 38 and 55 buses because those buses have been cut. If they were reinstituted, I would be prepared to consider curtailing my speech, not raise so many issues and perhaps give the Bill a fairer wind. But we have heard nothing from the Government or LRT. They will not take our representations properly into account so the cuts are in place, despite public opposition to them in Leyton.
  There could be a severe threat to jobs at Leyton garage because of the cuts on those two popular and useful bus services. I am informed that already an extra 500 people who use those buses to get to the west end and St. Bartholomew's hospital—who pay their fares regularly, would never get a penalty fare if such a system operated because they are model passengers and are only too keen to pay and use good local bus services—will now have to use the tube system that is already chronically overcrowded.
  I invite the sponsor and LRT managers to come on the Central line to Walthamstow Central and Leytonstone tube stations in the rush hour. They should get out of their Rolls-Royces and chauffeur-driven cars, and come in the rush hour to see how overcrowded those tube stations are. They are forcing people in the Lea Bridge area of Leyton to join those terrible overcrowded trains. They should come along with some of those residents. Lea Bridge road is a couple of miles away from those tube stations and when the bus is not operating residents have to walk or change buses, which entails long waits. That places an enormous burden on those people who have never collected a penalty fare. However, LRT is punishing them by cutting the local bus service.
  The demand for buses is increasing but LRT's reaction is to reduce the service. It has even decided to reduce bus services because it claims that the roads are too congested. What a cockeyed and about-turn way to look at things. LRT should be pressuring the Government to restrict private cars and increase bus lanes and public transport on the routes along the Lea Bridge road so that people will get out of their cars and use public transport. We have heard crazy notions from the board of LRT, which has no idea of the real problems or how to deal with them. The board had abdicated its responsibility for what the Bill calls
  "the transport needs for the time being of Greater London and (b) efficiency, economy and safety of operation;".
  The feeble and pathetic little measure before the House will impose penalty fares for which no good reason has been given. The purpose is to raise a small amount of income for LRT, but the money will not be spent on the system—it will go into the Treasury coffers and the Government will use it for other wider political services. In the meantime, London passengers are badly treated with late, filthy trains and buses, long delays, dirty stations and poor standards of safety.
  I oppose the Bill. I have a file full of representations from constituents who are bitterly angry about cuts in the No. 38 and No. 55 bus services. They are also bitterly angry at the response of LRT, which has not taken their protests into account.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, but he does not seem to have described two crimes which I encountered recently in connection with the new gates on the underground. Someone who looks a bit dozy enters the tube station followed by another person who puts a ticket into the machine. The first person, who is obviously without a ticket, takes the ticket of the second person, nips through the gates and on to the platform leaving the genuine ticket holder without a ticket.
  The second situation relates to someone leaving the station. He puts a single journey ticket into the machine and is followed by a person who puts in a ticket that is either for several journeys that day or a season ticket. The single journey ticket does not come out of the machine and the person who inserted it lingers long enough to snatch the ticket of the person who is following. I suspect that those two crimes are developing on the underground. Will the penalty system work or will it deter inspectors from chasing that sort of crime?
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend raises two important matters which have been raised before in the House. I have a thick file here, and another in my office, containing letters protesting against the cuts on the No. 38 and No. 55 bus routes. Those files are as big as the ones that I have full of letters from people protesting about the automatic ticket barriers. They gave the same sort of examples as those cited by my hon. Friend of people losing their season tickets. The cost of a season ticket can run into four figures, and will probably go even higher under this Government. The shortage of staff at stations means that criminals know that they can easily get away with that sort of crime. There is nothing in the Bill to tackle that.
  Will the Minister put pressure on LRT to spell out its intentions for the automatic ticket barriers? It is introducing a touch-and-pass scheme. What will be the cost of that? It appears that LRT has endless amounts of money to spend on all sorts of ideas that have not been properly thought out and without having consulted. That lack of consultation and democracy lead to appalling schemes which waste vast sums of money. How much will the touch-and-pass scheme cost? Will there be a ticket barrier removal programme? If not, why not?
  Will the two schemes run at the same time? What about the safety implications of the ticket barriers? In narrow-necked tube stations they are a tremendous safety problem. The Government and LRT have been let off lightly because we have not had another King's Cross. I am very pleased about that, but there have been a number of fires. The automatic ticket barriers are part of a package to catch the fare evader. Penalty fares are another part of that package. London Regional Transport has concentrated on that to the exclusion of all the other problems faced by London passengers, and it cannot even get that policy right, despite having spent millions of pounds on it.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend mentioned cuts in two bus routes in his constituency—apparently for the curious reason that LRT wants to take the buses off the road because they cause congestion. Clause 3 makes it clear that the Bill applies to any bus or train service. When in operation, one or two people will go around checking tickets. If there is a confrontation on a one-man operated bus, the bus will have to stop while it is sorted out. The money will be demanded and the penalty fare will be imposed. If the inspectors operate frequently, buses will be

  481
  at the side of the road during any altercations. That works against the argument that LRT used when it withdrew the bus routes.
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I remember a standard joke when one-man-operated buses were introduced. It was about the bus that crashed. When the driver was asked what happened, he replied, "I was upstairs collecting the fares at the time." I fear that there will be a similar running joke as a result of this measure. Following an accident, when a driver is asked what happened he will reply, "I don't know—I was inside the bus trying to collect penalty fares."
  We do not know the trade union view of the Bill. If I am right and it is likely to lead to more altercations, assaults and violence, bus drivers and conductors and train drivers and guards will bear the brunt of that. Already, horrendous cases have occurred and staff have been killed by passengers following altercations. Immense anger is rightly created among staff at such incidents. Workers at many bus garages in London have gone on strike after colleagues have been severely assaulted or even killed. I recall a funeral procession from Leyton bus garage following the death of a worker due to violence. I fear that the Bill could increase such risks, mainly for inspectors, which is no doubt why they go round in threes. Before long they will be going round in fours and fives, although one wonders how they will make their way through congested trains.
  We should have been given the workers' view of the Bill, but the Government hate the workers—they are not interested in the workers and will impose any conditions on them. That is why people have been killed building the Channel tunnel and on building sites——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member stick to the subject of LRT penalty fares, please?
  Mr. Cohen: I am not leaving the subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker. London Regional Transport inspectors, who are workers, will he at risk. Imagine an inspector collecting penalty fares suddenly meeting a guy determined to get away with it—a fight ensues, out comes a knife and loss of life could result. That is not an unreal scenario.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is my hon. Friend aware of two problems that will face the staff? First, there is the possibility of an altercation when someone refuses to give his name. Secondly, some fines will be collected on the spot, so inspectors will be carrying largish sums of money and there may he a temptation to take the money off them.
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes two excellent points. The inspector carrying money will himself or herself become a target. That is all the more reason why, before long, they will be going round in fours and fives. The situation late at night will be particularly dangerous, given that much fare evasion occurs late at night and not just in the rush hours. Is LRT making arrangements, and is there anything in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill about this, to provide banking facilities at each station where money can be deposited?
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is important for LRT to answer that question clearly. Perhaps the sponsor will intervene to explain the position. If the general public can be convinced that inspectors will not be carrying much
  482
  money because they will have ample opportunity to bank any money that they collect, people will be dissuaded from assaulting them.
  Mr. Cohen: I do not know whether there will be banking points on every station. If there were, LRT would incur considerable capital expenditure because they would have to be secure and staffed. It would be like a Securicor van delivering cash to a bank. An inspector making For such a banking point could become a target for a mugger. There are many serious implications. We have not heard a whisper from LRT about whether there will be a banking point on every station. I doubt whether there will be. If there is not, inspectors will be put at severe risk.
  A £10 fine one week could be increased to £20 the next and could shortly become £50. The inspector would only have to collect one or two fines before he was walking around with £200—an attractive target for a mugger. Attacks on inspectors would increase substantially, but LRT has not given the first thought to that. It has not even started to think about the implications.
  I do not mind the idea of a bank on every station. The Government like to privatise everything under the sun. Perhaps we should have banks on every station from which people can obtain cash. That might have other implications, however—I should not put ideas into the Minister's head—sbut that should not come before the security of the inspectorate, which is my priority.
  It is scandalous that trade unions were not consulted. At any rate, we have not been told of their response. LRT cannot be bothered even to put out a statement discussing the issues. Many issues have been raised during the debate, not just by me but in interventions. LRT has been trying to get the Bill through since 1986, but every time it reaches the Floor of the House the same points are raised. A management worth its salt would look at past debates in Hansard and consider its response to the points made. But on every occasion the Bill is introduced in exactly the same form, with unsubstantiated figures and fines plucked out of the blue. None of the important issues about which Members have expressed concern in the past are addressed. That says something about the lack of quality in LRT management.
  Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend comment on the order-making powers in the Bill? Clause 3 gives power to the Secretary of State to make orders containing
  "such supplementary, incidental and consequential provisions (including transitional provisions) as may appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient."
  That means that the penalties will be introduced by a statutory instrument under clause 10. It appears that such a statutory instrument will not have to come to the House. The Secretary of State will simply make an order which will come into effect. He has a wide range of powers because the only order required under the negative procedure, which does not have to be debated, is the amount of penalty fares to be described by order
  "subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
  That is contained in clause 6(2). Could the Secretary of State not therefore set the process in train—to coin a phrase—without any further reference to the House?
  Mr. Cohen: As I have said before, my hon. Friend has terrific expertise in these matters. He is Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and his knowledge of the procedures and workings of the House,

  483
  and of the wording of Bills, statutory instruments and other regulations, is second to none. His points must be taken seriously. He says that under the Bill orders can be made by a Minister, who will not have to come to Parliament to justify what he is doing. That is serious and it is yet another factor working against the Bill.
  Earlier we talked about the docklands transport system. It is a woefully inadequate system, and it is pathetic that no proper infrastructure was set up before the development. That is what happens when there are unaccountable planning authorities and also unaccountable transport authorities.
  It has been said that there will be lower fines on the docklands light railway than on the buses and tubes in the capital, but what about the docklands riverbus? From what I can gather, it is used infrequently, mainly because it has not been properly developed for the maximum convenience of Londoners, who could make use of it if it had proper stops along the Thames. That is not to say that public money has not gone into it—a vast amount has, yet the fares are astronomical. It is more than £1 to travel one stop. When will Londoners get some value for their money? When will the riverbus be made more accessible to Londoners? Whenever I see it, it is empty—the money might as well be poured straight into the Thames. If someone stows away on the riverbus, will there be an inspector to charge a penalty fare? If so, will it be the £10 which applies to London buses and trains, or the £5 which applies on the docklands light railway? We should have answers to those questions.
  Mr. Cryer: I am sorry to intervene as I know that my hon. Friend is pressed for time and is trying to curtail his remarks and to speak as succinctly as possible. Clause 3(1) of the Bill refers to
  "any bus or train service".
  Clearly the riverbus service could come within the ambit of the proposals.
  Mr. Cohen: That is a key question. It may be argued that it is a private service and that the Bill does not apply. It is Government policy to hand out millions of pounds of public money to private companies, so public money was involved. Presumably the principle of penalty fares should apply if public money is being defrauded.
  Mr. Cryer: I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to clause 3, under which the provisions apply to any other service provided
  "in pursuance of an agreement with the Corporation by virtue of section 3(2) of the 1984 Act".
  What staggers me, and no doubt my hon. Friend, is that the point was not clarified beyond peradventure, as the lawyers say, by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr Thorne) when he was elaborating on why we should pass the Bill. He failed to do that.
  Mr. Cohen: That is a fair point. If the Government support the principle of penalty fares, presumably they should have introduced a Bill to bring in penalty fares for the riverbus service. We have spent nearly three hours on the Bill, but if that is a private riverbus service, the Bill becomes—what do they call it?
  Mr. Cryer: A hybrid Bill.
  Mr. Cohen: Yes, it may be a hybrid Bill. If the riverbus service is excluded because it is private, although public money went into it, and if the Government intend later to bring in regulations to apply the legislation to the riverbus service, surely that would make the Bill hybrid. The hon. Member for Ilford, South and I should have been called to order at the beginning of the debate. Perhaps the debate should have been stopped because this may be a hybrid Bill. I am shocked that we have spent three hours of precious parliamentary time on what may be a hybrid Bill.
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: Having just come into the House, I am fascinated. I was watching the debate on television and I assumed that at some point my hon. Friend would give up the struggle against the reactionaries who run London Regional Transport. Instead of wasting hours of parliamentary time—we can assure the lackeys from London Regional Transport who are here that the debate will go on—the best way of tackling the problem would be to return to the policy adopted by the Labour-controlled GLC in 1981 and cut fares. When we did that, the new fares brought dramatic results. People were happy to pay reasonable fares to a socially-conscious authority, but they do not like paying exorbitant fares to the lickspittles of a Tory Government running London Regional Transport.
  Mr. Cohen: The record of my hon. Friend's administration in running London transport services was miles better than that of the quango. It was the Tories and their allies who took that administration to court when it wanted cheap fares. It was the Tories who wanted high fares, and they have had their way ever since. At the recent local government election there was propaganda about Conservatives costing less. That should be set beside their action when they took the GLC to court on its low fares policy. The Conservatives cost people more. They cost the people in my area more when the Nos. 38 and 55 bus services were cut. My constituents have enormous problems in getting to work, and they are furious about it. They were not consulted. There was only nominal consultation. About 1,800 people said that they did not want the bus services to be cut——
  Mr. Thorne:rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 62, Noes 25.

  Division No. 201]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Arbuthnot, James

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Gregory, Conal

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hague, William

  Butterfill, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Harris, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Irvine, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jack, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Janman, Tim

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

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Knapman, Roger

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lightbown, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Lilley, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Maclean, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Mans, Keith

  Freeman, Roger

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Neale, Gerrard

  Gill, Christopher

  Neubert, Michael

  485

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thorne, Neil

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Paice, James

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Patnick, Irvine

  Waller, Gary

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Watts, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Wells, Bowen

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wood, Timothy

  Sims, Roger

  Squire, Robin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mr. Roger Gale and

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mr. Lewis Stevens.

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Nellist, Dave

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

  Pike, Peter L.

  Boateng, Paul

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cryer, Bob

  Snape, Peter

  Foster, Derek

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Galloway, George

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Haynes, Frank

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Home Robertson, John

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Kennedy, Charles

  Mr. Harry Cohen and

  Livsey, Richard

  Mr. Ken Livingstone.

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Whereupon MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 (Majority for Closure).
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 17 May.
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a serious matter when the Government are unable to maintain 100 Members in the House, particularly when they have an overall majority of 110, yet they are so disorganised, dismayed and defeated by the local government elections, particularly in Bradford——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.
  Mr. Livingstone: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am raising not a party political point, but the position of LRT's management. This is a vote of censure by the whole House of Commons.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know that if he raises such points of order, I am bound in all fairness to allow points to be made to the contrary, and then we would be re-embarking on the debate that has just concluded.

  General Product Safety
  10.11 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7480/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 3rd April 1990 relating to general product safety; and supports the Government's view that any directive should be restricted to consumer products, that products covered by specified directives that concern safety should be excluded from the general directive, and that any additional burden on businesses should be kept to the minimum.
  I welcome the fact that the Scrutiny Committee considered the draft directive to be an important document which should be debated on the Floor of the House. It is certainly an ambitious proposal from the Commission—in my view, too ambitious, as I will shortly argue—and if it were adopted it would affect virtually all sectors of industry. It is an attempt by the Commission to establish a Community-wide system of general safety legislation that it hopes will improve overall safety levels and consumer confidence within the single market.
  Let me say straight away that the objectives of strengthening confidence in the single market and ensuring adequate levels of protection are something to which the United Kingdom can give wholehearted support. Indeed, no member state has a better record than the United Kingdom in terms of implementing and enforcing safety directives. But what concerns me is that these laudable objectives should not be compromised by unacceptable rules and requirements that do little to improve safety. It is also worth stressing that, in Britain, we are fortunate to have one of the most comprehensive and yet flexible systems of safety legislation anywhere in the world, never mind the Community; we therefore have much to offer the rest of the Community in discussing such issues.
  The Commission suggests a general obligation on producers, importers and, in certain circumstances, others in the supply chain to supply only safe products. That would apply to all products, not just consumer goods, wherever used, and would therefore apply to those used in the workplace, on the farm, in the street, in hospitals or indeed anywhere else.
  The Commission has also tried to set out procedures for handling safety problems, particularly emergencies at Community level. That would in some ways build on existing systems of notification and for the transfer of information on unsafe products between member states. But it also envisages the creation of a new committee to oversee the workings of the directive and any difficulties that arise.
  The directive is a far-reaching initiative that would cut right across many existing arrangements for dealing with product safety. The approach adopted by the Commission did not reflect the legislative systems in any one member state, and was an effort to draw in various ideas and elements from a number of sources.
  In September 1989 we issued a consultation document which asked for the views of business groups, consumer organisations, enforcement authorities and many individuals and companies in the United Kingdom. At that

  487
  stage, the Government did not express a firm view on any aspect of the proposal, preferring to seek opinions on an open basis.
  A large number of responses was received which provided an interesting mix of attitudes. There was not a clear split between the business and consumer interests; far from it. Many business representatives saw considerable merit in improving safety levels throughout Europe, and were confident of being able to compete effectively on the basis of high EC safety standards. However, they were also very concerned about the additional burdens being suggested and what appeared to be overly bureaucratic controls and procedures.
  The United Kingdom has considerable experience of this type of legislation, both in the consumer area and in the workplace under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. We have, therefore taken a full and constructive part in the debate so far. But experience also tells us about the potential problems and considerable differences of view which have separated the Commission and most member states. Most member states would prefer to set out the general principles but to leave some flexibility to member states to draft their legislation in such a way as to ensure that their courts will interpret the legislation in a similar way.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I am interested in what my hon. Friend is saying about the implication of the regulation for the United Kingdom. How does this sit with the policy or principle of subsidiarity, which is becoming recognised as a tenet of European Community policy?
  Mr. Forth: That is an important question, and I shall touch on it later. If my hon. Friend is not satisfied, I hope that he will jog my memory. Suffice it to say at this stage that this is a general framework directive which seeks to underpin the principles of the single market, and therefore probably does not clash with the principle of subsidiarity. My hon. Friend may want to return to that point when I have completed my remarks, if I have not satisfied him.
  As a result of the diverging approaches of the different member states, it has not been possible to agree a revised text of the directive that meets the concerns of all member states and the Commission. The explanatory memorandum that I submitted to the House on 3 April 1990 included a revised draft of the directive prepared by the French presidency—which left office at the end of last year —which was the basis of discussion at official level over recent months. It takes into account the points agreed in principle at the 9 November consumer Council, but it was, and remains, very much a draft for discussion and has not been accepted by either the Commission or any member state. Various redrafts have also been submitted as working documents, most notably a recent attempt by the Irish presidency to produce a compromise text, and within the last few days we have heard that the Commission is also preparing a new text.
  However, there are a number of crucial points of principle that should guide our attitude to this directive. The first is what has been called the principle of subsidiarity. Put simply, where possible, it is for member states to decide on specific policy options, and it is only where there is a genuine Community dimension that action at EC level should be considered.
  488
  It is arguable—I put it no stronger at this stage—whether this directive is needed at all. The Commission suggests that it is vital for the completion of the single market and that the extra confidence it will give consumers will be essential in creating cross-border trade. This case has so far not been made, and given the very different methods employed by member states in protecting their citizens, it could equally well be argued that the disruption and extra costs that could be caused by such a directive might in practice be unwelcome to both consumers and businesses alike.
  We need to consider whether the directive will actually lead to an improvement in overall safety levels, bearing in mind existing safety legislation—especially in the United Kingdom—and the impact of the new product liability directive. Again, there is a serious question over the general approach.
  The Commission's role is also a major factor to consider here, especially if its involvement could lead to bureaucratic procedures that might slow down the ability of enforcement officers to take swift and effective action against unsafe products. We must remember that member states and their enforcement agencies will usually be best placed to decide on any appropriate action, as they have to date under article 36 of the treaty of Rome, and the Commission will rarely have the necessary expertise or experience—to say nothing of resources—to second-guess enforcement officers directly involved in a specific case.
  The next point must be the very wide scope of the original Commission proposal. The Commission said that it decided to include all products because the same criteria for safety apply to all goods—wherever used—and because the difficulties of providing a workable definition of a consumer product were too great. This is clearly nonsense on both counts.
  The United Kingdom has comprehensive safety legislation covering consumer goods and those products used at work, but we have long recognised that the circumstances in which the goods will be bought and used are completely different. Differences in skills, training, supervision, access to servicing and advice all point to different treatment, and that is reflected in the fact that the respective provisions and their enforcement differ in many respects.
  Moreover, the Consumer Protection Act 1987 provides a perfectly acceptable definition of a consumer product, which can obviously be used as appropriate in other member states. Where there are grey areas—and they do, of course, exist—it is easy enough for the enforcement agencies involved to sort them out between them.
  The United Kingdom and virtually all other member states have pressed strongly for the directive to be restricted to consumer goods. That was agreed by Ministers at the 9 November consumer Council, and the French presidency text includes a suggested definition. It needs more work, but it is unfortunate that the Commission still seems to be intent on staying with the wider, and in our view unworkable, coverage of its original text in the face of almost united opposition from all Community countries.
  The overlap between the directive and other specific safety directives also caused much concern during the consultation exercise. It must be wrong in principle, as well as confusing in practice, to have different layers of legislation applying to the same product. The Commission envisages the new directive as acting as a sort of blanket

  489
  that covers all products and fills the gaps between specific vertical and "new approach" directives. What this approach ignores is the fact that in some cases the safety of a range of products has been considered in detail by a group of experts on them. There is real concern that the blanket approach may well disrupt the carefully constructed balance of interests for certain products.
  Our view is that the most sensible way of removing uncertainty is to exclude products from the general safety directive entirely if the safety of those products has been covered already by another specific directive. If there are gaps in the protection afforded to consumers in respect of those products, it is for the specialist groups to consider the matter again. It is not for others to try to apply additional controls by another door.
  The Commission has attempted to find a definition of a safe product that acknowledges the fact that it is impossible to ensure that all products are absolutely safe. A knife, for example, has a sharp edge and therefore will always present a risk of injury. The Commission's definition includes many features that are similar to those used in our Consumer Protection Act, but in some cases it has gone too far.
  The most important problem is that there is difficulty in finding a sensible definition that will be interpreted in a similar way in all member states. Work goes on to find a compromise, and we must insist that any definition makes it clear that a sense of reasonableness has to be involved, and that in some cases a residual risk will inevitably remain —albeit with adequate warnings for the user.
  Under United Kingdom consumer legislation, we can take action at all points in the supply chain. That enables enforcement officers to take action where they can be most effective. At the moment, the directive is restricted to manufacturers, importers and others in the supply chain whose activities affect the safety of the products. It is not at all clear what this will mean in practice and there is clearly the possibility of confusion in deciding how far individual companies are responsible. Our objective is therefore to try to retain the right to apply sanctions at all points in the distribution arrangements, where necessary providing adequate defences for particular circumstances.
  The enforcement of directives is increasingly becoming a matter of concern throughout the Community—certainly in the United Kingdom and the Department. Responding to the consultation document, businesses frequently made the point that their competitive position would be improved by more uniform implementation and enforcement of directives throughout the Community and in each member state. This is a difficult issue, because there are dangers involved in a move towards more centralised control of enforcement powers and techniques.
  More could be done to reduce the current unevenness —to put it mildly—and to promote more consistency. The Commission's original proposal suggests a list of powers in an illustrative annex. The French presidency text draws the powers within the body of the directive. I would argue that the list is too long, but there are strong arguments for including certain minimum controls in the text of the directive. That would mean that all member states should at least be taking similar action, which would provide a minimum level of harmonisation.
  Controls such as taking arid testing samples of products, collecting information on potentially dangerous products, the power to ban a product and to require suppliers to warn customers about serious risks, must be
  490
  the cornerstones of any effective product safety regime, and there is much to be said for having them as part of the draft directive so that they apply to all member states.
  The original proposal from the Commission would have involved a number of additional burdens on business. Chief among those was the requirement that the safety of products should be monitored at all stages of production and distribution and throughout the foreseeable time of use. Responsible companies will clearly take steps to ensure that they are aware of the risks presented by their products. The impact of the new law on product liability has also focused minds wonderfully well on the need to have in place adequate safety and quality controls.
  However, again a worthwhile objective is largely ruined by a proposal that is far too prescriptive and detailed. These additional requirements would do little to raise overall safety levels but they would certainly increase administrative burdens and therefore costs to the consumer. Any new requirements on business must be kept to the absolute minimum, consistent with providing the appropriate level of safety.
  The Commission's suggestions for action at Community level in serious or emergency situations would involve the creation of a new product safety committee comprised of representatives from member states. The way in which it would operate is rather complicated, but essentially the committee would be asked to discuss safety problems and to make recommendations on suitable measures to deal with the hazards. In certain circumstances, member states would be required to take agreed measures—even if they did not wish to do so—representing a considerable departure from current practice.
  So far, the Commission has failed to justify the need for such a committee, or to demonstrate why it should have the powers suggested. It is for discussion whether there is a need for some sort of group at Community level to advise member states on unusual cross-border safety problems. But we are against any committee with the sort of role suggested in the Commission's text as it stands. Also, whatever procedures or institutions might be set up at Community level, it is of paramount importance that they should not result in cumbersome or bureaucratic systems that interfere with sensible enforcement action by member states.
  These seem to me to be the main areas of contention raised by the Commission text. As I said earlier, the United Kingdom has considerable experience in this field, and we have played a constructive role in the discussions so far. Our views have the support of most other member states, particularly those who also have a well developed system of consumer safety legislation. The Commission has come forward with a proposal which, in spite of worthy objectives, is simply too ambitious in scope and raises many difficult problems for all member states.
  We shall continue to work within the various working groups and in the Council of Ministers to overcome the difficulties, but it must be said, and I hope that the House recognises, that there is still much work to do before the directive can be ready for adoption. I hope that the House will agree that the Government have taken the right line in negotiations so far, and I invite the right hon. Members present to support the motion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends.
  10.26 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, to leave out from first `safety' to end and add
  `and regrets that the Government is seeking to restrict the directive and limit consumer rights.'.
  The debate is on one of the most far-reaching pieces of consumer legislation that has been considered in this country. It proposes a blueprint for extending consumer rights in the 1990s throughout Europe and it offers to provide a high standard of protection for the public against dangerous goods. Sadly, it does not command the wholehearted support of the Government. In the motion that the Minister moved, the consumers' interest takes second place to the Government's prejudiced priority for their beloved free market interests. The aim of the directive is to prevent dangerous goods from abroad from being given free and unlimited access to the United Kingdom and European markets. It is unfortunate that such a measure does not command the support of the Government.
  The directive offers the opportunity of establishing a mandatory framework for marking and tracing dangerous products, random safety testing of goods, comprehensive recording and assessment of safety aspects of consumer complaints and for all firms to appoint a consumer watchdog to monitor their product safety procedures. Unlike the Minister, we do not believe that that is too long a list. The Minister summarised the merits of the proposals last month when he said that the directive gives business the power to
  "monitor the safety of their product at all stages of production, distribution and use."
  Only a Minister in this Government could go on to say that such admirable and clear aims were unwelcome and unduly burdensome on both businesses and member states.
  On 3 April the Minister wrote of the directive:
  "progress on many of the key issues would be difficult."
  He was too modest. He failed to claim the full credit that was due to him for his efforts to water down the directive. For him, the key issues are those which threaten to impose higher standards of safety on business. It is an irony that in a debate on consumer protection the Government seek to pursue three themes—to restrict, not expand, the product safety directive; to exclude products from its protective jurisdiction; and to minimise the burden on business. We have a Government who, when faced with supporting the consumer or business interests, always side with business against the consumer. Even in cases where business joins the consumer in pressing for tougher safety laws, we have a Government with a bagful of excuses.
  The Glass and Glazing Federation has been pressing for the past six years for regulations to ensure that only safety glass is installed. Most of the 20,000 accidents that happen each year with glazing would be avoided if the right glass were used in the right place. For six years the glass industry has been campaigning for the Government to make BS6262 mandatory and for six years the Government have blocked that. Even when the industry is crying out for tougher mandatory standards, the
  492
  Government have dragged their feet and obstructed that important consumer measure. That is why it is no surprise to learn that the Government seek, in the motion, to weaken, not strengthen, an important product safety directive.
  The Minister's Department has admitted that a range of products would be exempt from the safety provisions if the Minister succeeded in restricting the definition of goods covered. The consumer will have no protection under the Government's version of the directive against a wide range of potentially unsafe products such as motor vehicles, pharmaceuticals, tobacco, aircraft, gas, food, water, second hand goods or any product that business believes is for export. All are exempt.
  The Minister might think that it is all well and good to exempt such goods, and for us to export our unsafe goods, but in reality the existing law is not coping and stopping other countries from sending hazardous products here. The Consumers Association has drawn attention to a dangerous heater manufactured in West Germany, banned from sale there, that was exported and sold in Britain this year. The Government want cars to be exempt because they are not used just by consumers.
  The Minister says that he welcomes the Europe-wide initiative. Why then does the evidence that his Department gave on the matter to the House of Lords Select Committee on European Communities read like Custer's last stand? It has page after page of objections, and not just on this or that part of the directive. The Minister's Department told the Committee on 21 February that the whole thing was "over ambitious". It said:
  "We do not feel that this directive is going to make any real contribution to improving consumer safety".
  The Government like to boast about how advanced they think this country's laws are. When the border controls have disappeared and a multiplicity of goods for the consumer, business and agriculture are traded without restriction between nations, when food, medicines and all manner of products can be shipped across half a continent with no frontiers or checks, this directive will prove to be the consumer's main line of defence. The weaker the Minister makes it, the more vulnerable our consumers will be. That is why the Consumers Association has asked for all the consumer protection measures listed in annex 1, inserted under the French draft, to be made mandatory rather than merely illustrative, as the Government want.
  The Minister claims to have consulted consumer groups, but he has not listened to what they have to say. He has argued for the directive to be limited to consumer products only. For him, there is no need for further legislation. On 3 April he said:
  "For non-consumer products there is a wide range of existing safety legislation which provides comprehensive protection from unsafe products."
  That is not the view of any consumer organisation. The National Consumer Council wants all products to be treated equally when it comes to safety, not just to be limited to consumer products—a phrase that would keep all the Euro-lawyers talking for a decade.
  If we consider the Minister's critics, we see that the Townswomen's Guilds, the National Council of Women of Great Britain and Age Concern support article 2(a). The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) may snigger at that, but they and 27 other organisations represented by consumers in the European Community group argue against the Government's

  493
  attempt to restrict the directive's scope to certain goods only. The Minister may be correct when he claims that there are some effective directives that already cover individual types of product. That is not the issue here. But what if there are? It is better to be safe than sorry. Medicines, food and food products are excluded from the general safety duty in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the unamended directive would therefore apply. The Consumers Association has already drawn attention to the unsatisfactory procedures in the Netherlands and Italy for withdrawing unsafe products. Such goods can be sent to Britain. A directive limited to consumer goods does not provide comprehensive cover and protection for the United Kingdom consumer. A general product safety directive would do that.
  The Minister rightly mentioned the burdens placed on industry. No one can seriously ignore that, nor do we seek to ignore it. However, it is not unreasonable to expect industry to subject itself to the closest scrutiny on product safety. Many British firms lead the world in monitoring the safety of goods at every stage of production from design to sale. If such high standards can be met by British firms, why should other businesses at home and abroad get away with second best?
  The Confederation of British Industry has said that achieving harmony in monitoring the safety of widely diverse products may pose problems. The directive does not seek harmony in monitoring so much as high safety standards. Firms that currently have effective monitoring procedures should have nothing to fear, but the existence of a requirement to monitor product safety will in itself heighten the awareness of other businesses to such procedures.
  If some countries have lax laws, the standards that prevail along the whole production process may well be lax, whereas if they know that tough standards have to be met, they will gear themselves to meeting those standards. That is the crux of the argument. We want every encouragement to be given to promoting the highest standards of safety throughout Europe. We can no longer afford to argue for the lowest common denominator and delude ourselves into thinking that our laws will insulate our consumers from dangerous foreign products. They will not, and that is why we want the highest possible standards to be set across the widest range of goods, with proper monitoring.
  It is astonishing that the Department responsible for consumer protection could tell the House of Lords Select Committee on 21 February:
  "We are still of the view that the United Kingdom protection would not be enhanced by the General Safety Product Directive."
  The directive strengthens our laws and rectifies certain defects. The major criticism of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is the development of risk defence that arises from part I of the Act. The Government insisted on the inclusion of that and it weakens consumer rights. The directive would remedy that. Some countries do not have strong powers for recalling unsafe goods: the directive should have such powers.
  I know that the Minister will have studied the comments of consumer groups about the directive. I hope that he will ensure that their views are communicated to the Commission and that he will seek to ensure that in its
  494
  final form the directive does more to reflect the views of consumer organisations. If he does that, he will make a better law and gain considerable support.
  10.37 pm
  Mr. Conal Gregory: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) has moved a negative amendment. It is indicative of the lack of interest by the Opposition in consumer matters that seven to eight times as many Conservative Members are here at this fairly late hour to debate product safety. Once again, there is no sign of the Liberal party or the SDP. No doubt by this time members of those parties are tucked up in bed with improving literature and cocoa.
  I should like to discuss three matters—the scope of the draft directive that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs so ably moved, the general duty, and enforcement. I am sure that my hon. Friends will give a warm welcome, rather than the carping one that we have heard from the Opposition, to the fact that the directive will extend the style of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to foods and medicines and will spread the general approach to other EEC states.
  If enacted, the directive will be a major boost to consumer confidence in the general internal market. The sooner it can be implemented, the better, and attempts to limit its scope to consumer goods will weaken the universal safety advantages that the directive seeks to achieve.
  The directive establishes a general safety duty. Our essential concern is that it does not appear to place a specific duty on manufacturers and suppliers to supply safe goods. Under article 3, it is left to member states to take
  "all necessary measures in order to ensure that only safe products are placed on the market."
  That leaves the directive open to implementation in different ways in various member states. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether the directive can include a clear requirement for member states to impose the general safety duty on suppliers of goods.
  It is unclear how the arrangements for the permanent monitoring of products will work. The products need to be monitored across the EEC states. With regard to the enforcement mechanism, are we sure that countries such as Greece and Portugal have the same concerns as national authorities in this country? The status of the indicative list of powers for national authorities is not clear. I hope that they will be minimalist rather than simply indicative. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has wide experience of EEC matters, will consider including hired goods in the directive.
  The United Kingdom appears to be alone in wanting the general duty requirement to apply to all suppliers and for sanctions to apply at any point in this chain. Other states want that to be largely restricted to manufacturers and importers. I hope that the Government are supported in their wish and that retailers are included in the scope of that general duty.
  On enforcement, there is no Community dimension to the banning of dangerous products. In my time in the House, I have been involved in legislation on foam-filled furniture. My hon. Friend the Minister acted speedily and it is good to know that all new foam-filled furniture now has to comply with the new legislation. There is some concern about second-hand foam-filled furniture, and I hope that the trading standards officers will deal with that as effectively as possible.

  495
  My hon. Friend was sympathetic to the all-party delegation that I led on the danger of glass-topped tables. It was sad that a little youngster on the outskirts of York died because of unsafe glass in a glass-topped table. My hon. Friend, without any lethargy, has pressed on and is looking to the British Standards Institution to produce a new specification—full marks to him and to the Department for that. Those two specific items were lacking in the Opposition's credibility on consumer matters.
  It will be helpful to have an EEC-wide rapid notification system for the exchange of information on dangerous products. The sooner that is introduced, the better. I hope that we shall not have to wait for implementation of the directive.
  10.43 pm
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: I welcome the broad concept of the directive and what my hon. Friend the Minister said when he introduced it. He may remember that, on occasion, I have spoken briefly on the subject of product liability. However, I am not so much concerned with that tonight, because we are not really dealing with the fringes of technology, where we seek to give specific encouragement and protection to firms that are trying to push forward the frontiers of scientific application to production. Instead, we are considering the question of consumer goods.
  I accept my hon. Friend's point about costs. That must be relevant. I have some sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), who moved the amendment on behalf of the impressive list of absentees who claim to have so wide an interest in consumer safety. I agree with him that the basic issue of consumer safety is of great and significant importance. It would be a pity if the Minister gave the impression that the Government were seeking in any way to water down what would be worthwhile safeguards for British consumers.
  But there is the danger that, with a multiplicity of levels of protection, far from improving the protection of the consumer, the situation could be so complex and potentially expensive legally that the consumer would lose his protection. That would apply in national consumer protection, in terms of EC directives covering particular ranges of products and, now, in the more generalised directive that we are discussing.
  The question of cost does not apply only to manufacturers in reaching safety standards. I imagine that most manufacturers would welcome high safety standards, so long as they are applied equally to all their competitors. After all, high safety standards of the final product reflect the high quality of that product during its production.
  Mr. Roger Gale: The Minister has a fine track record both in implementing European directives in United Kingdom legislation and ensuring that they are enforced. Does my hon. Friend have any qualms lest, if these provisions become too complex, other European countries which are perhaps not as good as we are in enforcing such directives will not enforce them?
  Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend reinforces what I am saying, which is that the responsible manufacturer—and the responsible retailer who sells the product and the responsible Government who enforce the legislation—
  496
  benefits most from the universal application of firm regulation, properly enforced. That is why I agree that we cannot do everything in one blanket directive, because of the innate complications of the issue with which we are dealing.
  There are some areas in which it is essential to have clear and straightforward safety objectives in the European Community—particularly after 1992, when the flow of goods will be easier and, we trust, more advantageous to consumers in that they will enjoy a wider range of goods—not only for goods which have their origins in the EC but for those which are imported and sold in the EC. They must be subject to the same degree of regulation, particularly as we have seen recently a weakening of the old-fashioned style of stamping, listing the country of origin. We do not have the protection that we used to have when the origin of goods was readily recognisable.
  I suggest that there is a problem in the Minister's attempt to use the phrase "consumer products", which is not an exact term in European usage. It may be that we know what we mean by "consumer goods" in the Consumer Protection Act 1987, but European countries have different definitions, and we will find it difficult to reach agreement on the matter with our European partners. Many items produced and purchased by individuals for their own use are utilised in further economic activity. If those goods prove to be unsafe and lead to consequential injury, loss or damage, that is just as serious a matter as if the products were seen as being for industrial or commercial use even though they are listed as being consumer products.
  National legislation, including our own, can leave grey or uncertain spaces. For example, some products are sold which appear to have a therapeutic value but which make no particular medical claims, so that they do not fall under the restrictions which would affect drugs and medicines. I think particularly of those products which are sold as slimming aids and as some sort of aphrodisiac or sexual enhancer. At present, the United Kingdom law in that area is inadequate. That matter needs considering. With the wider range of products which will be available in future some kind of blanket directive covering those areas— [Interruption.]Was the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) seeking to intervene on the matter of sexual enhancers?
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman had tried them.
  Mr. Griffiths: I have no need. I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have been tempted by the hon. Gentleman, which I know is unusual for him.
  The important fact is that there are grey areas which need to be covered by a blanket directive. Therefore, I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's recognition of the need to limit the scope of the directive, but we need some consumer protection for the person who buys products which do not fall directly under national legislation or the directive.
  I welcome what my hon. Friend has said tonight. He put his case strongly, but I hope that he will keep in mind the fact that there are areas where we may be able to learn something from European concepts. It may be that it is in partnership that we shall bring about what we all want —the ultimate safety of the consumer.
  10.52 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) and no doubt if I were of his political persuasion I could have said that there was no relationship between the interests of the consumer and the interests of the producer, but with my experience of satisfying a general public I know that there is a great and important relationship between the interests of the consumer and those of the producer or manufacturer.
  Again, had I been of the same political persuasion as the hon. Gentleman I could have deceived myself into believing that people can be protected from themselves, but they cannot. What distresses me so much about the documents before us today is that so much of what is contained in them is an attempt to protect people against their natural judgment and instinct. That is a triumph of hope over experience, and in complete contrast with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Minister, whose remarks I applaud.
  My hon. Friend the Minister was critical of the fact that so much of what is before us for consideration today is so prescriptive in detail. The European Commission makes the same mistake time and again, seeking to be prescriptive of everything that we do in the Community. That will eventually be its undoing. Whether the butter-fat content of milk is this, that or the other matters not a jot or tittle to me or to anyone else in the land, but the European Commission continues to follow its prescriptive line.
  The Community and the House should concern themselves with what I would describe as the macro-issues. In the past 12 months, we have seen a remarkable phenomenon—eastern Europe has thrown off the shackles of socialism and wants to join a free market. That presents the Community with an enormous challenge, and how it meets that challenge will be of monumental importance throughout the world for the lifetime of many hon. Members. Economic and monetary union is another macro-issue—and now, as a result of pressure put on us by the leaders of other Community nations, we are being asked to consider political union. I am prepared to discuss such issues into the small hours, but I am not prepared to discuss mundane and prescriptive details—and nor, I am sure, is my hon. Friend the Minister.
  In an earlier intervention, I observed that much of what comes out of Brussels nowadays thoroughly undermines the principle of subsidiarity, within which the Government have committed themselves to the policy of economic and monetary union. At every turn, the Commission shows that it does not understand the meaning of that principle, let alone subscribe to it. That is why I shall support the Government today.
  10.57 pm
  Mr. Forth: This has been a brief but invigorating debate. I thank my hon. Friends for their supportive comments and I will ponder on how the details can best be incorporated into our approach to the directive.
  In reply to my hon. Friends the Members for York (Mr. Gregory) and for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), may I say that I am still concered about the extent to which existing directives are uniformly and effectively enforced throughout the Community. I hope that the House will agree that there is little point in our labouring long and hard to devise
  498
  more and more directives, even if the aim is to underpin the single market, if we are not convinced that existing directives are being properly implemented.
  I believe that we can look anyone in the eye with confidence and pride, knowing that in this vital area of consumer protection we have probably the best system in the world. Our regulations are detailed, they are developed after consultation, and they are implemented and enforced by independent, expert and professional trading standards officers who report to local authorities rather than to central Government.
  Our blend of expertise and independence underpins the regulations, which in turn enforce the directives. I suspect that all my hon. Friends—and, for all I know, Opposition Members—share the Government's fear that the directives are not implemented uniformly throughout the Community. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind in debates of this kind. Otherwise, we shall be kidding not only ourselves but—much worse—the consumers of the European Community if we suggest that they will obtain better protection through measures such as this. It is vital to take that into account.
  My hon. Friend the Member for York and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) referred to the safety of glass. I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He knows that we are concerned about the matter and are considering it carefully. I thought that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South was less than fair, if not uncharitable, in suggesting that the Department of Trade and Industry was not dealing with the matter. We are indeed dealing with it, but we are reliant on the independent British Standards Institution to come forward with effective standards which we will endorse as quickly as we can so as to put in place the glass and glazing safety regulations that the hon. Gentleman wants. In his comments, including his allegations that unsafe heaters could come in from other member states, he did not seem to understand fully the way in which the existing provisions work. If a product, from wherever it comes, can be shown to be unsafe, it can be taken off the market under our existing national regulations. I am sure that he understands that. No doubt his comment was made inadvertently and he may like to withdraw it on another occasion.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The point that I made came direct from the Consumers Association. The Minister will have studied carefully the association's evidence to the Select Committee on European Legislation. It maintains that this year heaters, which were illegal under the safety standards for sale in Germany, were on sale in this country. I was drawing attention to that. I believe that a tougher directive would address the problem properly.
  Mr. Forth: I yield to none in my admiration for the work done by the Consumers Association, but I do not necessarily take all its documents as texts for my speeches. The hon. Gentleman should look critically at what the Consumers Association says and not accept everything produced by it as suitable material to be used from the Opposition Front Bench. Perhaps he and I could deal with the matter in correspondence as a separate issue if it still troubles him after the debate.
  The hon. Gentleman profoundly misunderstood the discussions which have already taken place. I was at pains to emphasise, and I re-emphasise, that many other

  499
  member states of the Community share the reservations that I have outlined to the House. In the preliminary discussion in the Council of Ministers in November, the majority of member states shared our reservations—indeed, some were more vehement than the United Kingdom—about the scope of the directive, its ambitiousness, and the extent to which it is unlikely to be effective for various reasons. It is unfair for anyone to suggest that the United Kingdom is alone. We have many friends in favour of our argument to make the measure effective and workable. We are all moving forward in that direction.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) for his comments. He was right to emphasise the point about multiplicity not necessarily giving viability, if I may put it in that multi-syllabic way. The definition of consumer goods may be a problem. We are happy that it is workable in the English language and in our own tradition, but I accept that it may be more difficult to get it into a workable state across the entire spectrum of European languages and cultures. That will be dealt with in working up the details of the directive.
  My hon. Friend made some points intriguingly and hauntingly, if not hintingly, on pseudo-pharmaceuticals. He mentioned slimming aids and aphrodisiacs. Tempted though I am to get involved in a dialogue with my hon. Friend about aphrodisiacs just after 11 o'clock on a Thursday evening, I will resist the temptation. I suspect that these are probably matters for my hon. Friends in the Department of Health and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I will consider the points more carefully and perhaps write to my hon. Friend to tell him what is being done about these matters as he speaks for many people in voicing concern about them.
  Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) for his vigorous approach to the directive and his support for the tone of my remarks and the content of the motion.
  500
  We have had a useful debate which has been helpful to me. I hope that the House, having heard what I have to say and having listened to the contributions of my hon. Friends and of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, will feel able to support the motion.
  Amendment negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7480/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 3rd April 1990 relating to general product safety; and supports the Government's view that any directive should be restricted to consumer products, that products covered by specified directives that concern safety should be excluded from the general directive, and that any additional burden on businesses should be kept to a minimum.

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  SEA FISHERIES
  That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 685), dated 20th March 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th March, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick..]
  Question agreed to.

  Greenwich Hospital Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committees),
  That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  Orphans (Romania)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  11.5 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: It may be thought surprising that we in this country did not know earlier of the appalling tragedy of the Romanian orphans. In any event, since Ceausescu's death in December 1989, the tragic story of those child victims of a terrible regime has gradually unfolded, leaving people in this country and elsewhere in Europe deeply shocked and deeply moved.
  The Ceausescu regime was cruel to women and children. It banned contraception and outlawed abortion, and women were expected to bear at least five children by law. With no means to prevent them, pregnancies came in rapid succession. Women also had to work, because a single wage was not enough to keep a family.
  In a country that had hitherto treated infectious diseases as a state secret, the AIDS epidemic among young children, and the scale of mental and physical handicap that afflicted them, is truly heartbreaking. The scale of AIDS among children in Romania is unprecedented, and though it was thought that it was largely confined to children, a report in The Times today suggests that many adults are affected as well. It is likely that the epidemic was caused by infected blood transfusions given to newborn babies, who lack any immunity, or by the use of infected syringes. Romania's mortality rate was high, and underweight, frail babies resulting from starvation diets and overworked mothers were the norm.
  Thousands of undernourished, unwanted and aban-doned children found their way into Romania's overflowing orphanages. They were treated with unscreened blood plasma taken from hundreds of samples. Thus were the children infected with the AIDS virus, resulting in probably the worst child AIDS epidemic in the world.
  How many such children are there? A figure of 550 HIV positive infants was given in February, but it is thought by many to be only the tip of the iceberg. How many orphans are there now? Perhaps 200,000 of them—though as no one knows for sure, it is difficult to give an accurate figure. The orphanages vary in size, taking from 50 to 800 children. One is thought to have 1,400 children in it.
  When people in Britain began to understand the scale of the tragedy, they wanted to help by making gifts of money, toys, food, and medical supplies—and by seeking to adopt young infants who lacked the security of parents. It is about those efforts to help, and the vital need to co-ordinate them, that I want to say a few words tonight.
  The Croydon Advertiser, an outstanding provincial newspaper, has this year highlighted the tragedy of the Romanian orphans. It appealed to its many readers to help, in a series of deeply moving articles. That call has been answered. It was much encouraged by Mr. Speaker, who, as Member of Parliament for Croydon, North-East, has taken a deep interest in the problem and has visited Romania. The Croydon Advertiser appeal has raised more than £14,000.
  Croydon's help has been practical. A most able and experienced Croydon Advertiser reporter, Hilary Brook, joined a group of Croydon volunteers who drove a truckload of food, clothes and medical supplies from
  502
  Croydon to Romania in early February. Their destination was an orphanage 17 miles outside Cluj-Napoca, on the Dej road.
  As Hilary Brook reported, the volunteers found an orphanage which was home—if one could call it such—to some 300 boys. Some were simply abandoned, some were genuine orphans, some were mentally or physically handicapped and most were crippled. Each child—they were aged between six and 18—had a metal cup containing water, a little bread, a little onion and a few cubes of fat, but no knives, forks or plates. It was freezing outside and not much better inside and they had nothing hot to eat or drink. Some children had twisted limbs so that they could hardly walk, others were in dormitories and were so handicapped that they could not move. Hilary Brook reported that they were unloved, unwanted and uncared for, but that their spirit was still unbroken. The incidence of physical handicap was extraordinarily high.
  Later the Croydon Advertiser reported that a Croydon head teacher, Stuart Newton, from Selsdon High school, together with Ralph Osborne, was to take blankets, warm clothes and toys donated by readers, school pupils and others from the Croydon and Bromley areas to the orphanage. More volunteers will be travelling in a few weeks time.
  A major concern is that, although a huge United Kingdom relief operation is under way, largely made up of individuals or small groups, many of those involved have little experience of such problems and simply follow their instincts. They worry that there is a lack of co-ordination here or in Romania. It seems that many voluntary bodies are acting independently with no central body to co-ordinate their efforts.
  There is no doubt that the British Government are seeking to do what they can. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has told the House of the work done by the International Red Cross and of the large United Kingdom contribution to that. He also told the House about the Government's donation of a consignment of 1·8 tonnes of medical supplies on 24 December and several items of medical equipment since then, including 1 million disposable syringes worth £40,000. Five victims of the December fighting are in the United Kingdom for major surgery, at a cost yet to be determined. A further £53,000 has been made available to finance a project by Marie Stopes International to improve birth control services in Romania. He told us that we are contributing about £5·8 million to food aid and medical supplies packages sent, or so far agreed, by the EC. Further funds, as yet to be determined, will be made available, he told us, over the next few months for medical supplies.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health, Lady Hooper, is taking a keen interest in the problems. She recommended that priority be given to the work of the task forces to develop maternity and child health services, to build up missing skills through the provision of nursing and other health personnel and in developing a satisfactory management system for primary health care. She would also like funding to be provided for essential drugs and medical devices of which there is a considerable' shortage in Romania.
  However, the question of co-ordination of effort remains. The British Red Cross confirms that no body exists to co-ordinate the contribution of voluntary organisations. It describes children as one of its top

  503
  priorities in Romania, now that the emergency medical aid has been provided, and is concentrating on providing long-term help to improve standards in orphanages whilst working to have those institutions dismantled altogether. It is providing aid in the form of toys, cots, blankets and so on, and attempting to see that heating is provided in the winter. The orphanages do not have any form of heating. The British Red Cross is acting together with the International Red Cross, and each country has been allocated a particular area of the country within which to work. The British Red Cross is the largest organisation involved in providing aid.
  Other organisations working to provide aid to Romanian children include the Romanian Orphanage Trust, the World Vision of Free Romanians, the Terrence Higgins Trust and the Flanders Scottish Alliance of Edinburgh. Kevin Ernshaw, the project director of Flanders, has visited the orphanages in Romania extensively, pointing out the need not for more children's homes, but to empty those that already exist, and the need for specialist nurses and nursing homes and specialist training. He says that we should help in the specialist training of Romanians so that they can provide appropriate care and treatment.
  The Terrence Higgins Trust has worked magnificently and has been acting as an informal contact point for the various organisatons providing aid to Romania.
  One issue concerning those poor children that has been highlighted in the press is adoption. I understand that the British agencies for adoption and fostering know of no voluntary or official body to approach with regard to possible adoption, as there are no approved adoption agencies in the United Kingdom dealing with foreign adoption. All such adoptions are arranged by private agencies. They are referring inquiries to the Romanian embassy which, apparently, has no information but is advising inquirers to contact the Flanders Scottish Alliance.
  My message to my hon. Friend is that there are so many people—not just in Croydon but throughout the country and in many other places—who are willing and wanting to help in so many ways that surely there is a need for those people to have some co-ordination here and in Romania.
  The Croydon Advertiser reporter, Hilary Brook, recently went to a national conference organised by a Southampton group called Starvation Aid for Romania, which is trying to get together a database for all United Kingdom groups involved in relief work. Surely that is a sensible move and the right approach. There is an argument for the Government to provide funds for a contact point which can collect facts, information and views centrally, and advise those many people who are willing to help but struggling for guidance, so that effort is neither duplicated nor wasted.
  I raise the subject tonight on the Adjournment because it is of great importance locally in Croydon and nationally. I know that my hon. Friend is deeply concerned with the issue and I hope that he will be able to say something on the important question of co-ordination of British efforts to provide some desperately needed help for those poor children.
  11.17 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) has generously allowed me a couple of minutes to take part in this short debate. Everyone in the House tonight has listened with gratitude and sadness to his moving account of a terrifying situation.
  My hon. Friend was kind enough to refer to the work of the Romanian Orphanage Trust. My wife is one of the trustees and on her behalf I should like to express the thanks of the trust to all those Members on both sides of the House who have contributed personally to the work of the trust and who have involved their constituents in fund-raising for that work. A great deal of money has been raised, and a great deal more will be needed to send the medical teams, paediatricians and nurses to whom my hon. Friend referred to help the orphans in Romania. Foremost among the Members of Parliament who have contributed to that work has been Mr. Speaker.
  My hon. Friend referred to the work of that outstanding provincial paper, the Croydon Advertiser. I hope that he will not mind if I couple the work of that newspaper with the work of the Daily Mail, and with the name of the estimable Hilary Brook the name of Bob Graham who has turned an assignment into a crusade. We often criticise the press for various aspects of its work, but it is only right that in this case we should praise those newspapers which have dedicated their efforts to keeping the plight of those desperate children in the forefront of our thoughts.
  It is a sad fact that the plight of the orphans may depend on the outcome of elections in Romania in which the opposition parties are denied all access to free media by Ceausescu's successors. Unless the elections in Romania are free and fair, and unless a free Government are returned, one fears that the orphans there will face a new dark age. It is therefore vital that newspapers such as the Croydon Advertiser and the Daily Mail continue their work to keep the matter in the forefront of people's minds and to try to ensure that democracy prevails and that those children receive the help that they need. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West, I wish them well.
  11.19 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) on bringing the plight of the Romanian orphans to the attention of the House and on doing so movingly and eloquently. As my hon. Friend has described, over the months since the revolution in Romania, efforts by the western media, especially British television news and, of course, such excellent newspapers as the Croydon Advertiser, have unearthed one of the most horrifying human legacies of the years of the Ceausescu dictatorship.
  In orphanages throughout Romania, babies and young children, some of them mentally handicapped, have been languishing in terrible conditions, as my hon. Friend has described. The shocking scenes, for example, of the Brincovenesti Castle institution, which were shown on BBC television earlier this year, were scarcely to be believed. In many other locations around the country, as

  505
  my hon. Friend has so graphically described, children and babies have been found living with barely the minimum of health care, food and attention.
  Some of the young children in those institutions are doubtless there because their parents are dead or physically incapable of looking after them, but many are there for other reasons. For many years, Romanian women were denied access to contraception because of Ceausescu's desire to increase the size of the Romanian population. They were forced into either back-street abortion, with all the horrendous risks to health that that entails, or into abandoning the babies that they could not afford to look after. Many families could scarcely feed themselves, let alone a new arrival, and we should pause before criticising too fiercely parents who abandoned their unwanted children in such hopeless circumstances.
  Ceausescu's policies exerted a baleful influence on every aspect of Romanian life. Such news as managed to leak out from the country pointed to arguably the worst human rights record in eastern Europe—and that was well beforethe revolution of 1989. Political life was ruthlessly suppressed and would-be dissidents were harassed and jailed. Freedom of expression and religion was severely circumscribed by decree. The press and television were totally controlled by the state apparatus. Ordinary Romanians were forced to conform to the will of the dictator and his wife by the Securitate secret police, who ruled by fear.
  In the economy, 25 years of Ceausescu's policies had brought the system to a virtual standstill. His obsession with generating hard currency even led him to order that food supplies, badly needed in Romania—by the children more than anyone else—should instead be exported. Weand other western countries did what we could to support ordinary Romanians through the provisions of the Helsinki process, but the suffering was widespread. The regime's indifference to human rights was perhaps epitomised by the fact that it even incarcerated the United Nations human rights rapporteur, Dumitru Mazilu.
  The discoveries that I have mentioned are heartrending, but, as my hon. Friend has said, the response to them in Britain has been magnificent. Around the country, British people have given freely of their time and money to bring aid to the Romanian orphans. The British Red Cross's "Help Romania" appeal elicited a huge response in the early days of the revolution. Bristol Mencap and the Romanian Orphanage Trust have brought desperately needed aid to orphanages, and the Daily Mail, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said, has just launched a £1 million appeal for the same purpose. The Flanders Scottish Alliance, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West referred, the Romania Aid Fund and many other groups have organised convoys to take food and medical supplies into Romania. My hon. Friend has described this and, more particularly, the splendid efforts of the people of Croydon in response to the appeal by the Croydon Advertiser, supported by my hon. Friend and by Mr. Speaker himself. The generosity of the British people has been wonderful.
  My hon. Friend has outlined some of the ways in which the Government have also been glad to contribute to the solution of this great problem. Our aid to Romania since the revolution, direct or via the EC, totals £6·6 million. We have funded a family planning programme which will contribute towards removing one of the causes of the problem of unwanted children. As my hon. Friend said,
  506
  one of the most distressing aspects of the problem of the orphans is the number of children who are HIV-positive —up to 50 per cent. in some orphanages and schools. 'The Romanian practice of giving blood transfusions to undernourished babies has led to widespread infection. We are doing what we can to help. We have given I million disposable syringes and needles. We are also paying for the transport to Romania of generous donations of disposable gloves from the Far Eastern Group of Chesterfield and of contraceptives and syringes from London International Group. We have given equipment for the testing of blood for the HIV virus.
  Our help has not, however, been confined to tackling the AIDS problem. We have made contributions to two of the British charities that I have mentioned, to help send doctors and nurses to Romania and bring for training in this country Romanians responsible for looking after mentally handicapped children at the Brincovenesti Castle institution. We have also donated funds to transport, and reassembled in a children's hospital in Bucharest, some £250,000-worth of used X-ray equipment, kindly donated by Walsall Manor hospital. The arrangement was made by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), to whose efforts in this field I also pay tribute. Finally, I should add that we brought to this country for surgery at our expense five young victims of the fighting at the time of the revolution.
  My hon. Friend raised the crucial question of how aid to Romania should be co-ordinated. Proper coordination, accurate targeting and effective delivery of aid are top priorities for the Government in our own aid programmes worldwide. I know from my dealings in other areas with the United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations how important it is to channel aid through bodies that know what is needed most, and by whom, and how to get it there. It is for that reason, and because the problem is so large, that we believe that the main humanitarian effort to help Romania must come through the international community and the international bodies, whose resources and expertise are essential.
  The EC Commission has already allocated £35·5 million for general medical and food aid since the revolution. The 12 Governments of the Community last week expressed their concern to the authorities:in Romania about conditions in Romanian orphanages and homes for mentally handicapped children. The Romanians said that they are determined to improve conditions, and have already started to do so with the help of aid provided by friendly Governments and organisations. The European Commission now proposes to send a medical specialist to Romania to examine conditions in orphanages there. In the light of his findings, they have offered to organise joint action with non-governmental bodies in member states. That will be a valuable role in co-ordinating the international effort, as my hon. Friend rightly said. Once their plans are clear, we shall be happy to advise all the voluntary organisations with which we are in contact.
  Several other international bodies are very experienced and efficient in co-ordinating and supplying aid. My hon. Friend has already mentioned the Red Cross. The Romanian authorities are co-operating with the United Nations Children's Fund to help orphans and mentally handicapped children. Finally, the World Health Organisation has organised a large-scale programme of assistance to the Romanian health service. My right hon.

  507
  Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced on 5 April that the Government would donate £500,000 to the WHO programme. We shall make sure that the organisations are fully aware of the scale of the generous response of the British public—and, indeed, the public in other countries—and play their part in ensuring that the total aid effort is satisfactorily co-ordinated.
  My hon. Friend has spoken of the group in Southampton called Starvation Aid to Romania, which is organising a database for all United Kingdom groups involved. This should clearly be of great help, and we shall be delighted to pass to the group whatever useful information we can.
  I have outlined some moves that are in progress, which I hope will go some way towards meeting my hon. Friend's concern that all the help provided—and particularly that provided by the people of Croydon—will always be directed where it is most needed. These measures, and the other help in train, will go some way to overcoming the problems in Romania. However, my hon. Friends will agree that, in the long term, there can be no substitute for Romania itself coming to grips with the problems. That can be done best in a free society which can call on the resources of a flourishing economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North mentioned his concern about free elections. We regard free elections as a rightful contribution to the creation of a free society and, therefore, of a flourishing economy.
  As a step towards assisting Romania to develop the abilities in this respect, we have taken measures to help the new and recently reformed Romanian political parties to organise for the elections that are to be held shortly. We have invited a group of their representatives to visit the United Kingdom for a political seminar organised by the Great Britain-East Europe Centre and the Inter-Parliamentary Union. We later donated 118 tonnes of paper, which, I regret to say, is in short supply in Romania, to the main parties for use in the elections. My hon. Friends will be well aware of the amount of paper that is used in elections. The British Government are ready
  508
  and willing to help Romania more extensively, once there is a clear commitment to democracy and economic freedom.
  Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North raised the subject of adoption. I am not competent to speak in detail about that which is strictly the preserve of my colleagues in the Department of Health and the Home Office. I am sure that the House would agree that, all other things being equal, it is better for children to be looked after in their own country. This is, indeed, a principle of the United Nations declaration on adoption and fostering. But I can certainly sympathise with the sincere reaction of the many British people who wish to give one of the Romanian orphans a home and family here. I wish to make it very clear that the Government have no desire to put obstacles in their way.
  We have to apply the same rules and procedures as we would for an adoption in the United Kingdom. These are safeguards to protect the children. I know that they can seem slow and cumbersome, but my colleagues in the Department of Health and the Home Office are reviewing them to see if they can be streamlined and improved. We have done our best to clarify requirements on the Romanian side as well. I can assure the House that applications are, and will be, dealt with as quickly as is consistent with the welfare of the child, which must be the concern of us all.
  I have run through, I hope without repeating too much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West said, the causes of the tragic plight of Romanian orphans, to which he drew the attention of the House. They lie in the inhuman policies of the unlamented Ceausescu regime. I have paid tribute to the sterling work of British individuals and groups in sending aid, and outlined the Government's contribution. I have referred to some of the ways in which the aid effort is being co-ordinated and will be further co-ordinated in future. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important subject, and hope that what I have said has gone some way to reassuring the House that the Government are committed to doing what they can to help.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Tenants' Choice
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to take further powers to prevent undue pressure on tenants of a local authority in relation to their right to determine whether to transfer to alternative landlords; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. Although some local authorities have sought to dissuade public sector tenants from pursuing their statutory rights under tenants' choice unbiased information and advice is already available to tenants from the Housing Corporation. Next week I will be launching a series of four explanatory videos which the corporation will be ready to show to interested tenants' groups.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proportion of expenditure by Shrewsbury and Atcham and Shropshire county council will be raised by the uniform business rate; and what were the Government's original estimates if councils had kept to spending guidelines;

  (2) what proportion of expenditure by Shrewsbury and Atcham and Shrophire county council will be raised by the community charge for the area; and what were the Government's original estimates if councils had kept to spending guidelines.

  Mr. Chope
  Business rates formed 36 per cent. and community charges 41 per cent. of the income required to finance Shrewsbury and Atcham district council's demand and its share (23 per cent.) of Shropshire county council's aggregate precepts. Had the authorities spent at the level of their standard spending assessments, the proportions would have been 38 per cent. and 37 per cent. respectively. Charge yield is gross of community charge benefits and transitional relief grant.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discretion is given to local authorities to vary the level of community charge in those areas where the cost of some local services is borne directly by local residents.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: Authorities have no discretion to vary the level of community charge in those areas where the cost of some local services is borne directly by local residents, but they can vary the level of charge so that their special expenses are borne only by those charge payers of the area to which the expenses relate. An authority may treat the following as its special expenses:
  —the expenses of meeting a levy or special levy issued to it;
  186
  —the expenses incurred by it in performing in a part of its area a function performed elsewhere in its area by a body with power to issue a levy or special levy to it, provided that it has also resolved to treat the expenses of meeting that levy or special levy as its "special expenses";
  —expenditure which it incurs in performing in a part of its area a function performed elsewhere in its area by the sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple, the under-treasurer of the Middle Temple, a parish or community council or the chairman of a parish meeting;
  —expenditure relating to a property held in trust for part of its area.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish details of(a) the amount of staff time and (b) the total cost of recent exercises by his Department attempting to exemplify systems of local government finance favoured by the opposition parties.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: When hon. Members table questions asking for exemplifications of different systems of local government finance, these are provided when the costs of doing so are not disproportionate bearing in mind the normal guidelines for preparing answers to parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of local authority revenue expenditure in 1990–91 will be met by (i) central Government grant, (ii) national non-domestic rate, and (iii) poll tax expressed both in £ million and percentage terms.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: The figures for England are:

  £ million

  per cent.

  Government grants

  12,700

  35

  National non-domestic rate

  10,400

  29

  Community charges

  12,700

  35

  The above table understates central Government support, as it excludes community charge rebates, and other grants outside aggregate Exchequer finance. If these amounts are included within Government grants the figures are:

  £ million

  per cent.

  Government grants

  19,700

  48

  National non-domestic rate

  10,700

  26

  Community charges

  10,400

  26

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether a seaman is exempt from the community charge if his period of service on board a ship is continuous for eight months or amounts to a total of eight months in a year.

  Mr. Portillo
  In the first instance, this is a matter for the community charges registration officer for the area in which the seaman lives. It is open to any charge payer to appeal to his local valuation and community charge tribunal against a decision by his registration officer.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those English local authorities which have offered single household payment arrangements to householders for payment of the community charge; and if he will make a statement.
  187
  Mr. Chope
  My Department does not hold this information, but I understand that many local authorities are offering this arrangement.

  Waste Disposal Seminar
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he or officials of his Department have been invited to participate in the seminar "Dealing with Waste: the Emerging Regulatory Framework" organised by the Centre for International Environmental Law, to be held in London on 5 June.

  Mr. Trippier
  Officials have received an invitation, but I regret that, owing to other commitments, it is not possible for the Department to supply a speaker on this occasion.

  Council House Sales
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount, in 1990 prices, was spent to promote the right to buy in England and Wales in each full year of operation.

  Mr. Chope
  Expenditure incurred by the Department on specific publicity to draw the attention of tenants in England and Wales to their right to buy their homes is set out in the table, at 1989–90 prices:

  £ thousands

  1980–81

  1,109

  1981–82

  369

  1982–83

  121

  1983–84

  —

  1984–85

  1,710

  1985–86

  373

  1986–87

  805

  1987–88

  29

  1988–89

  80

  1989–90

  —

  In addition, costs have been incurred on the on-going projects of printing the booklet "Your right to buy your home", and in distributing the video "Buying your council home"; in 1989–90, these are estimated at about £66,000.

  Pollution Control Regulations
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce regulations relating to the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 makes provision for the registration of carriers of controlled waste and extends the powers available to regulation authorities to deal with vehicles used in the illegal disposal of waste. The registration of carriers is closely related to the new duty of care in the Environmental Protection Bill and the 1989 amendment Act as a whole will greatly assist the deterrence, detection and prosecution of fly-tippers. It is our intention to implement all of the measures in the 1989 Act at the earliest possible date. The regulations necessary to bring the Act into force are therefore being prepared and will be issued for consultation as soon as possible.

  Housing Act 1988
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Housing Act 1988 laid the foundations for a revitalised independent rented sector and enabled an expansion of housing association activity using private finance. It gave public sector tenants new opportunities to choose their landlord or become home owners, and required local authorities to make annual reports to their tenants on their housing management performance. The main effects have been as follows:

  (a) there are clear indications of a revival of activity in the private rented market: some £480 million has so far been invested in rented property under the business expansion scheme, which should produce an additional 8,000 homes for letting;

  (b) new grant arrangements for housing associations were introduced in April 1989. Massive increases in public funding, together with the growing use of private loan finance, should come close to doubling the annual output of new housing association homes by 1992–93;

  (c) the introduction of tenants' choice has already had an important effect on local housing authorities' attitudes to, and readiness to communicate with, their tenants, and the Housing Corporation is helping many tenants' groups up and down the country to explore the new opportunities now available to them;

  (d) tenants of public sector housing designed or adapted for disabled people have been able to exercise the right to buy and tenants have made good use of a new sanction against reluctant or inefficient landlords who delay sales;

  (e) local authorities have used their new power to pay cash incentives to help existing tenants to buy homes of their own and so release vacancies for reletting to homeless families: 44 authorities had schemes approved in 1989–90, and in the current year 80 schemes have been approved with the potential to release 2,555 homes.

  Housing Transfers
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many tenants' choice transfers of housing stock have been agreed under the Housing Act 1989; and where they are located;

  (2) how many tenants' choice transfers of housing stock have been attempted unsuccessfully under the Housing Act 1985; and where they are located;

  (3) how many tenants' choice transfers of housing stock have been attempted unsuccessfully under the Housing Act 1988; and where they are located;

  (4) how many tenants' choice transfers under the Housing Act 1988 are pending.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The term "tenants' choice", is used to refer only to transfers of housing stock under part IV of the Housing Act 1988, as amended by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. One formal application has been made to acquire property under those provisions, on the Walterton and Elgin estate, Westminster. That application is still in progress.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many transfers of housing stock have been made made under the Housing Act 1985; and where they are located.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Sections 32 and 43 of the Housing Act 1985 give powers to local authorities to dispose of
  189
  housing and housing land and relate to a wide range of disposals. Where a disposal takes place under a general consent, the authority is under no obligation to inform the Department that the disposal has taken place.

  Among the disposals to which consent has been given under these powers are voluntary transfers by five authorities of most or all of their housing. The authorities are: Broadland district council; Chiltern district council; Newbury district council; Sevenoaks district council; and Swale borough council.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many transfers under the Housing Act 1985 are pending.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently considering six applications from local authorities to transfer tenanted housing to new landlords.

  Rivers
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the National Rivers Authority has told his Department which 20 rivers in England and Wales it is giving priority to investigating, in order to formulate solutions to low flows during the summer months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department would not expect to be involved in the detail of the National Rivers Authority's work on this or other of its statutory responsibilities until the authority was in a position to put forward specific proposals. I am sure, however, that the authority would be happy to provide my right hon. Friend with the information he requires.

  Bench Mark Levels
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is planning to discontinue the system of revision of bench mark levels in the British Isles.

  Mr. Trippier
  Bench marks established by Ordnance Survey in Great Britain are maintained at predetermined levels which are dependent on the type of terrain and degree of land development. Levelling policy is kept under periodic review.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 383, if he will give the expenditure on energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department for the latest year available.

  Mr. Chope
  The latest estimate of expenditure on energy for buildings occupied by my Department for 1989–90 is:

  £

  Electricity

  1,593,562

  Gas

  831,377

  Liquid Fuel

  362,696

  Solid Fuel

  4,003

  Sewage
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has reached a decision about the scheme proposed by the North West water company to discharge sewage via a long sea outfall into the Lune deep.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the applications submitted by the then North West water authority, to the representations received and to the benefits of the proposed scheme. He has also had regard to his policy announcement on 5 March that all substantial discharges of sewage should be treated. In the light of these considerations, he has decided not to give his consent to the proposed scheme which does not incorporate treatment and where there is no guarantee that a suitable site for a treatment works will become available. Letters have gone today to the North West Water plc and to the National Rivers Authority informing them of this decision. All those who made representations about this scheme will be informed in due course.

  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has reached a decision about the scheme proposed by the South West water company to discharge sewage via a long sea outfall into the sea at Gwithian.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the applications submitted by the then South West water authority, to the representations received and to the benefits of the proposed scheme. He has also had regard to his policy announcement on 5 March that all substantial discharges of sewage should be treated. In the light of these considerations he has decided that he can give his consent to the proposed scheme on the conditions that it be modified to incorporate primary treatment and that there must be scope for the addition of secondary treatment later should this prove necessary. Letters have gone today to South West Water plc and to the National Rivers Authority informing them of this decision. All those who made representations about this scheme will be informed in due course.

  Members' Tea Room
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ensure that the unclean areas within the Members' Tea Room are properly and urgently cleaned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: Discussions are taking place about possible changes in the arrangements for cleaning the Members' Tea Room.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  War Widows Pensions
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to extend the conditions for the payment of war pensions which apply to the widows of officers to the widows of other ranks.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The basic condition for entitlement to a war widows pension, namely, that the husband's death was due to or substantially hastened by service in the armed forces, applies to the widows of officers and the widows of other ranks alike.
  191
  The hon. Member may be referring to the different provisions which apply to the widows of officers and those of other ranks if they remarry. All war widows pensions cease on remarriage and the widows of other ranks receive a gratuity equal to one year's pension. The widow of an officer does not receive a gratuity but, if she is widowed again, her war widows pension may be restored in whole or in part, subject to her other income. These long-standing provisions have been discussed with organisations representing the interests of war widows, with a view to change, but no consensus emerged on what that change should be.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the answer of 30 April.Official Report, column 419, if he will give the expenditure on energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, for the latest year available.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available figures are for the financial year 1988–89. The division of the administration of Department of Health and Social Security was not completed at that time and the figures therefore reflect the cost of consumption of both Departments.

  £ million

  Gas

  2·78

  Electricity

  6·51

  Solid fuel

  0·27

  Liquid fuel

  0·41

  Erythropoletic Porphyria
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he has assessed the effect of erythropoletic porphyria on the mobility of children;

  (2) if he will widen the criteria for mobility allowance so as to include those unable to walk in daylight because of the disorder congenital erythropoletic porphyria.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answers 3 May 1990]: We are aware of the recent representations made on behalf of a child suffering from this disorder. Apart from the recent extension we have made to deaf-blind people, the current criteria for award of mobility allowance do not provide for people who are able to walk but are restricted in the extent to which they can use this ability. We have no current plans to extend these criteria to meet the effects of particular disorders. I have written to the right hon. Member about the particular case which I believe underlies his concern.

WALES

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what value for money savings have been achieved by his Department in the last year; and how much of this was as a result of advice from the Central Unit on Purchasing.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In the year 1989–90 the Welsh Office expenditure on purchasing totalled £155 million against 192
  which it achieved value for money savings of £14·4 million. It is not possible to attribute particular value for money savings to advice from the Central Unit on Purchasing. The role of the unit is to provide advice and guidance on best purchasing practice; it provides overall support and guidance and encourages value for money across all Departments.

  Health Service, Gwynedd
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the Gwynedd health authority last provided his Department with strategic plans concerning Health Service provision in the Caernarfon area; and at what date he expects updated plans to be made available to him.

  Mr. Grist
  Gwynedd health authority submitted its last service-wide strategic plan to the Welsh Office in 1986. It is currently proposed to ask health authorities to submit their next long-term plans by December 1991.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the chairman of Gwynedd health authority has informed him as to whether revenue resources provided by the Welsh Office to that authority, are adequate for the maintenance of current standards of health care by that authority in Gwynedd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to him on Wednesday 9 May which indicated that neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), had received any recent representations from the chairman of the Gwynedd health authority concering the adequacy of that authority's current level of revenue provision.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether any changes have been instituted following the report of Welsh Office consultants on the financial position of Gwynedd health authority in September 1987, concerning the budgetary control procedures of that authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Gwynedd health authority's budgetary control procedures, along with those of all other health authorities in Wales, were examined by the statutory auditor during the course of his 1987–88 audit round. The auditor found that the criticisms of such procedures as had been made previously by Deloitte Haskins and Sells in its 1987 report on the authority's financial position were being addressed and, in keeping remedial action under review, he did not find cause to report on progress during his 1988–89 audit round. Indeed, I would expect all of the weaknesses in the authority's control procedures that were identified in 1987 to have been remedied by now, particularly since my right hon. Friend's predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) wrote to all DHA chairmen in 1989 stressing the need for strict budgetary control and received an assurance from each chairman that this need was well appreciated. However, the apparent further deterioration in Gwynedd health authority's financial position during 1989–90 suggests that action taken to date by the authority to restore budgetary control has not been sufficient. My right hon. Friend and I therefore await the findings of the further study by Coopers and Lybrand, Deloitte which has recently been commissioned by the authority together with
  193
  any further reports which the statutory auditor may choose to issue during the course of his current audit round.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the names of those appointed by him to the Gwynedd health authority currently serving on that authority; and, for each member, what was the date of appointment and the date on which the appointment terminates or comes up for re-appointment.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is as follows:

  Date current appointment made

  Date current appointment expires

  Mrs. N. L. Edwards CBE (Chairman)

  1 August 1986

  31 July 1990

  Dr. J. B. T. Griffiths

  22 August 1986

  31 July 1990

  Mr. G. Hulse

  19 August 1988

  31 July 1992

  Mr. G. W. Jones

  1 August 1986

  31 July 1990

  Dr. J. H. Jones

  1 August 1988

  31 July 1992

  Mr. R. H. P. Oliver

  1 August 1988

  31 July 1992

  Lt. Col. Prescott Walker

  1 August 1986

  31 July 1990

  Lady Jane Stanley

  1 August 1986

  31 July 1990

  Mr. T. Thomas

  19 August 1988

  31 July 1992

  Mrs. M. P. Wiliam

  1 August 1986

  31 July 1990

  Mr. J. L. Williams

  1 August 1988

  31 July 1992

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has given the Gwynedd health authority permission to plan a reduction in services to the public during 1990–91 involving increasing hospital waiting lists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The permission of my right hon. Friend is not required for planned changes in health services solely on the basis that they might affect hospital waiting lists.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for each of the past 10 years the expenditure funded by his Department for current account spending of Gwynedd health authority in terms of(a) current money figures and (b) constant money figures.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Revenue charge against cash limit

  At outturn prices (£000)

  At constant 1988–89 prices (£000)1

  1979–80

  23,169

  43,602

  1980–81

  30,153

  47,949

  1981–82

  34,023

  49,277

  1982–83

  37,212

  50,267

  1983–84

  39,146

  50,522

  1984–85

  44,250

  54,407

  1985–86

  47,794

  55,775

  1986–87

  49,903

  56,323

  1987–88

  55,841

  59,818

  1988–89

  62,637

  62,637

  1 Outturn prices adjusted by reference to the gross domestic product index of general inflation.

  Source: Health authority annual accounts.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether Welsh Office approval was sought or needed by Gwynedd healh authority for the reduction in services in the Arfon area caused by the reduction of four nursing posts in the Arfon unit community service; and if he will make a statement.
  194
  Mr. Grist
  No approval was needed or sought.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by items, the proposed annual revenue savings of the action plan proposed by Welsh Office consultants in September 1987 for cost reduction by Gwynedd health authority; and for the last recent available date what is the extent to which each of these items has been achieved or will be achieved in the financial year 1990–91.

  Mr. Grist
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps under the default powers of section 85 of the National Health Service Act 1977 to remove every nominated member of Gwynedd health authority from their office in favour of new appointees.

  Mr. Grist
  No.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied that the Gwynedd health authority acted within its statutory powers and responsibilities during the financial year 1989–90.

  Mr. Grist
  I have no reason to believe that the Gwynedd health authority did not act within its statutory powers and responsibilities, but in common with all other health authorities in Wales the authority will be subjected to an annual review of its performance in 1989–90 conducted by the executive committee of the health policy board.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he still accepts the report of Deloitte Haskins and Sells, on the financial position of the Gwynedd health authority, as the guiding document for the financial restructuring of the Gwynedd health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The action plan aimed at bringing the Gwynedd health authority back into financial balance which was drawn up by the general manager of the authority early in 1988 with the help of the management consultants, Deloitte Haskins and Sells remains the agreed strategy for the financial restructuring of the authority. However, in the light of the apparent further deterioration in its financial position, the authority, with some Welsh Office financial assistance, has re-engaged the consultants to help review the situation, to identify whatever further action is necessary to restore financial balance, and to produce a pathfinder business plan for the contractual provision of services from 1 April 1991.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table for each of the district health authorities in Wales showing how much(a) capital work was funded from revenue and (b) revenue work was funded from capital receipts, for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is set out in the following table and relates to the virement exercised by district health authorities between their discretionary capital and revenue allocations:
  195

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  District Health Authority

  Capital to revenue1

  Revenue to capital

  Capital to revenue1

  Revenue to capital

  Capital to revenue1

  Revenue to capital

  Capital to revenue1

  Revenue to capital

  Capital to revenue1

  Revenue to capital

  Clwyd

  —

  1·200

  1·000

  1·936

  —

  1·150

  —

  1·450

  0·044

  —

  East Dyfed

  —

  0·250

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·147

  —

  —

  1·700

  Gwent

  0·125

  0·391

  —

  1·994

  —

  2·050

  0·150

  1·889

  1·230

  0·021

  Gwynedd

  0·142

  —

  0·170

  —

  —

  0·392

  0·019

  —

  1·350

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  2·280

  0·434

  0·960

  —

  0·988

  —

  0·254

  —

  —

  —

  Pembrokeshire

  0·126

  0·748

  —

  0·815

  —

  1·250

  —

  1·170

  —

  0·970

  Powys

  —

  0·100

  —

  0·289

  0·087

  0·070

  —

  0·053

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  0·269

  2·045

  0·400

  2·456

  —

  1·397

  1·355

  0·231

  1·916

  3·458

  West Glamorgan

  —

  3·625

  —

  5·148

  —

  4·000

  —

  3·956

  —

  2·976

  1 It is not possible to identify separately, revenue work funded from capital receipts. The information provided relates to the totality of DHAs' discretionary capital allocations and receipts.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for each of the past five years the level of capital expenditure of each of the nine district health authorities in Wales.

  £000's

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Clwyd

  4,474

  7,354

  5,966

  6,061

  6,610

  East Dyfed

  2,204

  1,818

  2,561

  1,980

  2,658

  Gwent

  4,101

  4,029

  6,970

  6,910

  7,198

  Gwynedd

  2,811

  936

  1,248

  3,457

  2,066

  Mid Glamorgan

  3,013

  7,955

  5,198

  5,738

  6,268

  Pembrokeshire

  1,260

  1,734

  2,386

  2,668

  2,705

  Powys

  949

  1,257

  1,186

  971

  1,037

  South Glamorgan

  6,245

  3,614

  6,441

  4,619

  5,160

  West Glamorgan

  5,258

  8,348

  10,835

  11,225

  12,654

  Total DHAs Wales

  30,315

  37,045

  42,791

  43,629

  46,356

  Source: Health authorities annual accounts.

  Cottage Hospital, Caernarfon
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what are the estimated annual savings of closing the Cottage hospital, Caernarfon; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many minor casualty cases were treated by the Cottage hospital, Caernarfon during 1989; and what proportion of such cases (a) will be dealt with by local general practitioners, and (b) is expected to travel to Ysbyty Gwynedd in Bangor for casualty treatment, following the closure of the Cottage hospital;

  (3) what was the average number of available beds and the percentage bed occupancy at the Cottage hospital, Caernarfon during 1989; and what were the assumptions made in the public consultation document on the proposed closure of that hospital, published by the Gwynedd health authority in 1987;

  (4) what alternative new provision is being made at other hospitals in Caenarfon to replace facilities that have hitherto been provided at the Cottage hospital, Caernarfon.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 9 May 1990.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 427, if he will give the expenditure on energy consumption broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, for the latest year available.
  196
  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Mr. David Hunt
  Expenditure on energy consumption in buildings occupied by my Department in 1988–89 was as follows:

  £

  Electricity

  367,407

  Gas

  88,509

  Liquid fuel

  24,198

  Solid fuel

  2,431

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to ensure that the recent incidents at Isle of Wight prisons will be fully investigated and the necessary steps taken to ensure the maintenance of secure conditions at Parkhurst, Albany and Camp Hill.

  Mr. Mellor
  All serious incidents are investigated, and steps are taken, as appropriate, to guard against a recurrence and to ensure that security at the establishment is maintained.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current number of probation officers in the probation service; and what is the average number of cases an officer deals with in a year.
  197
  Mr. John Patten
  The number of probation officers in post in 1988 was 6,604 (whole-time equivalents) and the average number of persons under supervision by a maingrade officer on general duties (that is, excluding community service orders) was 29 (tables 10.1 and 11.1 of "Probation Statistics, England and Wales, 1988"). In 1989, the number of probation officers was 6,750.

  Dogs
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics are centrally maintained on the incidence of attacks by dogs on people; and what information he has on the level of attacks and the types of breeds involved in the past decade.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information is not available centrally.

  Immigration and Nationality Division
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the cost of the immigration and nationality division in the years 1987 to 1989;

  (2) what revenue was generated by the immigration and nationality division in the years 1987 to 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Immigration and Nationality Department expenditure and receipts

  £ million

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Pay running costs

  42·9

  49·9

  57·8

  Non-pay running costs

  13·4

  14·3

  16·6

  Non-running costs

  4·5

  4·4

  5·3

  Total gross expenditure

  60·8

  68·7

  79–8

  Receipts

  16·8

  7·9

  4–2

  Immigration1 (Carriers' liability) Act receipts

  1·8

  2·2

  2·1

  1 These receipts are not appropriated-in-aid to the IND budget and Home Office vote, but are paid direct into the Consolidated Fund.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the financial contribution made to the immigration and nationality division by Commonwealth citizens in the years 1987 to 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information is not readily available, and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 400, if he will give the expenditure on energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, for the latest year available.

  Mr. Waddington
  The information is as follows:198

  Expenditure on energy consumption in 21 Home Office buildings in 1989–90

  Site

  Gas £

  Electricity £

  Oil £

  Solid £

  Abell house

  18,182

  115,827

  0

  0

  Branston

  1,172

  62,983

  0

  186,098

  Cleland house

  17,605

  108,322

  0

  0

  Clive house

  10,881

  44,357

  0

  0

  Corby

  4,043

  16,071

  4,122

  0

  Cowley

  3,266

  8,561

  0

  0

  Dunkeswell

  0

  7,896

  434

  0

  Easingwold

  0

  19,435

  9,489

  0

  Fire Service college

  124,259

  123,895

  73,567

  0

  Harmondsworth

  3,407

  38,020

  19,472

  0

  Horseferry house

  0

  53,696

  10,376

  0

  Horsham

  2,128

  9,889

  0

  0

  Inverness

  0

  6,474

  0

  0

  Langhurst

  0

  12,135

  1,200

  0

  Leeds

  18,739

  13,812

  0

  0

  Lunar house

  0

  134,396

  31,706

  0

  Olympia

  0

  10,580

  5,390

  0

  Queen Anne's gate

  31,342

  309,392

  37,895

  0

  Sandridge

  0

  32,165

  9,655

  0

  Steventon

  0

  27,480

  28,184

  0

  Woking

  20,123

  14,184

  0

  0

  1Expenditure on liquid petroleum gas.

  Marches and Demonstrations
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Home Department if it is the practice for police forces to make a report to him of marches and demonstrations which have occurred in their area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A report from a police force to the Department about a public procession or assembly which had been held in the force area would normally be made only if one was requested by the Department.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made by local authorities in fulfilling their civil defence obligations during the third year of the planned programme for implementation of the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983.

  Mr. John Patten
  Copies of a report on implementation of the 1983 regulations by 30 September 1989 have today been placed in the Library. The report discusses local authorities' progress in meeting their civil defence obligations since the last such report, which covered the period up to 1 October 1988.

  The planned programme for implementation was introduced in 1986 to monitor local authority progress under the 1983 regulations. It provides a broad framework within which the work can be developed and enables the Government to assess whether the civil defence duties of local authorities are being adequately discharged and thus whether grant can properly be paid.

  It is clear that the planned programme for implementation has been an effective means of developing the planning process. A circular is therefore being issued to local authorities today announcing the Government's decision to extend the planned programme for implementation into a sixth year covering the period from October 1991 to September 1992.

  The Government will continue to monitor local authority activity and the value for money in the grant

  199
  paid by calling for annual progress reports and costed programmes of work which will be the subject of individual discussion.

  Manchester Prison
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the inquiry into the serious disturbances at Her Majesty's prison, Manchester and other establishments.

  Mr. Waddington
  I understand that Lord Justice Woolf envisages the inquiry falling into two parts. The first part of the inquiry will examine the facts of the disturbances and evidence will be taken in public. The second part of the inquiry will involve consideration of the wider issues which may, in Lord Justice Woolf's view, underlie the recent serious prison disturbances. Lord Justice Woolf considers that it would be helpful if he was assisted in this second part of the inquiry by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, Judge Tumin, with his wide experience and independent view of prison matters. On the advice of Lord Justice Woolf and after consultation with Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, I have therefore decided that once the first part of Lord Justice Woolfs inquiry has been completed Judge Tumin should join with him in the second part of the inquiry.

  Immigration Control (Heathrow)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what reports he has received of airline passengers arriving at Heathrow being detained airside by officials of the carrying company and compelled to board departing aircraft without access to immigration officials; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what involvement immigration officials had in the refusal of entry to Tamils who arrived at Heathrow on 9 April as passengers of Egyptair and British Airways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: I understand that a group of seven Sri Lankans arrived at Heathrow on 5 April on an Egyptair flight, and a further group of three on 9 April by British Airways. None of the passengers was presented at the immigration control and none was refused entry. Later inquiries established that the airlines concerned had returned the groups to Cairo and Rome respectively. It is being made clear to representatives of the two airlines that any passenger who wishes to seek entry to the United Kingdom must be presented at the immigration control on arrival.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 406, if he will give the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by the Privy Council Office for the latest year available, in kilowatt hours and therms.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The figures given in my answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 406, represent 195,414 kWh and 9,100 therms of electricity and gas respectively.

ENERGY

  Spent Nuclear Fuel
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has concerning the behaviour of spent fuel and storage facility components during long-term storage programmes co-ordinated by the International Atomic Energy Agency; what information and assistance has been afforded to the BEFAST II secretariat; and what benefits to the medium and long-term financial planning of Nuclear Electric and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority spent fuel management programmes will accrue from the BEFAST II programme.

  Mr. Baldry
  The International Atomic Energy Agency's BEFAST II programme has studied three major aspects of spent fuel storage: long-term behaviour of spent fuel in wet and dry storage; surveillance mechanisms; and the handling and transport of spent fuel after storage. The programme will not be completed until 1991.

  Nuclear Electric and British Nuclear Fuels have participated in the programme and have played a key part in the working groups set up to study the problems and prepare reports. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is not directly involved. However, participation in the BEFAST II programme provides access to worldwide experience of the storage of spent oxide fuel and to related R and D activity. The knowledge acquired through this participation, supplementing the United Kingdom's own domestic expertise, should allow the longer-term spent fuel storage requirements of the United Kingdom's continuing nuclear power programme, including the Sizewell B PWR station, to be met in the most cost-effective manner.

  Oil and Coal Exploration
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if his Department intends to license any explorations for(a) oil or (b) coal, in the county of Essex;

  (2) when his Department last licensed trials in Essex for (a) oil and (b) coal mining;

  (3) if his Department intends to license any exploratory boring for (a) oil and (b) coal measures in the areas of (i) Harwich, (ii) Weeley in the county of Essex, or (iii) along the banks of the River Lea in the vicinity of Enfield lock.

  Mr. Wakeham
  There are no current petroleum licences in respect of areas in the county of Essex or any area near the River Lea in the vicinity of Enfield lock and no petroleum licences have been awarded in the past 25 years in respect of these areas. The Petroleum (Production) (Landward Areas) Regulations 1984 set out the arrangements for making applications for petroleum licences.

  The Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 vested the ownership of almost all coal deposits in Great Britain in the British Coal Corporation. At present the corporation also has exclusive right to search and bore for coal in Great Britain and is the licensing authority.

  Electrical and Gas Appliances
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take steps to require sellers of electrical or gas appliances to label each item to indicate the approximate fuel consumption or running cost.
  201
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) at column 275 on 26 April 1990.

  Almost all gas appliances sold in the United Kingdom are already marked with their rating (ie. the maximum rate of gas consumption) under voluntary agreements.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 414, if he will give the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department for the latest year available in kilowatt hours, therms and litres.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In 1989–90 my Department is estimated to have consumed 3,292,605 kWh of electricity and 59,647 therms of gas. My Department has no fuel oil or electricity consumption figures for its former headquarters building as the cost of these fuels was included in the overall accommodation charge levied by the Property Services Agency.

  Thermal Insulation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give, for each type of thermal insulation measure, and each other type of energy efficiency measure, where the payback period is 10 years or less(a) the number of homes occupied by claimants of means-tested benefits which would gain from the measure, (b) the cost per home and (c) the total cost of installing the measure in all homes occupied by claimants of means-tested benefits.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The infonnation requested is not available. However, surveys indicate that the proportion of households in social classes D and E where the following thermal insulation measures were appropriate which have them installed in whole or in part are:

  Per cent.

  Loft insulation

  83

  Hot water tank jacket

  90

  Draughtproofing

  33

  Cavity wall insulation

  14

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, under the Companies Act 1989, he will refuse to grant supervisory status to any accountancy body which in the past formulated rules on professional independence but failed to offer any way of monitoring compliance with such rules.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is a requirement of the Act that before a supervisory body may be recognised it must appear to the Secretary of State to have adequate arrangements and resources for the effective monitoring and enforcement of compliance with its rules. The question of whether a body had such arrangements in the past is not directly relevant to that requirement.
  202
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether he will provide a list of all the cases which he has referred to the joint disciplinary scheme since 1979;

  (2) whether he will provide a list showing the conclusions of the disciplinary hearings held by the joint disciplinary scheme as a result of his referral of the cases to the joint disciplinary scheme.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is for individual accountancy bodies to decide whether to refer cases made to them to the joint disciplinary scheme. Completed inquiries under the scheme are reported in the annual reports of the Joint disciplinary scheme, copies of which are in the Library.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies or firms which have ceased to be members of FIMBRA are known to have engaged in unauthorised investment business subsequently.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am aware of only one instance recently. The Securities and Investments Board has prime responsibility for action in relation to firms believed to be engaged in unauthorised investment business.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will amend the Financial Services Act to give FIM BRA access to the client base of those companies whose licences it withdraws.

  Mr. Redwood
  No; FIMBRA's rules are a matter for that body, subject to meeting the provisions of schedule 2 of the Financial Services Act.

  Electrical Goods (Imports)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the amount of electrical goods imported in each of the years 1979–89 from(a) Japan, (b) Taiwan, (c) Korea and (d) Singapore.

  Mr. Redwood
  The figures are as follows:

  United Kingdom imports of electrical goods 1979–89

  Japan £ million

  Taiwan £ million

  South Korea £ million

  Singapore £ million

  1979

  88

  17

  5

  16

  1980

  115

  17

  6

  25

  1981

  180

  21

  5

  30

  1982

  200

  18

  4

  38

  1983

  310

  32

  7

  44

  1984

  470

  42

  22

  45

  1985

  506

  46

  41

  46

  1986

  594

  51

  60

  59

  1987

  694

  68

  99

  77

  1988

  784

  83

  138

  98

  1989

  886

  108

  131

  142

  Note: Figures relate to Division 77 of the Standard International Trade Classification (Revision 3).

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Steel
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many tonnes of steel per man were produced in the United Kingdom in(a) 1981 and (b)

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Crude steel production per man rose from 159 tonnes in 1981 to 344 tonnes in 1989.

  India and Indonesia
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on continued Export Credits Guarantee Department cover for exports to India and Indonesia.

  Mr. Redwood
  ECGD is currently reviewing its policy towards those markets on which, in portfolio terms, its exposure is heavily concentrated. India and Indonesia are two such markets. The importance of these markets to United Kingdom exporters is recognised and this will be taken fully into account in the review.

  Atlantic Computers Company
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will establish an inquiry into the accounting policies of Atlantic Computers Company and their implications for public accountability of public limited companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. Any such implications are primarily for the accountancy profession to address and I therefore welcome the recent decision of the research board of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales to support a research study into accounting for the residual value of leased assets.

  Thatching
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the dumping in the United Kingdom from eastern Europe of combed wheat reed for thatching; and if he will make a statement on the state of the United Kingdom thatching industry at present.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received no representations about the dumping of combed wheat reed. The thatching industry is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I understand, however, that business is generally good, particularly because of work needed after the storms that occurred earlier this year, although there are obviously regional variations.

  GATT Textile Negotiations
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those parts of the United Kingdom that will be visited by Ministers responsible for the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations prior to the textile committee meeting in June.

  Mr. Redwood
  Ministers in this Department responsible for the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations plan to visit the following parts of the United Kingdom before 12 June, the start of the next GATT textiles negotiating group meeting:Cheltenham; Derby; Edinburgh; Kettering; Manchester; Slough; Wales; Yorkshire.

  Environment
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new proposals to encourage British industry to be environmentally friendly.

  Mr. Forth
  I shall continue to encourage British industry to respond positively to the challenges and opportunities presented by environmental issues.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bulgaria
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Bulgaria.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Romania
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Romania.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what value for money savings have been achieved by(a) the diplomatic wing and (b) the Overseas Development Administration in the last year; and how much of this was as a result of advice from the Central Unit on Purchasing.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A table of value for money savings made in 1989–90 by the diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been presented to Parliament in the committee proceedings of the Foreign Affairs Committee. These savings include some made under the purchasing initiative.

  Savings on the purchase of goods and services in 1989–90 were:
  Diplomatic wing—£13·1 million on an expenditure of £146 million
  ODA—£8·48 million on an expenditure of £121 million

  It is not possible to attribute particular value for money savings to advice from the Central Unit on Purchasing. The role of the unit is to provide advice on best purchasing practice; it provides overall support and guidance and encourages value for money across all Departments.

  Supply Index
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his Department's decision not to participate in the Government supply index.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office considered joining the Government supply index in 1989. It was decided, at that time, that membership would not be cost effective.

  This Department will look again at this question as the range of products and services covered by the index expands.

  Central and Eastern Europe
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide updated figures on assistance to countries of central and eastern Europe from the group of 24, in similar form to the tables in his Department's supplementary memorandum submitted to the Foreign Affairs Committee, printed in HC 58-i.

  Mr. Maude
  The G24 countries are now considering how to extend co-ordinated assistance to the countries of
  205
  central and eastern Europe in addition to Poland and Hungary. As far as G24 assistance to those two countries is concerned, the European Commission has continued to compile a "scoreboard" of contributions by participating states. This was most recently published on 24 April, and a copy is being placed in the Library of the House. This provides the most comprehensive review available of G24 aid to Poland and Hungary.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much emergency relief and humanitarian assistance has been provided to eastern Europe so far in the current year; how much more is promised; and from which budget the funds are drawn.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In 1990, we have allocated £500,000 for a donation to the World Health Organisation's programme of aid to the Romanian health service. Details were given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development on 26 April, at column 283. We have also allocated a total of £223,000 for various humanitarian projects for Romania, including donations of disposable syringes, treatment in the United Kingdom for victims of the fighting and a family planning project. These allocations were from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office class II, vote 2. No further aid of this nature is planned at present.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much food aid has been provided to eastern Europe in 1989 and 1990; what further food aid has been promised; and from which budget the food aid is taken.

  Mr. Maude
  In 1989 the European Community provided £97 million of food aid to eastern Europe. Since January 1990 it has provided a further £53 million. Funding has come from the "other policies" provisions within the Community's budget and from the FEOGA guarantee fund.

  No further food aid has been requested or therefore promised.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 405, if he will give the expenditure on energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In the financial year 1988–89, expenditure on fuel and utilities in Foreign and Commonwealth Office buildings was:

  £

  (1) Electricity

  925,600

  (2) Gas

  104,500

  (3) Fuel oil

  146,200

  Overseas Development Administration expenditure was contained in our answer of 30 April, at column 405.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the current stocks of animal tusks, skins, antlers and 206
  other products held by the Hong Kong authorities arising from confiscation; and what plans are being considered for disposal of the items.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: The following stocks of confiscated CITES specimens were held by the Hong Kong authorities as at 15 April 1990:

  Specimen

  Quantities

  Mammals

  Bear

  paw

  22 pc

  skin

  1 pc

  Felidae (Cat family)

  skin

  759 pc

  skin scrap

  7·3 kg

  stuffed

  11 hd

  Red Deer

  antler

  24 pc

  stuffed head

  1 hd

  Antelope

  horn

  9 pc

  Chinchilla

  skin

  45 pc

  Elephant ivory

  worked ivory

  133·85 kg

  raw ivory

  506·5 kg

  Skunk

  skin

  3 pc

  Rhino

  horn

  130·7 kg + 6 pc

  hide

  25 pc

  Genet

  skin

  5 pc

  Guanaco

  skin

  1 pc

  Seal

  skin

  20 pc

  Musk Deer

  musk grain

  5 kg

  musk pod

  6·17 kg + 17 pc

  Otter

  skin

  18 pc

  Pangolin

  stuffed specimen

  5 hd

  scale

  10 kg

  skin

  312 pc

  Cetacean

  skull

  1 pc

  Avea

  Hornbill

  oasque

  47 pc

  Bird of Paradise

  stuffed specimen

  4 hd

  Bird of Prey

  stuffed specimen

  23 hd

  Reptiles

  Crocodile/Alligator

  stuffed specimen

  43 hd

  skin

  1,717 pc

  stuffed head

  1 pc

  Lizard

  stuffed specimen

  19 hd

  skin

  17 kg + 678 pc

  Python

  stuffed specimen

  2 hd

  skin

  301 pc

  Sea Turtle

  stuffed specimen

  258 hd

  scale

  27·45 kg + 399 pc

  shell

  7 pc

  Turtle

  skeleton

  1 set

  Invertebrates

  Black Coral

  skeleton

  5 pc

  Butterfly

  mounted specimen

  34 pc

  Plant

  American Wild Ginseng

  root

  17·3 kg

  The specimens may be offered to scientific arid educational institutions, museums and management authorities. The Hong Kong Government have no intention of offering the items for sale for the foreseeable future.

HEALTH

  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the 70-plus trade associations in the pharmaceutical industry referred to in a departmental letter of 6 April to the hon. Member for Erewash.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The reference is to the number of organisations that have asked to be included on the Medicines Control Agency's circulation list to receive details of any proposed changes in regulations to be made under the Medicines Act 1968. The list is as follows:

  Acupuncture Association

  Advertising Association

  Advertising Standards Authority Limited

  Agricultural Research Council

  Animal Health District Association

  Anthroposophical Medical Association

  Associated Health Foods Limited

  Association for the Advancement of British Pharmacy

  Association of Anaesthetists Great Britain and Ireland

  Association of Contact Lens Manufactuers Limited

  Association of County Councils

  Association of Independent Hospitals

  Association of Manufacturers of Medicinal Preparations

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Association of Optical Practitioners

  Association of Public Analysts

  Association of Public Analysts of Scotland

  Association of Veterinarians in Industry

  Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry

  BMA Belfast

  BMA Edinburgh

  Bio-Chemical Society

  British Acupuncture Association and Register

  British Aerosol Manufacturers' Association

  British Agrochemicals Association

  British Association for Chemical Specialities

  British Association of Dermatologists

  British Association of Feed Supplement Manufacturers Limited

  British Association of Pharmaceutical Physicians

  British Chemical and Dyestuffs Traders Association

  British Chiropractic Association

  British College of Optometrists

  British Committee on Natural Therapeutics

  British Contact Lens Association

  British Dental Association (Scottish Branch)

  British Dental Trade Association

  British Distributors of Animal Medicines Association

  British Herbal Medicine Association

  British Herbalists Union Limited

  British Homoeopathic Manufacturers Association

  British Institute of Regulatory Affairs

  British Insulin Manufacturers

  British Medical Association

  British Naturopathic and Osteopathic Association

  British Paediatric Association

  British Pharmacological Society

  British Poultry Federation Limited

  British Standards Institution

  British Universities Committee Ophthalmic Optics

  British Veterinary Association

  British and European Osteopathic Association "CHEMIST and DRUGGIST"

  Chiropodists Board, and Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine

  Clinical Genetics Society

  Cocoa Chocolate and Confectioners Alliance

  College of Osteopaths

  College of Osteopathy

  Company Chemist Association Limited

  Conference of Medical and Surgical Adhesive Plaster Manufacturers

  Consumer Council

  Contact Lens Study Group

  208

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Coroners Society

  Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association Limited

  English National Board for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting

  European Federation of the Contact Lens Industry Limited

  Faculty of Homoeopathy Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital

  Farmers Union of Wales

  Federation of Dressings, Plaster and Feminine Hygiene Industries

  General Council and Register of Consultant Herbalists Limited

  General Council and Register of Osteopaths

  General Dental Council

  Guild of British Dispensing Opticians

  Guild of Hospital Pharmacists

  Guild of Natural Medicine Practioners

  Health and Safety Executive

  Herb Society

  Homoeopathic Joint Committee

  Homoeopathic Research and Education Trust Homoepathic Association

  Huntingdon Research Centre

  Incorporated Society of British Advertisers Limited

  Independent Broadcasting Authority

  Independent Television Companies Association Limited

  Institute of Biology

  Institute of Chiropodists

  Institute of Packaging

  Institute of Practitioners in Advertising

  Institute of Trichologists

  Joint Consultant's Committee—BMA House

  Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Medical Biology Centre

  Medical Contact Lens Association

  Medical Defence Union

  Medical Research Council "MIMS"

  Multiple Food and Drink Retailers Association

  NAFPD

  National Association of Local Councils

  National Association of Pharmaceutical Distributors

  National Biological Standards Board

  National Chamber of Trade

  National Egg Producer Retailers' Association

  National Farmers Union of Scotland

  National Farmers Union

  National Federation of Consumers Groups

  National Federation of Wholesale Grocers and Provision Merchants

  National Federation of Women's Institutes

  National Food and Drink Federation

  National Institute of Medical Herbalists

  National Office of Animal Health

  National Organisation of Animal Health

  National Pharmaceutical Association Limited

  National Union of Small Shopkeepers

  National Union of Townswomen's Guilds

  Natural Medicines Group

  Newspaper Publishers Association Limited

  Newspaper Society

  North of Ireland Veterinary Association

  Ophthalmic Group Committee—BMA House

  Osteopathic and Naturopathic Guild Limited

  Periodical Publishers Association Limited

  Pharmaceutical General Council Scotland

  Pharmaceutical Journal

  Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee

  Pharmaceutical Society for Northern Ireland

  Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (Scottish Department)

  Proprietary Association of Great Britain

  Radiochemical Centre

  Register and Council of Homoepathics

  Royal College of General Practitioners

  Royal College of Midwives

  Royal College of Nursing

  Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

  209

  Royal College of Pathologists

  Royal College of Physicians

  Royal College of Physicians Edinburgh

  Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, Glasgow

  Royal College of Psychiatrists

  Royal College of Radiologists

  Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh

  Royal College of Surgeons of England

  Royal College of Surgeons of England—Faculty of Dental Surgery

  Royal College of Surgeons of England—Faculty of Ophthalmology

  Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

  Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

  Royal Society of Chemistry

  Scottish Consumer Council

  Scottish Grocers' Federation

  Scottish Health Education Group

  Scottish National Committee of Ophthalmic Opticians "SCRIP"

  Service Scientifique

  Soap and Detergent Industries Association

  Society of Chiropodists

  Society of Homoepaths

  Society of Occupational Medicine

  Area

  Local government electors

  Percentage increase 1975 to 1990

  1975

  1990

  English non-metropolitan counties

  Buckinghamshire

  351,504

  475,158

  35·2

  Cambridgeshire

  381,110

  490,772

  28·8

  Shropshire

  253,104

  313,440

  23·8

  Berkshire

  449,704

  556,817

  23·8

  Hereford and Worcester

  424,697

  523,945

  23·4

  Northamptonshire

  355,625

  437,262

  23·0

  Somerset

  297,443

  364,569

  22·6

  Wiltshire

  352,599

  429,013

  21·7

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  304,921

  369,663

  21·2

  Lincolnshire

  377,351

  456,118

  20·9

  Dorset

  435,987

  524,559

  20·3

  Hampshire

  998,035

  1,196,718

  19·9

  Suffolk

  403,004

  480,869

  19·3

  West Sussex

  470,217

  560,031

  19·1

  Norfolk

  491,796

  584,449

  18·8

  Bedfordshire

  330,691

  390,840

  18·2

  North Yorkshire

  475,467

  555,662

  16·9

  Gloucestershire

  352,358

  411,466

  16·8

  Isle of Wight

  87,454

  101,841

  16·5

  Oxfordshire

  362,422

  421,008

  16·2

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the 30 English non-metropolitan districts which have shown the greatest percentage growth in the electorate since 1975; and what have been the percentage growth and actual figures in each case.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is as follows:

  Area

  Local government electors

  Percentage Increase

  1975

  1990

  1975–90

  English non-metropolitan county districts

  Milton Keynes

  57,136

  126,345

  121·1

  Redditch

  33,868

  56,881

  67·9

  Tamworth

  33,256

  51,049

  53·5

  Bracknell

  46,439

  70,016

  50·8

  Wokingham

  72,089

  106,107

  47·2

  Peterborough

  77,627

  112,375

  44·8

  Huntingdonshire

  70,823

  101,348

  43·1

  East Dorset

  44,664

  63,875

  43·0

  Hart

  44,946

  64,041

  42·5

  Selby

  51,421

  71,619

  39·3

  The Wrekin

  75,271

  104,277

  38·5

  Basingstoke and Deane

  79,049

  109,487

  38·5

  Eastleigh

  58,651

  80,433

  37·1

  East Hampshire

  57,583

  77,460

  34·5

  210

  Society of Osteopaths

  Sterilised Suture Manufacturers Association

  Steripak Limited

  Sussex Clinical Research Consultants Limited

  Technical Committee White Oils Association

  The Co-op Union Limited

  The Patients' Association

  Traditional Acupuncture Society

  Ulster Farmers' Union

  United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association Limited

  Veterinary Record

  Wholesale Confectioners Alliance Limited

  Wholesale Grocers' Association of Scotland

  Electorates
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the 20 English non-metropolitan counties which have shown the greatest percentage growth in electorate since 1975; and what have been the percentage growth and actual figures in each case.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is as follows:

  Area

  Local government electors

  Percentage Increase

  1975

  1990

  1975·90

  Aylesbury Vale

  81,127

  108,734

  34·0

  Northampton

  101,164

  135,434

  33·9

  Newbury

  77,739

  103,786

  33·5

  South Staffordshire

  61,930

  82,558

  33·3

  South Cambridgeshire

  68,444

  90,906

  32·8

  Fareham

  58,415

  77,297

  32·3

  Caradon

  45,332

  59,899

  32·1

  Basildon

  93,724

  123,794

  32·1

  Crawley

  50,753

  66,777

  31·6

  Thamesdown

  99,042

  129,175

  30·4

  Test Valley

  58,961

  76,806

  30·3

  Woodspring

  107,924

  140,519

  30·2

  Breckland

  62,820

  81,270

  29·4

  Ryedale

  56,135

  72,620

  29·4

  Northavon

  76,910

  99,108

  28·9

  Cherwell

  64,818

  83,429

  28·7

DEFENCE

  Defence Procurement
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the defence industries on future economic prospects.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence recently chaired a meeting of the National Defence Industries Council at which I was also present, and a number of issues were discussed. In addition, we have frequent informal contacts with the defence industry.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what economies he is making in defence procurement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Department continues to seek value for money in procurement through the increased use of competition and taut contracting. This strategy has achieved substantial savings although these cannot be precisely quantified. Chapter 3 of volume 1 of the 1990 Statement on the Defence Estimates (Cm. 1022-I) gives more information on the ways in which we seek to make our procurement activities more cost effective.

  Nuclear Weapons Policy
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consideration he has given to a review of Government policy on nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We keep our policy on nuclear weapons under constant review.

  Conference on Economic Development and Defence Expenditure
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representation his Department will have at the conference on economic development and defence expenditure to be held in Sheffield on 24 May.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am not aware of any invitations having been issued to officials of the Ministry of Defence.

  SGL Defence Ltd.
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his contacts with SGL Defence Ltd. since 3 April.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My right hon. Friend has had no such contacts.

  Arms Statistics
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing, for the last five years for which data are available, in real and cash terms (a) the value of trade in arms betweeen the United Kingdom and (i) Burma, (ii) China, (iii) India, (iv) Indonesia, (v) Jordan, (vi) Malaysia, (vii) Phillipines, (viii) Sri Lanka, (ix) Thailand and (x) the Yemen Republic correlated in each year against (b) domestic United Kingdom arms production in cash and real terms and (c) United Kingdom procurement of domestically produced arms.
  212
  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been the practice of successive Administrations not to publish such detailed information for reasons of commercial confidentiality and national security. However, statistics of United Kingdom defence sales from 1984–89 by broad geographic areas are set out in volume 2 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990.

  Compensation (Upper Heyford)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many households within the 83 dbn contour around RAF Upper Heyford have sold their properties to his Ministry; and what has been the total amount of compensation paid under this particular scheme.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence has completed the purchase of 15 homes within the 83db(A) noise contour at RAF Upper Heyford at a total cost of £1,966,507. A further 15 properties are subject to negotiations with the local district valuer.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many households, around RAF Upper Heyford, have applied for injurious effects in compensation following the change of flight path; how many so far have received compensation; and what is the total amount paid out to date under this scheme.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Claims have been submitted by 591 households seeking compensation for a depreciation in property value resulting from an increase in noise following the change in fight path on 1 June 1988. The district valuer's assessment of the basis for compensation is nearing completion but no payments have yet been made.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many households received compensation in the vicinity of RAF Upper Heyford for injurious effects in respect of the tank squadron at RAF Upper Heyford; and what has been the total amount of compensation paid under this particular scheme.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is no tank squadron at RAF Upper Heyford, although armoured personnel carriers have been deployed during exercise periods. Injurious affection compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1973 relates to the adverse effect of new works.

  Polish Resettlement Act 1947
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight of 3 April on the Polish Resettlement Act 1947.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer my hon. Friend to my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's letter of 24 April 1990. Our researches into this complex topic are continuing, as are consultations with the other Government Departments involved. My noble Friend will write to my hon. Friend again in due course.

  Tritium
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to safeguard future sources of tritium.
  213
  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 18 January 1990 at column 421.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects outstanding issues affecting the European fighter aircraft's development phase to be resolved.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 8 May at columns 33–34.

  Military Radar Base
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he gave any consideration to developing the over-the-horizon military radar base site outside the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Among the objectives of the planned two-year trial of an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom are to determine whether the system is capable of functioning satisfactorily in British latitudes and to assess whether it could constitute a worthwhile permanent addition to the United Kingdom's early warning capability. It would not be possible to achieve these objectives if the system were to be situated outside the United Kingdom.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the full list of sites considered for developing the latest over-the-horizon military radar base; and how many of these sites were located in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is not the practice to reveal such details.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has received any representations from Churches in Wales concerning the construction of a radar base in the St. David's area.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department has received representations from the honorary secretary and the honorary treasurer of the Friends of St. David's cathedral about the proposed construction of an over-the-horizon radar transmitter at St. David's airfield.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the text of the memorandum of understanding signed by the United Kingdom and United States Governments on 20 April concerning St. David's military radar base.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I shall be writing to the hon. Member on this and related issues.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 429, if he will give the expenditure on energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, for the latest year available.

  Mr. Neubert
  The gross expenditure (without allowing for appropriations in aid) on energy consumption in the defence estate for the financial year 1988–89, broken down by fuel, is as follows:214

  £ thousands

  Furnace fuel oil

  31,053

  Other Liquid fuels

  4,762

  Electricity

  150,368

  Gas

  39,043

  Solid fuel

  8,165

  Utilities

  1,886

  Total

  235,277

  The expenditure on energy consumption in the civil estate for the financial year 1988–89, broken down by fuel, is as follows:

  £ thousands

  Liquid fuel

  505

  Electricity

  3,537

  Gas

  510

  Solid fuel

  1

  Utilities

  485

  Total

  5,038

  Iraq (Arms Sales)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contact he has had with Ordnance Technology Ltd. over sales of arms to Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None.

SCOTLAND

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 453, if he will give the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department for the latest year available measuring electricity in kilowatts, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The figures for 1989–90 are:

  Electricity—25,807,925 kilowatt hours

  Gas—98,215 therms

  Liquid fuel—126,048 litres

  Solid fuel—170 tonnes

  These figures exclude prisons and the minor Scottish Departments.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 453, if he will give the expenditure on energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department for the latest year available.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The figures for 1989–90 are:

  £

  Electricity

  508,977

  Gas

  82,576

  Liquid fuel

  59,290

  Solid fuel

  15,237

  These figures exclude prisons and the minor Scottish Departments.

TRANSPORT

  Manchester Ship Canal
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, during the reconstruction of the Thelwall viaduct on the M6, he will conduct negotiations with the Manchester Ship Canal Company to suspend the tolls on the Warburton toll bridge.

  Mr. Atkins
  No. We expect to keep three lanes open in each direction on the M6 during construction of the new viaduct and the reconstruction of the existing structure.

  "The Road User and the Law"
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what administrative action has so far been taken to implement the proposals contained in the White Paper "The Road User and the Law"; what remains to be done; and what timetable has been set to complete such actions.

  Mr. Atkins
  The extended high-risk offenders scheme will operate from 1 June. We are studying the comments made in response to consultation on retesting, prohibition and enforcement technology which cover both the legislative framework and detailed administrative arrangements of the proposals. We look forward to receiving comments on our papers on drivers' physical fitness and rehabilitation of drink-drivers by 12 June and 29 June respectively. Copies of all the consultation papers have been placed in the Library.

  Discussions are continuing with the police and other interested organisations on the use of warnings, the operation of vehicle defect rectification schemes and the use of the Bail Acts. We aim to press ahead as speedily as possible to complete the development of our proposals arising from the North report.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day),Official Report, 7 March, column 665, if he is now in a position to make a further statement on his intention to bring forward legislation to implement the proposals in "The Road User and the Law".

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce legislation based on the contents of "The Road User and the Law".

  Mr. Atkins
  The proposals contained in the White Paper, "The Road User and the Law", are an important part of our strategy to achieve a one third reduction in road accident casualties by the year 2000 and I intend to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity.

  Paddington to South-West Railway Services
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the number of occasions in the first four months of 1990 the railway service from Paddington to the south-west has been seriously disrupted by(a) the weather, (b) flooding, (c) damage to bridges, (d) damage to cables controlling the signalling at Paddington and (e) other factors; whether he has received any request for financial assistance from British Rail with the aim of avoiding repetition of such disruption; and if he will make a statement.
  216
  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that railway services from Paddington to the south-west were disrupted by a number of factors on a total of seven days in the first four months of this year. These are operational matters for British Rail and my right hon. Friend has received no special request from BR for financial assistance.

  Loran C Station, County Kerry
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are for the provision of a Loran C base station in County Kerry; whether its services will be available to fishermen from the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland; how the provision of this station will be financed; and whether any financial contribution towards this new service will be required from United Kingdom and Irish Republic fishermen.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The proposals for a north-west European Loran C system currently envisage a new transmitter station in south-west Ireland, but I understand that no site has yet been chosen. The system, if established, would be available for all marine users around the British Isles. Subject to an international agreement being reached, the participating countries would share the cost of establishing and running the system. The United Kingdom's cost-sharing obligations would be a charge against the general lighthouse fund through the light duties levied on shipping, including fishing vessels liable to such dues. The financial obligations of the Republic of Ireland are a matter for the Irish Government, as also is the determination of light dues charges in the Republic.

  Air Passengers
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many United Kingdom airports with an annual throughput of over 750,000 passengers have passenger forecast levels to the year 2005 at the same or within 10 per cent. of that level forecast by the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Individual airports forecast their own levels of traffic, in some cases to 2005. Where forecasts are supplied to the Department, they are provided in confidence, and my hon. Friend should approach the airports themselves for information about them.

  Any comparison with the CAA forecasts in CAP 548, published in January 1989, would need to take account of the variety of scenarios considered by the CAA for 2005.

  King's Cross
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list his responsibilities in relation to the development of the King's Cross railway lands.

  Mr. Freeman
  Apart from the general policy objective of encouraging the British Railways Board to dispose of non-operational land on a proper commercial basis, my right hon. Friend has a responsibility to consider the possible impact which the development may have on the public transport system and the adjacent trunk road.

  East London Assessment Study
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish details of his junction schemes at the Old street roundabout and in the Shoreditch one-way system arising out of his decisions on the east London assessment study.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department will be discussing with the boroughs concerned a co-ordinated approach to the improvement of the inner ring road which, at the points mentioned, is not a trunk road. It is too soon to say if those discussions will lead to the publication of possible schemes.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 434, if he will give the expenditure on energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department for the latest year available.

  Mr. Atkins
  Expenditure on energy consumption by the Department of Transport in 1989–90 is calculated to have been:

  £ (thousands)

  Electricity

  1,698

  Gas

  559

  Liquid fuel

  335

  Solid fuel

  10

  Total

  2,602

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to the answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 392, if he will give the expenditure for the latest year available on energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested by the hon. Member is as follows:

  Expenditure on energy consumption for calendar year 1989

  £

  Electricity

  268,252

  Gas

  33,953

  Liquid Fuel

  32,473

  This information relates to the Department's headquarters premises and all Her Majesty's inspectorate's local offices.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish details for each of the standard economic regions within Great Britain for each 218
  year from April 1986 to the most recent date, the number of contracted YTS places (a) in total and (b) contracted to schemes specifically catering for trainees with disabilities.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Details for each of the standard economic regions within Great Britain for each year from April 1986 to the most recent date, the number of contracted YTS places(a) in total; and (b) contracted to schemes specifically catering for trainees with disabilities are as follows:

  11987

  11988

  11989

  11990

  Scotland

  55,384

  63,285

  62,493

  60,989

  Northern

  35,155

  42,288

  39,781

  37,490

  North West

  78,406

  90,069

  81,112

  76,962

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  53,592

  60,987

  61,469

  60,197

  Midlands

  68,136

  77,342

  68,962

  62,067

  Wales

  31,061

  32,311

  29,019

  29,326

  South West

  36,427

  46,363

  43,397

  41,282

  South East

  59,266

  66,301

  58,907

  58,722

  London

  37,249

  36,320

  30,383

  32,699

  East Midlands and East

  58,510

  68.455

  61,533

  60,679

  Great Britain

  513,186

  583,721

  537,056

  520,413

  1 To the 31 March

  The figures showing the number of YTS places contracted to schemes specifically catering for trainees with disabilities are not available.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list and make available any research on young people with disabilities and YTS undertaken or commissioned by the Manpower Services Commission, the Training Commission and the Training Agency.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Reports of relevant research are listed and include reports on young people with special training needs in YTS where disability issues are a major component of the research concerned. I will place copies of these documents in the Libraries of both Houses—Going on YTS: The recruitment of young people with disabilities;
  —Note on YTS experience of young people with special training needs;
  —Young people with special training needs: the survey report;
  —Employer involvement in special training needs training.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has estimated the number of new jobs that will be created by the development of biotechnology.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the total number of persons engaged in (i) agriculture, (ii) steel industry, (iii) coal mining, (iv) the car industry, (v) the electrical goods industry, (vi) local government and (vii) the National Health Service in 1979 and 1989, showing the percentage increase or decrease in each case.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Department's estimates of employment are categorised according to the 1980 standard industrial classification (SIC80). This classification does not specifically identify the industries requested.
  219
  Medical and other health services (SIC80 groups 951, 952, 953 and 954) covers the National Health Service along with other employers.

  Employees in employment—Great Britain

  Thousands (unadjusted for seasonal variation)

  Industries (SIC80)

  June 1979

  June 1989

  Change

  Percentage change

  Agriculture and horticulture (class 01)

  339

  263

  -77

  -22·6

  Coal extraction and manufacture of solid fuels (group 111)

  299

  102

  -198

  -66·0

  Manufacture of motor vehicles and parts (class 35)

  464

  268

  -196

  -42·2

  Electrical and electronic engineering (class 34)

  752

  548

  -204

  -27·1

  Local government service not elsewhere specified (activity 9112)

  662

  570

  -91

  -13·8

  Medical and other health services (group 951, 952, 953 and 954)

  1,170

  1,386

  216

  18·5

  Coal Mines (Inspectors' Visits)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of(a) British Coal deep coal mines, (b) licensed private deep coal mines, (c) British Coal opencast mines and (d) licensed private opencast coal mines visited by Her Majesty's mines inspectors in (i) 1986–87, (ii) 1987–88, (iii) 1988–89 and (iv) 1989–90.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The numbers of British Coal deep coal mines in operation for the years given are 110, 94, 86 and 73 respectively. Each mine was visited by the Health and Safety Executive's inspectorate of mines.

  The number of operating licensed coal mines is normally between 170 and 180 and all major sites are visited at least once a year.

  The numbers of opencast coal mines in operation for the years given are 186, 194, 179 and 178 respectively. All sites would normally be visited at least once a year.

  Tourism
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many United Kingdom workers in the tourism industry have been assisted by the European social fund's training programmes.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not available.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to terminate contracts with training providers including TECs.

  Mr. Eggar
  Training providers are currently renegotiating contracts with the Training Agency or with training and enterprise councils (TECs) where these are now operational. As further TECs become operational they will take over contracts with training providers in line with their approved corporate and business plans. Termination of contracts with training providers will depend on the terms of individual contracts and on operational requirements.

  Sheltered Places Scheme
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make more funds available to the sheltered place scheme to increase the number of new places on that scheme.
  220
  Estimates for the steel industry are available only from periodic censuses of employment, the results of which are published in the Employment Gazette.

  The available information is given in the table.

  Mr. Eggar
  An additional £4·2 million has been made available towards the cost of expenditure on sheltered employment by local authorities and voluntary bodies this year, an increase of 14 per cent. over 1989–90. I do not at present expect that it will be possible to add further resources, but I shall keep the matter under review.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 448, why figures for energy consumption by unit of consumption are not available for his Department.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The nature of the Department of Employment group estate and the methods by which energy bills were paid is such that overall records by unit of consumption are not available. Where PSA was responsible for payment of energy bills information by unit of consumption is available. Where the Department has paid energy bills direct, only the cost element of the bill has been recorded and information by unit of consumption is not available.

  Unemployed Claimants
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate for 1988 and 1989(a) the number of claimants without paid jobs who wanted full-time jobs, (b) the number who wanted part-time jobs, (c) the number who had no preference and (d) the number who did not want a job who (i) had not looked for a job in the last week, (ii) had not looked for a job in the last four weeks, (iii) were not available for work within the next two weeks, (iv) were in categories (i) and (iii), (v) were in categories (ii) and (iii), breaking the estimates down by sex and according to whether the main reason for not seeking work in the last week was (1) looking after family/home, (2) long-term sick/disabled, (3) believed no jobs available, (4) retired, (5) temporarily sick, on holiday, awaiting results of job applications or waiting to start a job already obtained, (6) did not want/need work, (7) studying, (8) not yet started looking, (9) other reasons/no reply/not applicable and (10) all reasons.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 30 April 1990]: The available information is given in the tables. It is not possible to provide a reliable analysis of these figures by reason for not seeking work in the last week.
  221

  Claimants (aged 18 and over) not in employment, Spring 1988 Great Britain

  (i) Not looked for work in reference week '000s

  (ii) Not looked for work in last four weeks '000s

  (iii) Not available to start work '000s

  (iv) Both (i) and (iii) '000s

  (v) Both (ii) and (iii) '000s

  All persons

  (a) Would like a full-time job

  260

  150

  60

  50

  40

  (b) Would like a part-time job

  100

  60

  20

  20

  20

  (c) No preference

  40

  30

  10

  2

  2

  (d) Does not want a job

  290

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Men

  (a) Would like a full-time job

  200

  120

  40

  30

  30

  (b) Would like a part-time job

  40

  20

  2

  2

  2

  (c) No preference

  30

  20

  2

  2

  2

  (d) Does not want a job

  190

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Women

  (a) Would like a full-time job

  50

  30

  20

  10

  10

  (b) Would like a part-time job

  70

  40

  20

  20

  10

  (c) No preference

  20

  2

  2

  2

  2

  (d) Does not want a job

  100

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1 Not asked.

  2 Less than 10,000.

  Notes: Table excludes people who said they would like work as self employed.

  Figures are individually rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  The reconciliation of the claimant count with the claimant figures obtained from the 1989 Labour Force Survey has been affected by an improvement in the design of the questionnaire and also by the change in benefit regulations for under 18 year in September

  1988. As a result the reconciliations for both 1988 and 1989 have been restricted to claimants aged 18 and over to enable valid comparisons to be made between the two years.

  Source: Derived with reference to both the claimant count and the 1988 Labour Force Survey results.

  Claimants (aged 18 and over) not in employment. Spring 1989 Great Britain

  (i) Not looked for work in reference week '000s

  (ii) Not looked for work in last four weeks '000s

  (iii) Not available to start work '000s

  (iv) Both (i) and (iii) '000s

  (v) Both (ii) and (iii) '000s

  All persons

  (a) Would like a full-time job

  190

  110

  50

  30

  30

  (b) Would like a part-time job

  50

  30

  20

  10

  10

  (c) No preference

  30

  20

  10

  2

  2

  (d) Does not want a job

  130

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Men

  (a) Would like a full-time job

  140

  80

  30

  20

  20

  (b) Would like a part-time job

  20

  2

  2

  2

  2

  (c) No preference

  20

  10

  2

  2

  2

  (d) Does not want a job

  80

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Women

  (a) Would like a full-time job

  40

  20

  20

  10

  2

  (b) Would like a part-time job

  30

  20

  10

  10

  2

  (c) No preference

  10

  2

  2

  2

  2

  (d) Does not want a job

  60

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1 Not asked.

  2 Less than 10,000.

  Notes: Table excludes people who said they would like work as self employed.

  Figures are individually rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  The reconciliation of the claimant count with the claimant figures obtained from the 1989 Labour Force Survey has been affected by an improvement in the design of the questionnaire and also by the change in benefit regulations for under 18 year in September

  1988. As a result the reconciliation has been restricted to claimants aged 18 and over.

  Source: Derived with reference to both the claimant count and the 1989 Labour Force Survey results.

  Coal Mining (Fatal Injuries)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of fatal injuries in(a) British Coal deep coal mines, (b) licensed private deep coal mines, (c) British Coal opencast mines and (d) licensed private opencast mines in 1989–90.
  222
  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 4 May 1990]: This information is not yet available.

  Education Business Partnerships
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what will be the total level of financial support made available by his Department for the initial funding of the local education business partnerships and the maximum receivable by each partnership.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: I refer my hon. Friend to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 24 April 1990 at column 116.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to introduce a tax relief for contributions by businesses to local enterprise companies in Scotland.

  Mr. Lilley
  Yes. As was foreshadowed in the Inland Revenue's Budget day press release, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is today tabling amendments to clause 68 of the Finance Bill to extend to local enterprise companies in Scotland the proposed new tax relief for business contributions to training and enterprise councils in England and Wales on the same terms and for the same period.

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what swap arrangements are available to the United Kingdom from other central banks in the European monetary system; and what additional funds are available to those European monetary system members that are also members of the exchange rate mechanism.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: Since 1984, a mobilisation mechanism has existed which allows EMS members to obtain dollars in exchange for the ecu provided by the European monetary co-operation fund (EMCF) against the deposit of 20 per cent. of gold and 20 per cent. of dollars in official reserves.

  In addition, some credit facilities are available to EMS members. All members have access to medium-term financial support (MTFS), which is an inter-governmental facility to help member states with balance of payments difficulties, and short-term monetary support (STMS), which is a central bank facility providing support for temporary balance of payments difficulties. ERM members also have access to the very short-term financing facility (VSTF) to enable interventions to be made in Community currencies.

CIVIL SERVICE

  COSH Regulations
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service, pursuant to his answer of 20 April,Official Report, column 1042–43, whether assessments under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations have been undertaken for all workplaces used by civil servants in the Department for which he has responsibility.
  224
  Mr. Luce
  With professional guidance from the civil service occupational health service, assessments are now under way in all the Cabinet Office buildings, which will concentrate particularly on areas where chemicals are used as part of the work. Staff have been encouraged to comment on anything which they regard as hazardous.

PRIME MINISTER

  Edinburgh
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make an official visit to Edinburgh.

  The Prime Minister
  I hope to visit Edinburgh shortly.

  European Union
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her proposals for presentation to European Community Heads of Government to develop United Kingdom participation in aspects of European union.

  The Prime Minister
  As I made clear in the House on 1 May, we shall be putting forward a series of constructive ideas for strengthening the Community by making its institutions more effective and efficient.

  West German Chancellor
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister when she will next meet the Chancellor of West Germany; and what matters she will discuss with him.

  The Prime Minister
  I meet Chancellor Kohl frequently. We met at the Anglo-German summit on 30 March and at the special European Council meeting in Dublin on 28 April. I expect that there will be further contacts soon. Subjects for discussion include EC and NATO issues, east-west relations and German unification.

  Engagements
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 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.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Eastern Europe
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff of the Overseas Development Administration worked full time on matters concerning eastern Europe in each month in the current year; and how many staff worked part time on east European issues in each month.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The numbers of Overseas Development Administration staff who have worked full time on assistance to eastern Europe in each month of the current year are:
  225

  Staff

  January

  3

  February

  3

  March

  5

  April

  6

  The number of staff who spend some part of their time on bilateral or multilateral matters concerning eastern Europe varies greatly from day to day. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of the numbers involved in each month.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff with the Overseas Development Administration have been relocated from work on development issues with the Third world to work on assistance to eastern Europe: and if they have been replaced.

  Mrs. Chalker
  To date, six ODA staff have been assigned to posts exclusively concerned with assistance to eastern Europe. All of them have been, or will be, replaced in their previous jobs.

  Budgetary provision has been made for a further six such posts to be filled by the ODA in 1990–91.

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the planned United Kingdom contribution to the European bank for reconstruction and development; and whether this will come from existing budgets.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Subject to parliamentary approval and the deposit of an instrument of ratification, it is envisaged that the United Kingdom will subscribe to 85,175 shares of the initial authorised capital stock of 1 million shares. The cost per share will be 10,000 ecu. Thirty per cent. of each shareholding would be for paid-in shares, with payment in five equal annual instalments; half of each instalment being paid in cash, and half in non-negotiable, non-interest-bearing promissory notes. On this basis, the current annual cost to the United Kingdom of taking up the full shareholding allocated would be about £19 million, depending on the sterling/ecu exchange rate at the time of payment. Provision of such sums for the years to 1993–94 will be discussed in this year's public expenditure survey.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the benefits to the farming, fishing and food processing industries of the development of biotechnology.

  Mr. Maclean
  Biotechnology offers a wide range of opportunities within the farming, fishing and food processing industries for the development of safer, more effective and less costly products and processes, for the benefit of consumers, producers and the environment generally.

  British Horse Society
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet the president of the British Horse Society.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department is regularly in touch with the British Horse Society on matters of mutual interest, but I have no immediate plans to meet its president.

  Beef and Butter
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received complaining that the distribution scheme for surplus EC beef and butter is too complex; and how long was allowed from notification date to submission of applications to become a distributor.

  Mr. Curry
  Since my announcement on 19 March that the EC surplus food scheme should operate for one further year, I have received two representations critical of the administrative arrangements for the operation of this scheme. Charitable and other non-profit-making organisations interested in participating in the scheme were allowed nearly seven weeks—until 4 May—in which to apply.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many organisations have co-operated with the scheme to distribute surplus EC butter and beef in 1990 and in previous years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Some 127 organisations were originally designated to distribute surplus EC produce during 1988 and 1989. There has been a large response to the invitation to charitable and other non-profit-making organisations to participate in the distribution during 1990. Applications are currently being considered and I will make a statement once decisions have been taken.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 458, why figures for energy consumption by unit of consumption are not available for his Department.

  Mr. Maclean
  For the 1989–90 financial year the Department was billed for energy use by the Property Services Agency in financial terms. MAFF has some 300 properties throughout the country, many of which are shared premises without separate meters, where an agreed proportion of the energy cost is paid. The total number of energy units, even if it could be worked out in detail, could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much he has either spent or allocated on bovine spongiform encephalopathy(a) research or (b) compensation for each year from 1985 to 1992 in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 April, 1990, column 456.]: The amount given for expenditure on BSE

  227
  compensation in the financial year 1989–90 was incorrect and should read £4,028,063. I should also make clear that the information provided refers to expenditure in Great Britain only.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of inward investment.

  Mr. Needham
  The Industrial Development Board will shortly be announcing its results for 1989–90 and the inward investment achievements will show a further improvement on the very encouraging figures of the previous year.

  House Prices
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average price of a house in the Province in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The average price of second-hand dwellings sold on the open market in the Province during 1987 was £27,750. In 1988 this rose by 7 per cent. to £29,730.

  During the first three quarters of 1989 the average price was £30,840, a 3·7 per cent. increase on 1988.

  The average price of new-build properties was £31,060 in 1987 and, after a 2·2 per cent. rise, £31,740 in 1988. No figure is yet available for 1989.

  The lower cost of housing means that more people can buy. At a given level of income, many people in Northern Ireland can be better housed or better off than in parts of Great Britain.

  Debenhams plc
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial assistance was given by his Department to Debenhams plc to assist in setting up its Belfast store; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  No financial assistance was given to Debenhams plc to assist in setting up its Belfast store.

  Security
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security situation in the Province.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security situation in the Province.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since I answered a similar question on 29 March 1990, the Chief Constable issued on 26 April a warning that PIRA was intent on a campaign of bombing and shootings. This warning was justified by the attempts to bomb police and Army bases, as well as numerous other 228
  explosions. Fortunately, vigilance prevented the serious loss of life and damage to property which would otherwise have occurred. Since 29 March there have been 10 deaths arising from the security situation in Northern Ireland. Four full-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and two civilians were murdered by Republican terrorists, two civilians are believed to have been murdered by so-called "Loyalists" and one member of the Regular Army was murdered by paramilitaries unknown. One civilian, since claimed as a member of IPLO on active service, was killed by the security forces.

  Stevens Report
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how he intends to respond to the Stevens report.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his response to the Stevens report.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Stevens inquiry.

  Mr. Cope
  This inquiry was commissioned by the Chief Constable of the RUC and I understand that Mr. Stevens delivered his report to him on 5 April. The Chief Constable is still considering it. It is at present too early to say what response by Government may be necessary.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons normally resident in the constituency of Antrim, East are currently being held in custody in Her Majesty's prison, Crumlin road, Belfast, and denied bail pending charges being preferred as a result of the Stevens inquiry.

  Mr. Cope
  I understand that two people from the constituency of Antrim, East are now in custody on remand, after being charged with offences following the investigations led by DCC Stevens. I also understand that one person currently held in custody has refused to give details of his address.

  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons normally resident in the constituency of Belfast, North are currently being held in custody at Her Majesty's prison, Crumlin road, Belfast, and denied bail, pending charges being preferred as a result of the Stevens inquiry.

  Mr. Cope
  I understand that three people from the constituency of Belfast, North, are now in custody on remand after being charged with offences following the investigations led by DCC Stevens. I also understand that one person currently held in custody has refused to give details of his address.

  Extradition
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on the current arrangements with the Republic of Ireland regarding the extradition of convicted or suspected terrorists.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on extradition arrangements.
  229
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has had discussions with the Irish Government on the obstacles in Irish law to extradition from the Republic of those convicted of crimes in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Member to the answer which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett).

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will outline his policy on extradition.

  Mr. Cope
  We remain committed to ensuring that the arrangements between the authorities in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland for bringing fugitive offenders to justice are made fully effective. To that end, British and Irish officials have been instructed to undertake a review of the situation and report to a future meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people wanted for questioning or trial in respect of alleged offences in Northern Ireland are currently awaiting the conclusion of extradition proceedings in the Irish Republic.

  Mr. Cope
  Three cases, all concerning individuals who are wanted to complete outstanding prison sentences for offences committed in Northern Ireland, are currently being actively considered by courts in the Republic of Ireland.

  NHS Reform
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidance has been given to health and social service boards in the purchase of services under the proposed National Health Service reforms.

  Mr. Needham
  Since "Working for Patients" was published there has been a continual flow of information to boards about the purchase of services. The main guidance has been Northern Ireland working paper No. 2, a paper on purchasers and providers published last November and a paper on the operational principles of contracting published in February.

  Drink-driving
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the statistics for drinking and driving in the Province.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In Northern Ireland there has been a downward trend over the last 10 years in road deaths due to alcohol or drugs, from 53 in 1980 to 35 in 1989.

  While this trend is welcome, any death caused by drinking and driving is entirely avoidable.

  We shall continue to work with the drink industry, hoteliers, publicans and club organisers in order to influence public attitudes towards the unacceptability of drinking and driving.

  We each have responsibilities: as hosts to provide a range of alcohol-free drinks for our guests; as drivers to refrain from drinking and driving; as passengers to choose a non-drinking driver.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many small businesses have started up in Northern Ireland over the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  There is no comprehensive system of measuring small business start-ups in Northern Ireland, although there are several useful proxy indicators. One of the most widely used is the number of businesses (of all sizes) registering for VAT, of which there were an estimated 10,000 in three years ending in 1988. The figure for 1989 is not yet available.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the operation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government remain committed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the principles it embodies. However, we remain willing to examine any proposals concerning the agreement, particularly if they are likely to command widespread support.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Irish Government within the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The last meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference was on 19 April. Copies of the joint statement issued afterwards were placed in the Library and the Vote Office. I expect another meeting to be held within the next few weeks.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference will take place.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects the Anglo-Irish Conference to meet.

  Mr. Brooke
  I expect the Intergovernmental Conference to meet in the next few weeks.

  Irish Foreign Minister
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will next meet the Irish Foreign Minister; and what matters he proposes to discuss.

  Mr. Brooke
  I expect to meet the Irish Foreign Minister at an Intergovernmental Conference in the next few weeks and that we shall discuss a range of matters including the political situation in Northern Ireland, security cooperation and cross-border economic and social co-operation.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent on health per head of the population in Northern Ireland in 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Spending on health and personal social services in Northern Ireland per head of the population in 1989–90 was about £608.
  231
  This remains substantially above levels in England and Wales and is a continued recognition of the Province's need for additional health and social services care, despite other pressures on resources.

  Economy
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the state of the Northern Ireland economy.

  Mr. Cope
  The state of the Northern Ireland economy is reflected by a range of indicators. The latest available economic data for Northern Ireland show that compared with a year earlier the number unemployed in March 1990 has fallen by 10,600 and manufacturing output in quarter four, 1989 has risen by 7 per cent.

  Education
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of integration in education in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 29 March, at column 310.

  Capital Value Rates
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has received any representations to introduce capital value rates in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  No such representations have been received. Payments for Debt

  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to repeal the Payments for Debt Emergency Provisions Act (Northern Ireland) 1971.

  Mr. Cope
  There are presently no plans to repeal the Act. However, the need for the legislation is kept under review in the light of prevailing circumstances and developments.

  Irish Language (Schools)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to how many schools in Northern Ireland the Northern Ireland Curriculum Council sent consultative documents on Irish as a medium; and how many responses have been returned.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Copies were sent to all grant-aided schools in Northern Ireland. The council received a total of 165 responses.

  Road Deaths
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on road deaths in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the road casualty reduction programme on 31 October 1989, 86 people have been 232
  killed on the roads of Northern Ireland up to the end of April 1990. This includes three people killed in the Slaght level crossing accident and compares with 98 killed in the corresponding period last year.

  While this shows a significant improvement, we are still behind our target of a reduction to 140 by 31 October 1990. The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland will continue to work closely with the other statutory and voluntary agencies in the road casualty reduction field.

  The key to reducing the number of deaths is effective promotion of involvement and participation by all road users. That requires constant efforts to promote effective media coverage.

  Neither advertising nor enforcement can be a full answer. We need drivers to drive skilfully and in accordance with the Highway Code even when a marked police car is not in sight.

  Advertising is not available on BBC radio and television.

  Death and injury is newsworthy. The news and current affairs coverage by broadcasters and journalists has contributed to the drop in deaths. I am grateful.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pedestrians, drivers and passengers died in the six months from 1 November 1989 and in the six months from 1 November 1988.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There has been a 20 per cent. fall to 76 from 94 in the numbers of deaths in these major categories since the start of the casualty reduction campaign.

  1 November—30 April

  Deaths

  1989–90

  1988–89

  Pedestrians

  28

  38

  Drivers

  31

  36

  Passengers

  17

  20

  Total

  76

  94

  The numbers of cyclist and motor cyclist fatalities have, sadly, risen.

  We shall continue to pursue our objective of making Northern Ireland's roads the safest in Europe.

  Belfast Stamp Office
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the responsibilities of his Department in the decision to transfer the stamp office for deeds from Belfast.

  Mr. Cope
  None.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what consultation there was with the staff of the Belfast stamp office for registration of deeds and with the legal profession before the decision to transfer its work to Scotland and England;

  (2) what is the income and expenditure of the stamp office for deeds in Belfast; if he will make a statement on its cost to the public Exchequer; and what savings he estimates arising from its closure;

  (3) how many people are presently employed in the stamp office for deeds in Belfast; how many will be offered posts (a) elsewhere in Northern Ireland and (b) at the stamp offices in England and Scotland when the Belfast stamp office is closed;
  233
  (4) how long there has been a stamp office for deeds in Belfast;

  (5) by what means he announced the proposed closure of the stamp office for deeds in Belfast;

  (6) what arrangements are being made to acquaint the staff in the stamp office in Scotland and England with the differences in property law between Northern Ireland and elsewhere in Great Britain.

  Mr. Major
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Board of Inland Revenue's intention to close the Belfast stamp office in 1992 was notified to the staff on Budget day; the Law Society of Northern Ireland was informed by letter. Prior consultation would have been incompatible with Budget confidentiality for my decision to abolish stamp duty on shares.

  There has been a stamp office in Belfast since about 1922, but with a revenue of about £12 million and costs of about £190,000 in 1989–90, the cost of collecting stamp duty in Northern Ireland is now more than three times greater than the average cost in similar offices throughout the United Kingdom. Closure is expected to save about £160,000 a year at current prices.

  The office currently employs eight staff. Apart from one person on secondment, all staff will, wherever possible, be offered jobs in line with their preferences. Any necessary guidance to staff in England and Scotland on differences between the property law of Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom will be given nearer the time of closure.

  Non-denominational Nurseries
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for assisting nondenominational nurseries attached to schools in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Given constraints on resources, I have no plans at present to grant-aid nurseries attached to integrated schools.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to visit Portadown or Lurgan before 17 May.

  Mr. Brooke
  It is not the custom to give details of ministerial programmes in advance.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from consumer groups in Northern Ireland about the effects of the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland has submitted the results of a survey of consumers' views on electricity privatisation. No other consumer groups have made formal representations so far, but there will be ample opportunity to do so when Government's proposals are published in a White Paper later this year.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with trade unions in Northern Ireland over the proposed privatisation of NI Electricity; and if he will make a statement.
  234
  Mr. Needham
  There have been several discussions between Northern Ireland Ministers and the trade unions over the past 18 months. There will be an opportunity for all interested parties to comment on the Government's proposals which it is planned to publish in a White Paper later this year. In the meantime, it is open to the trade unions to bring forward further views on the subject at any time.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on the number of occasions dwelling houses were repossessed by building societies in Northern Ireland, due to default in mortgage payments, in each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Building society repossession statistics are not available on a regional basis. National totals are published by the Council of Mortgage Lenders in its quarterly publication "Housing Finance".

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on the number of occasions housing applications were received by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive from applicants whose homes were subject to repossession due to non-payment of mortgage levies.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I understand from the chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that during the year ended 31 March 1990 a total of 532 applications were received from people who claimed mortgage default as their reason for needing to be rehoused.

  Information is not available on the number of applicants whose homes were repossessed.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of local government expenditure to Northern Ireland is raised from(a) domestic ratepayers, (b) business ratepayers, and (c) Government grant.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information sought is not available in the precise form requested because of the structure of the rating system in Northern Ireland.

  Of planned gross expenditure of £177·4 million by district councils in 1990–91, it is estimated that £106·3 million or 60 per cent. will be raised from domestic and business ratepayers, £36·1 million or 20·3 per cent. from Government grants and £35·0 million or 19·7 per cent. from fees, charges and other income.

  It may be noted that, in Northern Ireland, local government is not responsible for roads, education or social services.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1989 on management and computer consultancy contracts; excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and
  235
  the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that his Department has budgeted to spend in the current year.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 28 March 1990]: The total amount spent on management and computer consultancy by the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments in 1989 was £5,747,531; the amount budgeted to spend in the current year is £4,543,300; the remainder of the information is as follows:

  Firm and subject of assignment

  Aims Ireland—Assistance to IT Strategy Planning.

  Aims Systems—Project Support (SSADM).

  Aspinwall and Co. Ltd.—Review of waste disposal arrangements in Northern Ireland.

  D. E. Barnard Systems—To derive a common IT strategy for the Department of Environment's Countryside and Wildlife Branch and Historic Monuments and Buildings Branch.

  Belmin Systems Ltd.—Preparation of presentation to the Confederation of Irish Industry Conference in Dublin.

  BIC Systems—ITD MIS Project.

  Bis Beecom (International) Ltd.—To advise the Department of Environment's Roads Service on specialised communication aspects of its Integrated Computer System.

  To prepare incentive bonus schemes to improve the efficiency of the directly employed labour in the Department of Environment's Works Service.

  Support for design of equal opportunities monitoring system for public sector.

  Feasibility study for an Information Technology Centre in West Belfast.

  British Telecom—Support for NICS Integrated Telecoms Project.

  Business and Economic Initiatives—Market Testing of Computer Bureau assistance with in-house bid.

  Training for small businesses in Belfast.

  CAPITA—To provide a management accountant, acceptance testing managers and scriptwriters to advise the Department of Environment's Roads Service on appropriate aspects of its Integrated Computer System.

  Market testing of Training Centre Stores.

  Capita, Muir and Addy—LAN Procurement, Newforge NIHPSS Superannuation System Implementation of IT Strategy.

  Capstan, London—Computerised post-coding.

  Mr. M. Carmel—Assistance on DHSS/QUB JWP on Library Services.

  CCTA—Animal Health System, Options for Market Systems.

  Charted Instute of Public Finance and Accountancy Ltd—To advise on the management accounting aspects of the Water Service's integrated computer project.

  Cheltonian International

  Assistance to Planning Project Management.

  CHKS, London

  International Classification of Diseases coding.

  Common Services Agency, Edinburgh.

  Pharmacists final balance sheet.

  Coopers and Lybrand
  236

  Girocheque Reconciliation Project.

  Assistance to Project Support Office.

  Assistance to Operational Strategy planning.

  Assistance to IT Strategy planning.

  Assistance to OVB Project.

  Pensions Data Conversion Project.

  IT Management Support.

  Mainframe maintenance/support function.

  Strategy study on benefit computing.

  Project Support Office assistance.

  Review to roles in systems delivery.

  Options Appraisal for Census 1991 processing.

  General Ledger System.

  NI Emigration Database.

  Professional services carried out on proposal for Textile Technology Centre.

  Coopers and Lybrand Associates

  To review privatisation options for vehicle inspection. To assist the Department of Environment's Transport Division to supervise and monitor the affairs of the NI Transport Holding Company and the three subsidiary transport operating companies.

  Audit of Market Testing Exercise in the Department of Environment's Water Service.

  Coopers Lybrand and Deloitte—Market Testing of Computer Bureau assistance with evaluation of suppliers' proposals.

  Review of the information service of the NI Technology Service.

  Full economic costing assessment and selection of computerised management system.

  IDB Market Research: Attitude of NI Business towards IDB.

  Evaluation of the Youth Training Programme.

  Dearden Management Consultants—Resources Management.

  Department of Finance and Personnel—Study of credit and debt.

  DPP (UK) Ltd.—Animal Health System, Options for Market Systems.

  Employment Services—Specialised training for jobclub leaders.

  EOSYS, Slough—Cabling Study.

  Framework, Leicester—Evaluation of the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action.

  Evaluation of the Volunteer Development Resources Unit.

  Gilpin Black Associates—Advice on the introduction of BS 5750.

  Victor Hausner Associates—Belfast Special Action Group/ Belfast Initiative.

  Targeted training in Belfast.

  Peter Hyde—To advise Department of Environment's Road Service on the organisation, management and job design changes required as a result of its Integrated Computer System.

  Industrial Society—Examination of typing services in Northern Ireland Office London.

  Industrial Training Services—Specialised training for Community Projects Branch.

  Institute of Manpower Studies—Advise on appropriateness and adequacy of an analytical approach to the monitoring of equal opportunities in the Northern Ireland Civil Service.
  237
  ICL—Mainframe support.

  Girocheque Reconciliation Project.

  VME to service 39 machines.

  D. MacRitchie—Review of trading performance and financial position of the beef and sheepmeat processing sector.

  R. A. McLaughlin—Department of Economic Development consultant on Management of STAR programme.

  Melrow, Somerset—Equipment performance monitoring.

  Mindworks—Business Analysis Seminar.

  Quality assurance on the use of business analysis methodology in compiling an Information Technology strategy.

  MMM Consultancy Group—To advise on the management of Transport and Mobile Plant.

  Dr. T. Morris—Assistance to Operational Strategy projects.

  New University of Ulster—Accounting Project Technical and Scoping Advice.

  Noble and Lund—Specialised Training Centre instructional staff.

  Oracle, Surrey—Maternity System.

  Oracle Corporation—Support for projects using Oracle.

  Oracle (UK) Ltd.—To provide advice and support during design and development of the Department of Environment's Works Service Management Accounting and Information System Project using the ORACLE relation database and toolset.

  PA Consulting Group—To develop a telecommunications strategy for the expansion of the Ordnance Survey for NI topographical database system into a multi-user Province-wide network. Typing Services.

  PE Computer Services—Market Testing support.

  Peat Marwick McClintock—To undertake an efficiency study of the Roads Service's Quarry undertaking.

  Policy Research Institute of Queen's University—The community impact of the Action for Community Employment Scheme.

  Richard Fellowship—Development work related to a therapeutic community for 14–16 year olds.

  Mr. B. J. Rusbidge—Social Work Staff Project linkages.

  Skytronics—Assistance to Operational Strategy Projects.

  Software Ireland—Computerisation of Valuation and Lands Office.

  Stoy Hayward—Preliminary review of administration of Manpower Training Scheme.

  J. W. Struthers—Crown Car Lease Hire Scheme.
  238
  J. C. Stutt—Effect of Government Purchasing on smaller firms in the Single European Market.

  Touche Ross—Interim Accounting Systems Feasibility Study.

  Quality Assurance of Telecoms Statement of Service Requirement (SSR).

  Monitoring—Shorts Privatisation—Shorts.

  Monitoring—Harland and Wolff Privatisation—Harland and Wolff.

  Audit of Southern Health and Social Services Board.

  Audit of Eastern Health and Social Services Board Trust Funds.

  Consultancy Advice on Computer Audit.

  Ulster Marketing Surveys Limited—Awareness and attitudes to the Youth Training Programme.

  University of Keele—Community Study.

  University of York—Study in Dynamics of Lone Parent Families.

  Various consultants—Advice to companies under the Fair Employment Support Scheme.

  Price Waterhouse—Banking Research Project. Fees incurred re review of wastage in the STS scheme.

  Audit of Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Board.

  Project Frontline Management Ltd.—Feasibility of a Remote Working/Training Centre in Belfast.

  Queen's University, Belfast—Mediation service by Policy Research Institute.

  Revaluation of Northern Ireland Family Mediation Service.

  Wang (UK)—Use of an existing word processing system and its capacity for development.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East of 24 April,Official Report, columns 111–13, indicate how many of the pollution incidents referred to in each of the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 which involved sewerage and water treatment works resulted in fish kills; which lakes and rivers were affected in each year; and what was the cost to public funds of restocking each of the waters affected.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: There were two incidents in 1987, two in 1988 and six in 1989.

  In 1987 the rivers affected were the Callan and Creggan, in 1988 the Callan and Cusher, and in 1989 the Maine, Blackwater, Creggan, Quigger, Ballinderry and Cusher.

  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has agreed to pay £3,000 to restock the Callan, £12,000 to restock the Creggan and £100 for the Quigger.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock [Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to vist the judges and staff at Birmingham County Court and the Crown Court on Friday, 18th May. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Friday, 18th May.

European Commission: UK Staff
3.1 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the number of senior officials employed by the European Commission from the United Kingdom is comparable with that of officials from other member states such as France, Germany and Italy; and, if not, what steps are being taken to rectify the imbalance.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the proportion of European Commission officials from the United Kingdom is generally lower than those for Germany, France and Italy, although at senior levels there is a broad national balance. While staff appointments are a matter for the Commission, my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met the Commissioner responsible on 17th April and agreed measures to increase the United Kingdom's representation. We are also acting to encourage more United Kingdom candidates to apply for employment in the Community institutions. We and the Commission will continue to work closely together to remedy the present situation.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, from which I conclude that a conscious attempt is being made to reach parity with similar countries. Why is there a shortage of applicants from the United Kingdom when the remuneration should be rewarding enough with the tax benefits?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the remuneration has not been rewarding enough to attract a sufficiency of United Kingdom candidates, which has been the main reason why the situation exists.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, to what extent is our under-representation due to our candidates' lack of language skills? Are the Government supporting the Community Lingua
1464
scheme? Will the noble Lord be good enough to have a word about this matter with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science? The evidence points to our poor record on language as being at least partially responsible for our performance on applications.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is right in saying that, traditionally, languages have been an impediment to recruitment. However, one of the measures that the Government are now introducing is the development of a European stream within administration grade recruitment to the Civil Service. This will increase the number of good quality officials fitted for work in the European Community institutions. Language training will be provided.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the problem, which is to some extent a real problem, does not exist at the most senior level? It hardly could as Britain has had one out of the only two Secretaries General of the Commission, and two out of the last three Directors General of.DG1, the external affairs directorate. The problem exists much more at A3 level and below, which is the rough equivalent of the assistant secretary or under-secretary level in our terms. In order to meet this need one has to have people anxious to make a career in the service of the Commission. The position is not greatly helped if the Commission is constantly represented, sometimes by Her Majesty's Government themselves, as being an inflated group of interfering busy-bodies.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that at the very senior levels —at grades A1 and A2—there is a broad national balance. Overall, the United Kingdom has approximately 12 per cent. of A-grade posts, which is well below our broad geographical share of 15 per cent. On the other hand, in grades A7 and A8 the proportion of United Kingdom nationals is only some 8 per cent.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the tax position of United Kingdom officials serving in Brussels. Can he say whether by that he meant that they were liable or not liable to United Kingdom income tax or any income tax?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I made no deliberate reference to taxation matters. I have no information, but I shall look into the matter and let my noble friend know.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain in a little more detail how the Government will encourage British recruitment to the Commission? How will people know how and where to apply in order to be considered?
Lord Reay: My Lords, in addition to the creation of a European stream which I mentioned, it is the Government's intention to increase the number of secondments to the Commission and also to establish a special unit in the Cabinet Office to

1465
co-ordinate the British recruitment effort and to take up individual issues with the Commission. This package of measures will, we hope, address the problem
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the timescale for making an appointment to the Commission is unduly long? Can anything be done to reduce it?
Lord Reay: My Lords, in addition to what the Government intend to do, the European Commission also intends to introduce procedures which should assist with the problem. One of those is to bring forward from the reserve list more United Kingdom nationals awaiting jobs, where those were successful in competitions.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can the Government make it clear that career prospects in the British public service will not be impaired by a period of service with the Commission?
Lord Reay: Yes, my Lords. The Select Committee of your Lordships' House which reported in 1988 made a point of this complaint. However, it has now become increasingly accepted that a spell in Brussels benefits the United Kingdom as well as the Commission. Individual career prospects should therefore become enhanced as a result, and such postings are now seen much more as an integral part of career planning.

Cyprus
3.7 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to secure a negotiated settlement of the problems of Cyprus.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we shall continue to give active support to the United Nations Secretary General's efforts to promote a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Cyprus problem.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. I appreciate the Government's hand in this, as I appreciated and welcomed the Minister's recent statement in another place that their policy was to continue to refuse to recognise the proclaimed so-called Republic of Northern Cyprus. He said that it was illegally declared and that the Government would not recognise it. That statement was very much welcomed and appreciated so far as it went.
My Question asks what steps the Government are taking to secure a negotiated settlement of a dispute that has now lasted for 16 years. As it is now clear that the Turkish Cypriot President of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which the Government do not recognise, wants only a recognition of the status quo, should we not now be seeking the support of those Turkish Cypriot community leaders who are prepared to negotiate honestly with the Cypriot Government under the auspices of the United Nations?
Lord Reay: My Lords, through continuous diplomatic contact with all parties concerned, including the fellow guarantor powers, Turkey and Greece, we have made strenuous efforts to help the United Nations find a way forward. The United Nations Secretary General has publicly acknowledged that no country does more to help him than we do.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Turkish Government's close relations with Mr. Denktash would help to achieve a negotiated settlement if the Turkish Prime Minister and his colleagues felt that that was necessary? Further, can he say whether the Prime Minister, during her recent visit to that country, discussed such matters with the Prime Minister of Turkey and his colleagues?
Lord Reay: Yes, my Lords. The Turkish President made clear to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in Gallipoli on 25th April that the Turkish Government continue to support the United Nations Secretary General's Cyprus mission. President Ozal said that he supported the principle of a bi-zonal, bi-commual federation in Cyprus with equal political rights for the two communities.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is it not time that we abandoned the illusion that we can control the complex affairs of nations which are situated several hundred or several thousand miles away from our own country? Will the Minister agree that realistically, the best help we can give is, come what may, to maintain those oases of security and stability, the British Sovereign bases and in particular Dhekelia, which is the one part of the island where Turkish and Greek Cypriots can meet on equal terms?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we are one of the guarantor powers and we have longstanding ties with Cyprus. Under the 1960 Treaty of Establishment we retained indefinitely two Sovereign base areas in Cyprus. We have no intention of giving up those bases; nor have the Government of Cyprus ever asked us to do so.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I must press the noble Lord for some further examples of what he considers to be the next step forward in this process of finding a settlement. Will he say what he considers to be the next step, rather than just simply saying that we shall continue to support the United Nations? In what way can we take the next step forward?
Lord Reay: My Lords, although the last round of inter-communal talks failed to make progress—and we regret that fact—nevertheless, the Secretary General of the United Nations remains committed to searching for a solution, and his initiative is still in being. The way forward is mapped out clearly in Security Council Resolution 649 which was unanimously adopted on 12th March. A member of the United Nations Secretariat has just arrived in Cyprus for consultations with both sides to prepare the ground for the resumption of talks.

Bank of England: Status
3.12 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act (1989), which provides for a central bank with greater independence consistent with the determination of economic priorities by the elected government, could act as a useful precedent in Britain.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, our position has been made clear both in this House and in another place. The Government have no plans to change the status of the Bank of England.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the noble Earl indicate whether he is aware that under Section 8 of the New Zealand Act to which I have referred, and a copy of which I have with me, the primary function of the Reserve Bank is laid down as being to determine monetary policy which will lead to the stability of prices in line with Government policies? Is he further aware that the policy agreed between the Government of New Zealand and the Reserve Bank is that by the end of 1992 inflation should be running at a rate of 0.2 per cent.? Does he not agree that those procedures and that objective might be highly desirable in the United Kingdom?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords; I am aware of the contents of the Act. However, with regard to the noble Lord's second question, it is the Government's duty to bring down inflation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the Bank of England already has a very considerable amount of independence in practice as exemplified by the Johnson Matthey rescue operation which was carried out without reference even being made to the Treasury? Is he aware that all the powers which are contained by inference in the Question addressed to him by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, are already quite adequately dealt with under Section 4 of the Bank of England Act 1946 and that there is no necessity for change?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that there is no need for change.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the conservatism of the Labour Party never fails to astonish me? Will he agree that there is a substantial distinction between the operations of the Bank of England as a regulator of the City, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred, and the functions of the Bank as regards inflation and dealing with monetary policy?
There are certainly arguments on both sides of the question. However, will the noble Earl further agree that with inflation mounting almost certainly to double figures —possibly 11 per cent. —a little humility on the part of the Government might not be misplaced?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are actually talking about the role of central banks. As the noble Lord will be aware, that varies from country to country whether one takes the example of America or Japan. Over the past five years Japan's inflation rate has been the lowest in G7, although the Bank of Japan is one of the least independent central banks.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I should like to indicate my conservatism by saying how much I agree with the noble Earl that the Government must take full responsibility for monetary policy. Equally, if monetary policy goes wrong and the inflation rate rises, does he not agree that the Government must also take full responsibility for that situation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is another question.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is it not a fact that in many countries now central banks are beginning to play a more independent role to buttress the efforts of their governments? Is the noble Earl aware that in a recent ballot among such bodies as the Association of Corporate Treasurers, there was an 80 per cent. response in favour of a more independent central bank? Should not such opinion be taken more account of in the formulation of government policy?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are always delighted to receive opinion from all sources. As the noble Lord knows, we study such opinion with great care.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Bundesbank did not maintain its independence for very long in the face of Chancellor Kohl's decision on one-for-one exchange rates between East and West Germany?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is a most fascinating question. However, I think that it is slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

European Court of Auditors
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What particular proposals they have to strengthen the European Court of Auditors.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are no proposals at the moment. The court's role is clearly defined in the treaty and any significant strengthening would require a change to the treaty. At the Dublin summit on 28th April it was agreed that Foreign Ministers would consider the question of institutional change. They will report back at the summit planned for 25th-26th June, and decisions will then be taken on whether to call a second inter-governmental conference to consider institutional issues. In the context of such an IGC, the UK would need to consider whether to pursue its long standing desire of improving financial

1469
control and accountability. The role of the court would clearly be relevant to any such consideration.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. I am delighted that it has changed somewhat from the Answer he gave me on 30th April and that it is more in line with the Prime Minister's reply in another place. However, is he aware that the Commission's anti-fraud programme includes additional annual expenditure of 70 million ecus on anti-fraud measures? That is exactly double the annual cost of the budget to the Court of Auditors. It is rather like closing the stable door when the horse has bolted. Would not the right way forward be to make it mandatory for the Council of Ministers to take note of and act upon the Court of Auditor's reports and to give the court greater finance?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Baroness's Question on 30th April concerned fraud. I stand by the Answer I gave on that occasion. We do not think that the Court of Auditors is the appropriate body to produce an annual report on progress in the fight against fraud.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, with due respect to the noble Earl, I did not ask that the Court of Auditors should produce a report; I asked for the court to be given greater powers.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was clarifying the context in which the noble Baroness phrased her question. She indicated that I had changed my ground from that of 30th April. I have not. The subject of the powers of the Court of Auditors is one on which your Lordships commented some years ago and which might be a matter into which we could look if there is a second IGC.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there are a number of ways in which the Court of Auditors can be strengthened without amendment of the treaty? Is he further aware that it lies within the power of Her Majesty's Government to propose at council level agreement to the increased staffing of the Court of Auditors? At the moment it is significantly understaffed by any professional standards.
Is he also aware that the other way in which the Court of Auditors may be strengthened is to amend the financial regulations so that the report of the court is published immediately after it has been concluded, on the year-end accounts? That would be better than having to wait for months and months to incorporate the Commission's replies to that report. Is the Minister aware that it would be far better and would draw more public attention to the report of the court if it were published promptly, without this interminable time for the Commission to consider replies which the report might incorporate?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I take note of the points that the noble Lord has put to me. He will
1470
be aware that soon after your Lordships reported, if my memory serves me right, a new A1 post was added to enhance the administration of the court. That is a point which your Lordships picked up. Noble Lords will be pleased that two changes have been made, largely at the instigation of the United Kingdom, to improve the process for consideration of the court's report. First, since 1985 annual reports have been discussed in the Economic and Finance Council as part of budget discharge procedure. Secondly, the Economic and Finance Council makes specific provisions for handling the court's special reports.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been at the forefront of the fight for at least 18 months, to seek to come to grips with fraud in the Community? The suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, are entirely well founded. Although all efforts have been made by this country, does my noble friend agree that we have been frustrated at Community level? In the course of future negotiations will the noble Earl take on board the suggestions that we have made?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, fraud is a separate question from the one on the Order Paper. We dealt with it in the Question asked by the noble Baroness on 30th April.

Business
Viscount Davidson: 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 7 p.m. for about one hour, and that during this adjournment the Report stage of the European Parliament Electoral Reform Bill will be taken.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.22 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' special attention to the first item on declaration of interest. This was a matter which concerned the committee in its last two meetings. Members had no wish significantly to alter the present practice of the House but it was thought that the existing wording in the Companion was not sufficiently clear. Therefore the committee recommends to the House the new guidance which is contained in paragraph 5 of the report.
Perhaps I may make three short points. First, as has always been the case, a decision whether or not to speak or vote on a matter in which one of your Lordships has a personal interest rests with himself or herself. Secondly—and this was the most important point in the committee's view—any

1471
interest, financial or not, which might influence the views being expressed should be declared in order that the House could make a balanced judgment of the arguments. Thirdly, a noble Lord should not speak or vote if he is acting or has acted personally in the matter under consideration for a specific fee or reward.
The main emphasis that the committee wishes to make is that the revised guidance depends on the importance of declaring any significant interest. I beg to move.
Moved, That the second report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report:
ORDERED TO REPORT—
DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
1. The Committee have concluded their annual review of procedural difficulties in the preceding session to which the attention of the House should be called, by considering at two meetings the issue of Declaration of Pecuniary Interest.
2. Rule (xiv) of the Rules of Debate in the Companion (p.44) is as follows:
It is a long-standing custom of the House that Lords speak always on their personal honour. It follows from this that if a Lord decides that it is proper for him to take part in a debate on a subject in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, he should declare it.
Subject to this, and to the guidance to members or employees of public Boards (the Addison Rules) set out below, there is no reason why a Lord with an interest to declare should not take part in debate. It is however considered undesirable for a Lord to advocate, promote or oppose in the House any Bill or subordinate legislation, in or for which he is or has been acting or concerned for any pecuniary fee or reward.
3. A series of incidents last session suggested that the last sentence of this guidance is widely misunderstood (H.L. Deb. 3rd April 1989 cols. 964 and 972, H.L. Deb. 2nd May 1989 cols. 58 and 61, H.L. Deb. 11th October 1989 cols. 403-406). The point at issue in each case was the meaning of "acting or concerned for any pecuniary fee or reward" and whether it applies to a general salary or retainer or only to a specific pecuniary fee or reward in a particular case, and whether "concerned" is to be construed broadly or narrowly. From an examination of the history of the matter, it appears that the rule was orginally aimed at two potential abuses, namely a Lord gaining pecuniary advantage from his membership of Parliament or using it to further his professional career, and a person outside Parliament gaining unfair advantage through a fortuitous connection with a member of the House. It was not intended to prohibit professionally qualified Lords from speaking on matters connected with their profession, which would deprive the House of the views of members with a direct knowledge of the subjects under discussion.
4. In the light of these recent experiences, the Committee consider that the rule as currently phrased fails to express the original intentions of the House, and accordingly they have agreed a new form of guidance which they hope will express the conventions of the House more clearly,
5. The Committee recommend the following new guidance on the Declaration of Interest, for eventual inclusion in the Companion:
"It is a long-standing custom of the House that Lords speak always on their personal honour. The decision whether it is proper to take part in a debate or a vote in which a Lord has a personal interest therefore rests with the Lord himself; but it is considered undesirable for a Lord to advocate, promote or oppose in the House any Bill or subordinate legislation if he is acting or has acted personally in direct connection with it for a specific fee or reward, or to vote on a Private Bill in which he has a direct pecuniary interest. Subject to these
1472
exceptions and to the guidance to Members or Employees of Public Boards (the "Addison Rules") a Lord is free to take part in a debate or a vote in which he has a personal interest.
If a Lord has a direct pecuniary interest in a subject on which he speaks, he should declare it, and he should also declare any kind of interest of which his audience should be aware in order to form a balanced judgement of his argument. Such interests may be indirect or non-pecuniary, for example the interest of a relation or friend, hospitality or gifts received, trusteeship, or unpaid membership of an interested organisation, and they may include past and future interests. This rule also applies where a Lord is using his influence as a member of the House in communication with a Minister, Government Department, local authority or other public body outside the House. If a Lord wishes to vote on a subject in which he has an interest that is direct, pecuniary and shared by few others, it is better that he should have spoken in the debate so that his interest may be openly declared.
On certain occasions such as Starred Questions and the various stages of a bill following Second Reading, it may be for the convenience of the House that Lords should not take up time by repeating declarations of interest but a Lord should make a declaration whenever he is in doubt. The Clerks at the Table are available to advise on the interpretation of this guidance in a case of uncertainty."
QUESTIONS ON NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
6. The guidance given in the Companion on the scope of questions which may be asked on the nationalised industries is as follows:
"The tabling of Questions on nationalised industries is considered undesirable save for those asking for statistical information on a national basis or raising matters of urgent public importance." (p. 79)
The guidance was incorporated in the Companion on the Committee's recommendation of December 1978 (1st Report, 1977-78, H.L. 126). The principle behind the guidance is that governments should be expected to answer only on matters for which they exercise some direct responsibility.
7. Theoretically, Ministers have an arm's length relationship with the nationalised industries and their powers to intervene directly in their operations are limited. However, through their powers to give directions and to appoint and dismiss Chairmen of boards, and through their practice of giving general directives to boards and exercising the power of the purse, it has always been recognised that Ministers do in fact have a considerable measure of control over the operations of these industries.
8. For some years past the framing of questions and subsequent exchanges in the House have taken account of this position and have in practice ignored the Companion's guidance. Questions on nationalised industries often excite considerable interest in the House and criticisms of their content are rare. Government spokesmen show a willingness to answer them.
9. The Committee recommend that the Companion guidance should be modified to follow that recently agreed to on the subject of privatised industries (Procedure Committee 2nd Report 1987-88, H.L. 51), that in future questions should be restricted to matters where there is, in practice, Government responsibility, and that the tabling of questions on nationalised industries and privatised industries should be governed by the following single paragraph:
"The tabling of Questions on nationalised industries and privatised industries is restricted to those matters for which the Government are in practice responsible. In the case of the nationalised industries this includes broad issues of general policy and matters of overall financial control, questions on matters which raise issues of urgent public importance or requests for statistical information on a national basis. In the case of privatised industries, Ministers may retain power, for instance, to give directions either directly or indirectly through a regulatory body or to exercise rights conferred by a special share-holding. Questions on matters of the day-to-day administration of nationalised and privatised concerns which do not fall within the Government responsibility are undesirable."
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
3.25 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.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 113AH:
Before Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Assessment in the planning process of charges for accommodation
—(1) Each local authority shall, in taking steps to prepare its first plan of the provision of community care services in their area under section 44(1) below and annually thereafter specify acceptable standards of care and accommodation for placements for people in their area in residential care homes and nursing homes and shall specify those standards for each category of personal or nursing care required depending on an individual's level of dependency.
(2) Each local authority shall be required to supply the Secretary of State with a schedule setting out the range of charges which it considers reasonable and would be prepared to pay to meet the standards specified in subsection (1) above in respect of each of the categories of personal care set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Schedule 4 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 in respect of the forthcoming financial year by such date as the Secretary of State may direct.
(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, the Secretary of State shall, after receipt of the information specified in subsection (2) above and following consultation with the local authority associations and other bodies he considers relevant, satisfy himself that the appropriate amount of income support (if it were in payment) would be adequate to meet such range of charges as has been specified for each of the categories of personal are as specified in subsection (2) above in relation to the forthcoming financial year.
(4) In respect of the first financial year for which community care services are provided under this Part, the Secretary of State shall certify that he is satisfied, after the consultation specified in subsection (3) above, that the equivalent resources have been made available to local authorities to meet the range of charge, notified to him under subsection (2) above.
(5) This section shall come into effect at Royal Assent.
(6) In this section, "appropriate amount of income support" has the same meaning as in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of Schedule 4 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 113AH, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 113AJ and 113AL. The group of amendments deals with a real and urgent problem: namely, the current shortfall in income support levels in meeting the full weekly cost of residential and nursing care. We know that local authorities will inherit this shortfall next year. Residents at present in care and those who enter residential care between now and spring 1991 will be trapped in the shortfall.
I received a letter from the director of social services of Wiltshire County Council, who stated:
"there is a shortfall between the level of benefits provided by Social Security and the cost of the fees. In Wiltshire the shortfall is approximately £30 per week for a residential care home, but substantially more for a nursing home".
Other surveys have shown a shortfall of £40 to £60 per week. All this is before we take into account the effects of higher interest rates on residential home costs in the private sector.
To their credit, the Government have decided to collect information on the level of costs and fees in residential care, but as we understand it this information will not be available when the social security budget is transferred to local authorities in April next year. Perhaps the Minister will confirm this when he comes to reply.
The pressure already affects the quality of care. As we all know, there is great pressure on relatives to make up the difference. In my own family, in attempting to find residential care for an elderly member of my wife's family, I experienced the subtle and insistent attempts by the social services departments to persuade the relatives to pick up the bill if they possibly could. We are told that in some areas of the country there are no homes with charges below income support levels. Obviously this raises tremendous problems for elderly, poor people and their relatives.
Those who will need residential care after the Bill comes into force will be able to claim from the local authority which will pay the full cost and recover a contribution from the resident towards the cost. However, anyone who is already resident in care now or goes into care before next year will have to rely on income support. There are approximately 150,000 residents on income support today and government figures confirm that over 40 per cent. are in homes where the charge is above the income support level.
I wish to ask the Minister to say in his reply what happens when people's savings run out. What happens when the relatives are no longer prepared to make up the difference? What happens if fees increase still further and the gap widens? I am sure he will emphasise in his reply the increase proposed in the levels of benefit for August. That is between £5 and £15 per week against a shortfall of £30 to £60 per week. All that the so-called preserved rights to income support achieve for those in residential or nursing care or entering before next spring is to preserve the right to uncertainty and deep concern.
I also wish to ask the Minister the Government's view about the comparison between residents in the same home after next spring. There will be some who have the preserved insecurity and others who will benefit from the Government's proposals if they enter after that date.
These amendments are designed to overcome this problem. Amendment No. 113AH places two new duties on local authorities to specify acceptable standards for residential placements and to incorporate these standards into the community care plan; and to supply the Secretary of State for Social Security with a schedule which sets out what it considers to be a reasonable range of weekly charges to provide an acceptable standard of care.
The schedule would correspond to the current categories of care used by the Secretary of State to set the national limits for income support. The first duty would require the authorities to list and publish

1475
the standards which must be met in homes which they will be using for residential care. The amendment seeks to avoid perpetuating the present two-tier system whereby residents who rely on public funds often receive poorer quality care. Adequate standards should include proper safeguards on privacy and should ensure that residents have their own clothing and appropriate diets. There should be adequate staffing and staff training and the care provided should encourage independence and include rehabilitation, where appropriate.
The second duty would provide a mechanism whereby the size of the income support shortfall in the area could be measured. At present there are 13 income support limits depending on the type of care needed; for example, ordinary residential care for the elderly, nursing care for someone under pension age, or treatment for alcohol or drug dependency. The schedule would allow comparison between the income support level and the rate which the local authority considered reasonable and was willing to pay. There would be an incentive for local authorities to set reasonable rates because these are the rates which they will have to pay from April next year when buying places in residential care.
Amendment No. 113AJ seeks to provide some limited protection for people who are in residential care homes or nursing homes now or who need to be in care but cannot find a home willing to accept them. There would also be continuing protection after April next year if income support limits failed to keep pace with homes' fees. The amendment gives the Secretary of State for Social Security the power to make a discretionary topping-up payment from the social security budget. An individual who needed care in a home with charges above the statutory limits would have the right to apply to the Secretary of State for an additional payment of income support. In considering the application and reaching a decision, the Secretary of State would have to take into account information supplied by local authorities and health authorities on the range of charges at homes registered in the area. There would also be a duty to take account of the rates which the local authority believed reasonable and was prepared to pay for an adequate standard of care.
The Independent Healthcare Association points out that the maximum levels of income support are inadequate to meet the average charges for nursing or residential care for the elderly. Most people are obliged to obtain top-ups either from relatives or from a charity. Fees for shared rooms are closest to the income support levels. Ironically, however, local authorities are insisting on a lower proportion of residents—often as few as 20 per cent.—occupying shared rooms. The association claims that a home which has a majority of patients receiving income support is only viable if the owner is able to provide 24-hour cover at a rate lower than the local authority would pay someone else, where capital costs have been paid and no reserves are kept in anticipation of future expenditure, where staff are paid significantly less than the rates proposed by the Whitley Council and where expenditure on repairs, maintenance, renewals, newspapers and other things is kept to a
1476
minimum level. However, that impinges on residents' quality of life.
We have all had massive briefing on this problem. We have heard from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the National Federation of Housing Associations, the NCVO, the Community Care Alliance, the Local Government Information Office, the Spastics Society, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and many others. Those organisations are in the front line of the problem. They cannot all be wrong. I urge the Government to deal most sympathetically with a situation where frail, elderly and frightened old people and their relatives are looking to the Government to provide a solution. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Cox: I support the amendment, moved so well by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, which contains many important provisions. The essence of the amendment has been expressed comprehensively and in general terms. Therefore, I do not wish to repeat the arguments. I wish simply to illustrate the need for the amendment. I shall do so by referring to a true case study which could be multiplied many hundreds of times over.
An elderly patient was discharged from hospital where he had been treated, having suffered from a cerebrovascular accident or stroke. By the time he left hospital he had recovered reasonably well but had some problems with mobility as a result of paralysis caused by the stroke and some problems with incontinence. He needed the support and advice of an incontinence adviser; he needed assistance to enable him to visit the lavatory regularly. However, he was sent to the kind of care home where that kind of specialist, skilled help was not available. Consequently, he suffered from incontinence, and that led to soreness and pressure areas. Those areas became infected and the patient's physical condition deteriorated. The patient naturally and understandably became depressed, demoralised and withdrawn.
A very unhappy syndrome of physical and psychological problems could so easily have been avoided if only there had been a proper assessment of the patient's needs and proper planning in terms of his social and health needs. The situation could further have been avoided if he had been sent to an appropriate place of care, and if he had received the care appropriate to his needs even if it was rather more expensive.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has highlighted the inadequacy of the provision of so much of the care that is currently available. We must ensure that all people in the community, particularly the frail elderly whose numbers will increase so dramatically over the coming years, are given the quality of care which they deserve and need. The example I have given illustrates the general purpose of the amendment. I shall reiterate the purpose: it is that such problems should not recur under the new dispensation.
The amendment would allow for the abolition of the suffering associated with the kind of situation I

1477
have described. It would also eliminate the fears that many people have that they will not be able to obtain or continue to have the high quality care which they need. That is an important point. The amendment is designed to meet in personal terms the needs of anyone entering community care and to meet in general terms the policy associated with planning provision and financial support for that care. I hope that the proposal will be accepted so that we avoid unnecessary suffering and provide for people according to their own unique, distinctive and individual needs. I support the amendment.
Baroness Seear: I, too, wish to support the amendment to which I have added my name. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the situation where, for financial or other reasons, patients are forced out of institutions where they receive proper care, or at least something approaching proper care. In some cases there is nowhere for them to go, but in many cases families will attempt to do something for thern out of a sense of family responsibility. However, in many cases those families are inadequately equipped to provide the kind of care that is required. As a result the patient suffers and the burden that falls on people trying to provide care becomes intolerable. I wish to underline that point in particular. We cannot overburden carers. We shall kill off carers in the attempt to maintain cheaply people who should be in institutions.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): If my noble friend will give way, it may be convenient if I intervene at this moment to put the Government's case. I hope to speak again at the end of the debate and reply to many of the points that Members of the Committee have made. Before I begin I should emphasise that Amendments Nos. 113AH and 113AJ are separate amendments and are grouped with Amendment No. 113AL. We are obviously speaking to the two together but it would not necessarily follow that if the first one were agreed to, the second one goes with it. They require separate decisions.
We have now come to one of the most important components of our proposals for care in the community—the drawing up of community care plans for the provision of services to local communities. These plans are a cornerstone of our policy. They are designed to enable local authorities to set out and publish the needs of the community they serve, their objectives for the arrangement of services to meet those needs within the resources available to them, and to set out targets which they are setting themselves to develop and improve the services available in their areas. We shall also require local authorities in drawing up their care plans to consult local statutory, voluntary and other agencies to ensure that the approach to community care becomes much more user driven rather than fitting clients into existing services.
I do not believe that the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 113AH will help in the planning of services in the way that I have just outlined. First,
1478
the clause appears to be designed to require local authorities to specify in their first plan, and annually thereafter, the standards of care and accommodation for placements for people in their areas in residential and nursing care for each category of personal or nursing care. Naturally the objective of all authorities will be to provide the best possible quality of care in residential settings for all clients whom they may assess as in need of such care.
It may well be that as authorities develop their plans over time they may wish publicly to state the standards and specifications which they may require from service providers, including their own directly-managed provision. I should certainly not wish to prevent authorities from doing so if they felt that it was the best way to secure the provision which they required locally. At the same time I do not wish to impose such a bureaucratic requirement upon them, particularly in the early rounds of planning when they will have a great deal of work to do in identifying all the resources which may be available locally and determining the way in which they wish to specify contracts and enter into agreements for that provision.
As I understand it, the second part of the clause is intended to require authorities to tell the Secretary of State what range of charges they consider reasonable and are willing to pay to meet the standards they have specified. It would also require the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that income support, were it paid, would have been inadequate to meet such charges and to certify what resources equivalent to the income support that would have been paid has been made available to local authorities.
That is a receipe for chaos and bureaucracy. It takes away all the local flexibility that we wish to give local authorities to enable them to enter into the contracts which are most beneficial in meeting the needs of those in their area requiring different forms of residential care. What is reasonable to one man can be outrageous or unrealistic to another man. Not least, there are clients with very differing needs, some of whom may be supported in residential care where fees can justly be comparatively low and made even more competitive through the purchasing power of the local authority. In other cases, people with very high and specialist dependency may require much more intensive and expensive support which the authority also feels is justified in the individual circumstances. Under our proposals local authorities have the flexibility to enter into either or both kinds of arrangements according to the priorities they determine. The clause before us does nothing to assist them in this; indeed, it could have precisely the opposite effect.
In turning to Amendment No. 113AJ I should like to commend the movers for their concern about this issue. I should like to emphasise at the outset that the Government recognise the importance of protecting the position of those who—for good and sound reasons—will not be covered by the new community care arrangements. We recognise the very real need to give as much reassurance as possible to those who are currently residents of homes and receiving benefit. I have to tell the Committee, however, that

1479
I believe that this new clause is both unnecessary and impractical.
In addressing the new clause and the concerns expressed by the movers of the amendment, I ought first to remind the Committee why the Government have decided to continue the income support system for people who are resident in homes at the point of change to the new arrangements next year. We recognise that the present system is not perfect and is something of a blunt instrument. However, we also consider that it is important to avoid any unnecessary disruption to the arrangements made for the many frail and elderly residents of these homes and their families. It is also extremely important to enable local authorities to concentrate on their primary task after April 1991; namely providing an effective service for those turning to them for help for the first time under the new arrangements.
The Committee will recall that the whole issue of the current income support system for people in homes was extensively debated in another place both during the passsage of this Bill and during the passage of the Social Security Bill. There are three separate themes in the Government's response and I believe that that response renders this new clause unnecessary.
The Government fully recognise the importance of the current levels of the income support limits. Last month we increased the weekly benefit for virtually all existing claimants in homes by £10 a week. I remind the Committee that that represents an additional cost of £100 million on top of existing expenditure of £1,100 million. Following representations made in another place we are also introducing a second stage to the increase in the limits in 1990-91. In addition to the changes already made, from 13th August there will be further targeted increases to all the income support limits of £5, £10 and £15 to help maintain their value during the coming year. More than 200,000 people will benefit. That amounts to £45 million more this year and £70 million in a full year.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has also been considering how he should carry out future upratings of the income support limits. He has undertaken to make a thorough assessment of the position and to look carefully at the levels and structure of the income support limits as they would apply from 1991. He also expects to approve the commissioning of the necessary research in the near future.
Thirdly—and this thought also lies at the heart of the new clause we are debating now —my right honourable friend wants to be able to use the information that will become available as a result of practical decisions and negotiations by local authorities after 1991. The Social Security Bill, which we shall debate in 11 or 12 days, already contains a new provision (Clause 9) which confirms his powers to do just that —to set local limits for income support taking into account evidence supplied to him by local authorities about the charges they will be negotiating and meeting for residents in homes under the new arrangements.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Can he answer the question which I put to him and tell the Committee when the information which the Secretary of State proposes to collect in order to make those decisions will be available?
Lord Henley: Obviously it will take some time for that information to become available. It will not be available immediately the arrangements come into effect next April. We require information from the local authorities after they have negotiated fees for the homes. There is no point at the moment asking local authorities what fees are being charged in their areas because those are not necessarily the true fees. We need to know what the fees or charges will be after negotiation by the local authority. That is the evidence that we require. The information that the noble Lord seeks from local authorities at the moment has little value.
We shall not be able to use this new source of information immediately from April 1991 but we shall want to start to use it in reviewing and setting the limits as soon as enough robust information is available. Officials will be talking to the local authority associations about how local authorities can help in that process and how soon they can begin to help.
That brings me to the new clause in detail. The clause would require the Secretary of State to request from local authorities schedules of fees charged by homes in their area. It would also require him to deal with requests for review of the income support payable for an individual in a home where the amount paid is less than the fees charged and in doing so to take into account the schedules of fees supplied by local authorities, statements made by the local authority concerned about the range of charges in its area which it would be prepared itself to cover and any other information he wishes. The clause would come into effect on Royal Assent and hence be operative before April 1991. That is the point that I made to the noble Lord earlier. It is very different evidence from that which we would acquire after local authorities started negotiating their own fees.
In summary, the difference between this approach and that of the Government is that the proposers of the amendment wish individual local offices to reach individual judgments in individual cases and want the system to start now. The Government consider it crucial, on the grounds of simplicity and equity and on the grounds that there must be firm controls in that area to avoid a blank cheque being signed on the taxpayer, that there should continue to be a regulated system of limits applying, albeit one that is sharper than our current blunt instrument and as sensitive as we can make it. They also consider that it will be essential to reach a judgment, after consultation with the local authorities, about the precise information that would be most helpful and about how soon enough information would be available to provide the robust evidence that I mentioned earlier.
The proposed new clause imposes a completely unrealistic timescale and would place grave

1481
difficulties on Department of Social Security local offices as individual officers would be required to make extremely difficult judgments in individual cases. Even with the information from local authorities, they will have to reach judgments on what is a reasonable charge for the taxpayer to meet. That might be particularly difficult where no one in the home in question has been placed there by the local authority or no one receives the same level of care, or where there are several different levels of fee applying in the same home. Department of Social Security officers are not accountants. They simply do not have the expertise to sort that out. This is a recipe for delay, bad decision-making and unfair and unequal treatment.
As I said earlier, I clearly understand the motives behind the new clause. However, having said that, I hope that after some debate —and I shall answer as many points as possible at the end of the debate —the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ennals: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him two questions. First, in the studies that will be made by the Secretary of State, I presume that the different levels of cost of care homes in different parts of the country will be taken into consideration. I am aware that the cost of care homes in London is on average £66 per week higher than the income support level. I hope that the variations will be considered. Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, will the noble Lord give an assurance that none of those people now in care homes, without the resources to pay the fees required, will be evicted between now and the time when the legislation to which he referred comes into effect?
Lord Henley: I thought that I made it clear that my right honourable friend would look at local differences. That is the point of acquiring evidence from various local authorities. I should emphasise that that evidence should concern the cost rather than fees or charges. Those are two different things. That was why I stressed that our present arrangements are very much a blunt instrument. As the noble Lord knows full well, there is always the danger that if one puts up the limit many of the fees would go up.
The noble Lord also asked what will happen to those who are in homes at the moment and whether they might find themselves moved out. I cannot give him the assurance that he requires. He will know full well that the social security system, providing income support here, has never been the provider of last resort. Local authorities have a duty to help people who need residential care which is not otherwise available and health authorities have a duty to help people who need nursing care.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may press the noble Lord on that point. We are not trying to be difficult about it. As I see it, the crux of the matter is that it is a short-term problem. What will happen in the interim to those people who may be forced out? Unlike so many other problems, this problem will come to an end because, after 1991, the position will
1482
be different. However, what will happen to those people who, if they cannot meet the bills, will be out on their ear?
Lord Henley: I accept that there is a short-term problem here. That is why my right honourable friend made a mid-year announcement of an extra £5, £10 and £15, at a cost this year of £45 million and at a full-year cost of £70 million, in addition to the £100 million that he announced would come into effect this April. That is a large sum of money.
Lord Renton: As a past president of MENCAP and having a daughter aged 35 who has had to be in residential care pretty well all her life, I normally support the proposals put forward by the consortium to which the noble Lord referred, but I cannot in all conscience support this group of amendments.
I came to the debate without having thought about the matter very deeply, although I had read the amendments. However, having thought about the matter further—I shall burden the Committee briefly with some of my thoughts on it —and having heard my noble friend Lord Henley explain what the Government are doing and propose to do, I think it would not be reasonable for us to press the amendments. In any event, I hope that those who move them with their usual care and sincerity will consider the matter further in the light of the debate rather than put us into even temporary conflict with another place by pressing the amendments, even perhaps successfully, today.
Perhaps I may now give my reasons which are in addition to those which my noble friend mentioned, although I entirely support his reasons which I find very powerful. The first reason is that in Clause 44 the Government make an important new advance in the provisions—which after all have been on the statute book for many years —for the care of those who require it in various kinds of home, whether they are publicly or privately provided for or, as in the case of my daughter, a bit of each. Clause 44 makes a welcome and important new departure.
I find it strange that the first two amendments which we are discussing have been placed on the Marshalled List to precede Clause 44 because, quite frankly, they should be regarded as an elaboration and extension of it. By putting them first, we are putting the cart before the horse legislatively. In the circumstances, I do not think that it makes sense to do so.
In addition, the first amendment—Amendment No. 113AH —overlaps, as my noble friend said, with existing arrangements to be found in the Social Security Bill and, incidentally, overlaps with the broad power given by Clause 44. When legislating, even when we have to go into some detail, we should try to avoid overlapping if we can.
There is then the question of cost. I am glad to say that we are spending much more than used to be spent on care of the elderly and others with severe handicap of one kind or another. I tried to follow my noble friend, but I am not certain whether he gave any estimate of the cost of our requiring the Government to implement Amendment No. 113AJ. He said that we would give a blank cheque to those

1483
who were given power to spend. Although the Government have said that it will be a blank cheque, perhaps they have some idea, even at the back of their mind, as to how much might be incurred under that blank cheque.
We all know, and are worried about it, that the economy is not in such a healthy state as it has generally been under this Government in the past 11 years. I must confess to the Committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a friend of mine. He represents my old constituency and achieves much bigger majorities than I ever did. He has not spoken to me about this, but I think that we are doing no service to those who are afflicted in any way by letting inflation run. We all have to be responsible enough to hold inflation. One way in which to do so is to avoid unnecessary expenditure—certainly to avoid blank cheques.
I therefore could not possibly vote in favour of either of these two amendments if they were pressed to a Division. I have much respect for the Members on the Front Benches. They are caring, as I hope that I am, about those who have special needs. However, if they press either amendment to a Division I could not support them.
My noble friend pointed out with some reason that, although we are imposing new administrative arrangements on the local authorities concerned and on the Secretary of State in Clause 44, we do not want the system —which is a good one and should be given a fair run —to be bogged down and perhaps delayed and impeded by over-elaborate administrative arrangements. One hesitates to use the word bureaucracy, but it would be a further extension of bureaucracy. For those reasons, expressed as briefly as I can, I very much hope that there will be second thoughts on the part of those who moved these two amendments.
4 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: When the noble Lord, Lord Henley, replies to the debate perhaps he will clear up something for me. He mentioned that there were to be increases in income support in the three bands of £5, £10 and £15 respectively. I believe he said that that would affect 200,000 people and would cost about £45 million. But he also said that the Social Security Bill—which we have not yet discussed—will give the Secretary of State powers to take local conditions into account when setting levels of income support.
My question is simply this. When local authorities have reported, when the necessary information has been garnered, and if wide discrepancies are revealed, what will then be the Government's attitude? What will they do?
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has already mentioned that there is a discrepancy of £66 in the London area over and above the limits. I take the point that we need the information. It would be nice to hear what the Government plan to do if very large discrepancies are revealed.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This is a very complicated subject which is difficult for us to grasp.
1484
We have had some very short speeches which have not illuminated it. However, I am deeply disturbed by what some Members of the Committee are saying and what we in Parliament are doing.
The Bill follows the idea in the Education Reform Act that my noble friend Lady Cox supported enthusiastically in most of its parts. We made it possible for decisions to be made near the ground, by the people who will be most involved, who can be sensitive. We did so in the face of a good deal of opposition from a number of noble Lords opposite. There has not yet been time for that measure to be programmed.
In the community care section the Bill follows the same idea. It gives the decision making to local councillors who know the circumstances, and whose constituents are the people for whom care is needed and their relations. The councillors are answerable to them. Most people involved in local authority work are closely linked with somebody who will depend on community care. Anything that we do in this Chamber, or in another place, which militates against that idea will damage the ability of people at ground level to make decisions. Some Members of the Committee may not consider that people at ground level should do so. But if one does so consider it is very important not to damage such ability.
In putting the problem, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, very rightly talked about shortfalls in local authorities: the problems of meeting the costs of such provisions. My noble friend Lady Cox very rightly gave us one case study. I was reminded of discussions I had in my local government days about social services when our hearts went out to the people about whom we were talking. That is why I said the other day that there is not usually much problem in getting local authority voters to fund social services.
However, we must not mix up our concern that that should happen with the system by which it is proposed to bring it about. Of course a system must be found whereby people are not left in the lurch, and the charges must be met. The Bill may be incomplete. However, if we do what is suggested in these amendments, I believe that we take all the benefit away from the Bill as it is drafted. There may be Members on the Cross-Benches and very likely other noble Lords opposite who believe in the principle of the Bill and would not wish to undermine it. If one uses local government in this way, first, one ring fences its budget. That is what we have done as the Bill now stands. Local authorities are told the sum that they have; and that is the sum they they will spend. If one then allows them to say, "That is what we reckon we shall need; this is what we have," and if the Government have to assure them that they will give them the balance, one would remove from councillors their ability to do their job. It is the easisest thing in the world. The charges would be set accordingly. The councillors would not need to do all the negotiating that is at the heart of the Bill. The downward pressure would not be there. The taxpayer would have to stump up.
I am surprised that my noble friend did not say that it was not right for this committee to pass the amendment. It would cost an enormous amount of money because there is no pressure to do other than

1485
to spend. That worries me. We have not heard very much from Members opposite who have local government experience and I do not know whether they will agree with me. About 20 per cent. of local government expenditure will now be ring fenced. Local councillors can only make a decision within the budget. It will be ring fenced.
Lord Carter: We had this debate on Tuesday. The noble Baroness is wrong. In the case of ring-fenced funding. the local authorities will be perfectly free to spend over and above the ring-fenced funds. No one suggests that ring-fenced funds should be 100 per cent. of expenditure. The local authorities would be free to add to that money and then they will be held accountable to their voters for the poll tax.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It is true that they will be free to spend more than the amount that is being ring fenced. However, Members of the Committee who have local government experience will know that expenditure on the police, which takes another enormous portion of the budget, is virtually predetermined. Expenditure on the fire service is predetermined to the extent that standards are set and so forth. The one remaining large portion of local government expenditure is on education. At present that accounts for about 50 per cent., 25 per cent. of which is predetermined by salaries.
Parliament is saying that local government will be able to decide how to spend only 25 per cent. of its budget, plus 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. for other services such as rubbish. If in addition we say to local government, "Under an amendment such as this you can have as much as you want in addition because you have said that it is needed", we would wreck local government. I strongly believe in local government. At present it does not go my way in Scotland but I believe in it. It is doing Scotland a great service, although at the moment it is dominated by the Labour Party. It is doing Scotland a great service and we are ruining it—
Lord Ennals: The noble Baroness said that local government in Scotland is dominated by the Labour Party. It is not; is is dominated by the voters. Local government elections are the people expressing their view, whether it happens to be Conservative, Labour or Liberal. There is nothing wrong with that; that is what democracy is about.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I know that there is nothing wrong with it. I said that the people have elected councils which are dominated by Labour councillors. That was what they wanted. I believe that they are doing a great job for Scotland. The noble Lord must listen to what I say, although it may be surprising. If we take away that power—and the amendment enhances that —we shall be turning local government into an agent of central government—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The amendment turns it into an agent of central government. If the local authority associations are backing the amendment I
1486
wonder how closely in touch they are with councillors. They have not written to me about the matter, perhaps naturally. If they had I should know more about their views. I shall be very surprised if they are in close touch with the councillors.
The amendments are providing for local government to be able to ask for as much as they say they need for community care. The figure that must be spent on community care is the best that local government councillors can obtain. Of course there must be a mechanism whereby cases about which we know are not left in the lurch. However, I am most alarmed by the general principle. I am shaken by the fact that the Labour Party, which believes so much in local government, is going along with it. I do not like to talk about political parties in this Chamber but I find the matter quite extraordinary. I hope that its members will think hard before pursuing that principle, and I hope that the amendments will not be carried.
Lord Milverton: On previous occasions I have supported Members on the opposite side of the Committee. I have supported the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lady Cox. I have given the matter some thought. I know a little about what it is like to have a disabled member of the family because my sister has a mongol child. That is minor compared with the disabilities with which many people must contend.
I have listened to the arguments and given the matter a great deal of thought. The remarks of my noble friend Lord Renton helped me to make my decision to vote against the amendment should it come to that. I have decided to support my Front Bench. As far as I am able to understand such complex issues my noble friend Lord Henley gave a satisfactory answer. Although I have supported the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on similar issues, on this occasion I shall support my Front Bench.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: The Minister has already spoken and therefore it may be helpful if I deal with some of the points which have been made since I moved the amendment. The Minister will have an opportunity to reply and we shall then decide what to do with the amendment.
Members of the Committee will have noticed that the Minister did not reply to my questions. I hope that in a moment he will take the opportunity to do so. What happens when those people now in residential care have a shortfall because their savings have run out?
Lord Henley: The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked that same question and I answered him.
Lord Carter: No, my noble friend asked what will happen if they face eviction. I ask what will happen if their savings run out. What are they to do if the relatives are no longer prepared to make up the difference? What will happen if the fees increase still further and the gap widens? None of those questions has been answered. The Minister did say what will happen to the residents who face eviction—that

1487
it will be up to the local authorities to solve the problem.
I could not hide a wry smile when I heard the remarks from the other side of the Committee about the bureacracy involved in our amendments. They come from members of a governing party which has introduced the poll tax, which is a bureaucratic nightmare. The Minister said that bureaucracy is involved because local authorities must discover the range of charges. Is not that exactly what the Government are trying to discover in their consultation process?
The Government believe in competition and the Minister used that word. It is intended to drive down the costs, thereby reducing the shortfall. However, the argument that today's fees should not be used as a regulator is spurious. The Department of Health assumes that local authorities will obtain cut-price care by negotiating the block contracts for care which the Minister mentioned. However, because of their nature, the block contracts will reduce choice. Therefore, the notion that we can have both choice and lower prices is illusory.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, must take the point that local authorities will have to make up the existing shortfall before they can begin to find the funds to solve the problems which the Minister said they will have to solve; for example, when the residents' savings run out, when the relatives will not make up the difference or when they face eviction. She referred with nostalgia to the old system of local government with which she is familiar. She described what used to happen in local government, but we now live in the age of the poll tax. Local authorities now have the overarching problem that the cost of everything they wish to do over and above the Government's requirements must fall on the poll tax. It must bear the cost of all extra local government expenditure.
Amendment No. 113AJ meets exactly the requirements which the noble Baroness mentioned. If there is a shortfall in individual cases it provides the power for a discretionary top-up to income support from the social security budget. We have been told endlessly that the amendments will wreck local government. Why then have we been briefed by all the associations representing local authorities which wish to see their provisions included in the Bill?
The Minister said that he recognises the importance of the cover required and that the Government wish to give a reassurance. But fine words of reassurance do not help to make up the many shortfalls. There are shortfalls after the recent April top-up. The further top-up in August of £5, £10 or £15 per week must be considered against the shortfalls which will then exist of between £30 and £60 per week.
Whenever we debate issues such as social security and health the Minister always quotes the big figures, and I understand that. We are told that is £45 million here and £100 million there, and that is important. However, that does not attempt to deal with the individual problems of people who now face a
1488
shortfall even after the expenditure which the Minister quoted. He said that the Secretary of State wishes to look at income support levels and therefore further research is required. We have been down that road before in respect of disability. We had the OPCS surveys but we have not received the comprehensive review of disability benefits which was promised as a result of the research.
The point was made in another place by a number of Members that the information which the Government require is available now. The point was made by my right honourable friend Mr. Merlyn Rees that one need only go to the voluntary organisations which run various homes around the country. They will be entirely prepared to reveal their costs, perhaps unlike the private sector, because, as the Minister said honestly and correctly, it is the costs about which the Government are anxious and not the fees which are charged. They want to know what are the costs which they will have to meet. That information can be obtained from the voluntary sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred interestingly in an aside to the fact that, were we to be successful on these amendments, that may result in a temporary conflict with another place. That assumes that another place would wish to overturn our decision. He referred at some length to Clause 44, but that does not help those in shortfall now. Amendment No. 113AJ is intended to deal with that problem.
The noble Lord also referred to the need for care as regards public expenditure. That is so. He mentioned too the state of the economy. To be fair, he might have referred to the 1 per cent. on the RPI which is a direct result of the Government's introduction of the poll tax. That has also affected the state of the economy. When one compares that sort of decision with the individual and human problems that we are now facing, I am surprised that the noble Lord is not able to see the importance of Amendment No. 113AJ in helping all those people who now face that problem. That must be dealt with before the new system is introduced next April.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before the noble Lord sits down, in view of his reference to the possibility of a conflict with another place, has he thought about a major source of conflict which will arise if these amendments are carried and inserted into this Bill in the light of the amendment inserted into the Social Security Bill in another place on 26th March?
I shall quote a few words from the Secretary of State for Social Security in a few moments. But an amendment has been carried dealing with this topic which, whatever the noble Lord may say, is quite inconsistent with the amendments he is now proposing to insert into this Bill. I shall quote because I believe that it is only fair to do so. The Secretary of State for Social Security in introducing this amendment said:
"The power that I am taking in the new clause is designed to help me to set up a system of local limits, if need be. In setting such limits, I want to have regard to both the charges being met by local authorities in homes and also, perhaps, the charges being met by other bodies such as the voluntary sector".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/3/90; col. 590]

1489
That amendment has gone into the Social Security Bill, which we shall shortly be considering in Committee. It is quite plain that that is not consistent with this amendment.
What will happen if these amendments are carried? Logically, the amendments to the Social Security Bill must be rejected or the law will be left in a state of chaos. That is unfair not only to the local authorities, which have to administer this, but even more so to the people whom it is supposed to benefit.
Perhaps the Committee will consider for a moment that, as some of my noble friends have said, we are dealing with a large volume of public expenditure. In those circumstances there must be a strong argument for adopting a solution of another place as to how that expenditure should be authorised and carried out. For this Chamber to carry a proposition such as we did the other day, which was rejected and which involved substantial expenditure, leaves the whole matter very uncertain. If we were, as in logic we should do as part of the same process, to throw out the amendments put in another place to the Social Security Bill, we should end up by doing no good to anybody.
I fully understand—and I have listened to this debate with great care—the strong feelings of Members on both sides of the Committee. I am sure that we were all very moved by what my noble friend Lord Renton said. However, if one wishes to be practical and to secure that as soon as possible the position of the very unfortunate people with whom we are concerned is rectified and put on a firm foundation, I suggest that the inevitable conclusion is that these amendments should be withdrawn. Thereafter, when we come, as we do in a few days' time, to consideration of the Social Security Bill in Committee, we should support the clause put in by another place, which is now safe from any alteration by that Chamber.
In that way we shall be able to go ahead knowing that, although we may not have achieved in exact detail what the Committee wants, we shall have secured that this important benefit is safe and secure for a great many people whose interests we have at heart. If we become involved in a conflict with another place by introducing clashing amendments, we risk throwing the whole matter into confusion and we shall inevitably incur delay.
Lord Ennals: I am not quite certain why the noble Lord is so worried. This Committee is entitled, as we did on Tuesday, to pass an amendment to a Bill which has come from another place. The other place must then decide what to do with it. When we come to consideration in Committee of the Social Security Bill, we are equally entitled to pass amendments if we believe that it is right to do so. Again, another place must then decide what is the best course to take.
The reason that the issue is before us today is that there is a conviction —and I believe it is shared by Members of the Committee on both sides—that some of those people who are in care accommodation today and who could conceivably be evicted are not
1490
covered by the steps taken by the Secretary of State for Social Security which we have welcomed. It is because we are worried about that particular group of people in the time until the new Act comes into operation that these amendments are before us.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord is absolutely right in saying that we can amend and that another place can amend. However, I ask him to consider whether that makes good sense. We are trying to help a very unfortunate section of our population. With the full approval of another place there is a provision which will go a great way towards achieving that. Because some of us may prefer in certain detail our own ideas, it surely does not make good sense and certainly does not make good social sense to involve ourselves in a long and complicated conflict with another place which will delay the remedial measures that we all wish to see. If the noble Lord really wishes these people to be helped quickly, he will withdraw his amendments.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, spoke of shortfalls in the levels of income support and cited cases. There will always be shortfalls whatever may be the limit for the level for income support. The noble Lord knows full well that if we raised the limit to £300, there would still be shortfalls in some parts of the country. It is important to bear in mind that there are still homes below the limits as they are set although I appreciate that there are problems in some areas. However, I believe that we can find homes in all areas which are below the limits. The other point which the noble Lord should consider is that if we keep on increasing income support levels, as I said before, the fees are pushed up. That does not help those who are paying their own fees and who are not on income support.
The noble Lord asked about the position of those who are paying their own fees should their savings run out. It does not matter; they can still go on income support. They will still have their preserved rights. It is the residents who are in a residential or nursing home at April 1991 who are relevant, not whether they are in receipt of income support on that date.
The noble Lord quoted his right honourable friend in another place, Merlyn Rees, and said that there was already evidence of the costs. He quite rightly said that it was costs that we should look at and not fees and charges. He cited the evidence from voluntary organisations. It may be that voluntary organisations can provide some evidence, but merely because an organisation is voluntary does not necessarily mean that the fees it is charging are the cheapest or are the base line. An economist would probably be able to advise the noble Lord on this, but no doubt there are profit-making bodies providing a perfectly good service who charge lesser fees than some voluntary organisations.
My noble friend Lord Renton quite rightly asked about my estimate of the cost of Amendments Nos. 113AH and 113AJ. As my noble friend quite rightly said, I referred to a blank cheque. I do not think I can go beyond that. The amounts would be impossible to

1491
predict, and Amendment No. 113AH appears to be an open-ended cheque. Local authorities no longer need to negotiate; they simply set out what they consider the local charges to be and ask the Secretary of State to pay up. Amendment No. 113AJ is equally open ended. The Secretary of State has to respond to the fees charged and there will be no incentive for the local authority to negotiate the best fees. They would know that in the end my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would pay out.
As my other noble friends mentioned, Clause 9 in the new Social Security Bill deals with that problem. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, rightly asked what would be the attitude of my right honourable friend to local discrepancies under Clause 9 of the Bill. That will be debated in greater detail in 11 or 12 days' time; but perhaps I can read out part of the first section of Clause 9, which states:
"the Secretary of State shall take into account information provided by local authorities or other prescribed bodies or persons with respect to the amounts which they have agreed to pay for the provision of accommodation".
I assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend will take into account local variations, and we shall be very interested in the local variations that appear throughout the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, in justifying Amendment No. 113AJ, said that it would help people who have a shortfall now. That may be the intention, but it cannot help people now. Reliable local authority information will not be available until after April 1991. Research is to be commissioned shortly by my right honourable friend, and that will help us in forming decisions on the next uprating of limits.
I shall repeat the upratings that we announced. There is an extra £100 million; that is, £10 a week on nearly all the income support levels this April; an extra £45 million on an interim uprating in August—a full year cost of £70 million. That is on top of the £1,100 million we already spend in a full year. Those upratings, together with the new clause in the Bill, constitute a substantial and proper response to the concerns expressed both here and in another place.
I remind the Committee that the Secretary of State for Social Security has given a commitment to review the level and structure of limits as they will apply to preserved cases. Finally, local authorities and health authorities will continue to retain their current ability to help individuals.
The Government's approach is the best way forward. The new clauses are unnecessary and impractical. If the noble Lord insists on pressing the amendment, I hope that the Committee will reject it.
Lord Carter: I do not intend to detain the Committee much longer. We received no reassurance from the Minister regarding the problems that we brought to the attention of the Committee. Perhaps I may deal briefly with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, regarding the conflict in the other place. It was intended to be a little tease about his use of the words "temporary
1492
conflict", which assumed that the amendment would be automatically overturned in another place.
Lord Renton: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me. That is the right assumption, bearing in mind that this matter was twice debated in another place, and at Report stage the conclusion was reached that an amendment on the lines now proposed was not acceptable. The other place, to a far greater extent than this Chamber, has a responsibility under our constitution which we strictly do not have for having the last word in government expenditure.
Lord Carter: I understand that entirely. The advice that I received was that these amendments do not clash with the Social Security Bill. This is not the time to go into the constitution of debate. As I read the amendments, I do not think that they clash with the Social Security Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Is the noble Lord saying that both the amendments to the Social Security Bill to which I referred and these amendments could co-exist in our law without utter confusion? Is he really saying that?
Lord Carter: As I am advised and understand the position, yes. Noble Lords may laugh out loud. They are entitled to their views. I am only repeating the advice that I received.
The Minister said that these provisions will push up the fees. Surely the plans of the Government's own research, the plans to impose local limits, will stop that. That information will all be made available to local authorities. If the Minister wants evidence regarding the costs in the voluntary sector, it is a pity that the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, is not here because I am sure that she would be able to tell him about the substantial problems that are now faced in the homes with which she is involved.
We have had an excellent debate. I understand that it is a complicated matter. Noble Lords who support the amendment have not received the assurances required from the Minister, and I therefore feel I must ask the opinion of the Committee.
4.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 113AH) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Airedale, L.

Bottomley, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Aylestone, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Bancroft, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Birk, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove L.

Blease, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Carter, L.

1493

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Longford, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McNair, L.

Diamond, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mulley, L.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Northfield, L.

Ezra, L.

Ogmore, L.

Falkland, V.

Oram, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Peston, L.

Fitt, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Foot, L

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Rochester, L.

Hampton, L.

Russell, E.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hughes L.

Somers, L.

Hunt, L.

Stallard, L.

Jacques, L.

Stedman, B.

Jay, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jeger, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Thurso, V.

John-Mackie, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Underhill, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Leatherland, L.

White, B.

Listowel, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Faithfull, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Arran, E.

Gisborough, L.

Auckland, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Balfour, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Henley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Beloff, L.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hood, V.

Blatch, B.

Hooper, B.

Blyth, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Joseph, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Killearn, L.

Brightman, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Butterworth, L.

Layton, L.

Buxton of Alsa. L.

Limerick, E.

Caithness, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Luke, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lyell, L.

Carnock, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Coleraine, L.

Mancroft, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Mersey, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Milverton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

De Freyne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Nelson, E.

Elles, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Erroll, E

Orkney, E.

1494

Oxfuird, V.

Shannon, E.

Peel, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Pender, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Porritt, L.

Swansea, L.

Pym, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Swinton, E.

Reay, L.

Terrington, L.

Rees, L.

Teviot, L.

Renton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Roskill, L.

Thurlow, L.

St. Davids, V.

Trefgarne, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Trumpington, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ullswater, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sandys, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Wolfson, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.46 p.m.
[Amendment No. 113AJ not moved.]
Clause 44 [Local authority plans for community care services]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 113AK:
Page 50, line 4, after ("may") insert ("after taking into acount the views of the appropriate local authority associations").
The noble Baroness said: This is a simple amendment with no resource implications. I should point out that I speak as a vice-president of the County Councils Association. Clause 44(1)(a) states that each local authority,
"shall, within such period after the day appointed for the coming into force of this section as the Secretary of State may direct, prepare and publish a plan for the provision of community care services in their area".
The amendment merely inserts, after the word "may",
"after taking into account the views of appropriate local authority associations".
As I said, I speak as a vice-president of the County Councils Association. All that we ask has nothing to do with policy or money; we seek merely to ensure that the local authority associations, which have an overall picture of the needs throughout the country, shall be consulted. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I should have thought that the local authority associations are so well organised and so powerful that there is no chance whatever of their views being ignored. Therefore, my noble friend's amendment, essential though it may be considered, is unnecessary. That is because the local authority associations are doing their job so well.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may respond to my noble friend Lord Renton. The effect is the other way round —to enable the Government to have the views of the local authority associations that my noble friend thinks so good.
Lord Renton: The same argument applies, if I may say so.
Lord Ennals: I certainly support the amendment. Consultation is absolutely essential. As the noble

1495
Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, this is an important clause. It sets out not only that a compete plan must be published showing how a local authority fulfils its community care responsibilities but also that the plan must be reviewed. And there are powers to order it to bring forward a new plan. That will be an important, ongoing, operation if it is to be effectively carried out.
Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said on an earlier amendment, there will be consultation with statutory bodies and voluntary organisations. However, sometimes it does not happen that the local authority associations are consulted. Whether we are referring to the AMA, the CCA, the ADC or even the ADSS makes no difference. All those organisations have an important contribution to make. And since this amendment cannot be considered controversial there is no way in which the Minister can reply that the Government do not believe in consulting the local authority associations. It seems to me that the amendment can be easily accepted.
Lord Renton: In fairness to my noble friend I should point out that I read her amendment as meaning that the local authority should take account of the views of local authority associations, and bearing in mind the comma after the word "direct" I am still of that view. But if she means that the Secretary of State should do so, perhaps a little further thought might be given to the drafting and then there would be no ambiguity. Whichever way it is, I still maintain that the local authority associations are so well organised that nobody has a chance of failing to take account of their views.
Lord Seebohm: I should like to support this amendment. I must confess that I am vice-president of the Association of County Councils, which is doing an enormous amount of work in co-ordinating the views of the various local authorities. It has a wealth of information which I think should be tapped.
Baroness Hooper: I believe that I can reassure the movers of this amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, also, because there is, and has been, regular consultation with the local authority associations about the implementation of our community care policies. This consultation takes place at both ministerial and, regularly, official level. The views of the local authority associations are therefore well known and are being taken into account.
I am sure that the Committee will agree that the Secretary of State should be the person to determine the period and time by which all local authorities must prepare their plans, albeit that each authority does it individually. Since these plans are an important cornerstone of the new policy it is vital that they are produced at a time which coincides with the other changes that have to be made legislatively in order to implement our policies.
We expect to have them prepared by 1st April 1991, and I refer the Members of the Committee to
1496
paragraph 5.9 of the White Paper, which refers to this particular point. This is when benefit changes are made, and transfers of funds from social security resources are made to local authorities. This approach to timing has always been perfectly clear to the local authority associations and the many other interested statutory, voluntary and independent organisations, and has been accepted by them.
I believe that this amendment is therefore unnecessary, because consultation is an ongoing process. It is also even unhelpful because it is the proper role of the Secretary of State to determine the time at which implementation of the changes which effect our policy come into force. I believe that it could be a recipe for delay and again for further build-up of bureacratic procedures. I therefore urge the Committee to oppose this amendment.
Lord Ennals: The noble Baroness says that it is a recipe for delay. Does that mean that there is a possibility that they would not be consulted?
Baroness Hooper: I made it clear that they have been, and are being, consulted. Therefore, it is unnecessary to repeat the process and duplicate the procedure.
Lord Ennals: Here we are dealing with this quite new clause. It is a new responsibility placed on local authorities. It is not something about which they have been consulted up to now. It is about the plans and the nature of the plans presented to the Secretary of State and revisions of them as the years go by, and whether the Secretary of State should seek the advice of the local authority associations. The fact that they have been consulted up to now is not the point of the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord further by referring to the sort of timing that we have in mind. After all, we must await Royal Assent before we can move into the further detailed preparation of plans. Local authorities will then be directed to prepare plans, and quite probably that will be towards the end of September after we have had feedback on guidance, which is due to go out fairly soon.
However, many have already started making preparations for these plans. Furthermore, after the first year, which we all appreciate is likely to be the most difficult one, there will be opportunity for annual review based on the experience of previous years. There will be ample opportunity for adequate consultation with the local authority associations. My reference to what has been, and is, going on is simply to reassure Members of the Committee that it will be a continuing process.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank the Minister for her reply. I just say that the local authority associations often act as a bridge between the ministries and their plans and the people in the areas who put forth those plans. I recognise that there is consultation between the ministries and the local authority associations. I should like to read what the Minister has said, and

1497
if necessary bring it forward at the next stage of the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 113AL not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 113AM:
Page 50, line 9, leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: With amendment No. 113AM, which is a paving amendment, I should like to take Amendment No. 113AN. There are two major concerns behind these amendments. It probably would not have been necessary to put down these amendments but for the fact that the Bill is extremely thin on any indication as to what the standards are to be in the application of community care. Of course standards are what it is all about. Community care not related to any idea of the level of care and what is involved in care is really a meaningless phrase.
In the Second Reading debate I asked the Minister what was the policy for quality of care; what researches had been done to find out how much resources were going to be needed in order to achieve minimum standards of quality of community care. Frankly, I got no reply. It is for this reason that we need to put down an amendment of this kind. The assurance of quality is essential if community care is to be anything other than a pious farce.
The second reason is that there is a grave danger that a local authority, hard pressed for resources, will skimp on community care in order to meet from its budget, its limited resources, the many other demands made on local authorities. I was delighted to learn that, in my reprehensible absence this week, the community care budget is to be ring fenced. If the Government would now give us a commitment that that decision taken earlier this week will not at any stage be reversed, to a large extent the need for this amendment would fall. I only keep it here because experience of what has happened to amendments of this kind in this Chamber does not give me the greatest encouragement to think that that amendment is necessarily absolutely safe. Although it would make a great deal of difference, I do not propose at this time to withdraw my amendment.
The point of these amendments is to make clear that every local authority should say what it thinks it needs to do, then what it thinks it is going to be able to do, and to explain the reasons for the difference. It is an attempt to establish standards of quality. I am sure that the Committee will be aware that we are here in a dangerous situation. We are bringing people out of institutions, putting them into the care of the community, and we have not any adequate estimate whatsoever as to what the costs are going to be. If we get it wrong, the price is going to be paid by those members of our community who are in the least strong position to pay it —the people coming out of the institutions, the people who, as the years go on, need special care, and above all the people on to whom that responsibility is going to be thrust if the organisations and the local authorities are inadequate in meeting those needs. It is the
1498
families of the people who will have to shoulder the burden. A great many of them will shoulder that burden as well as they can, but often it will be done inadequately at an enormous human cost. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Carter: I am pleased to be able to add my name to the amendments and to support them from these Benches. When the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to Amendment No. 113AM she said that it was a probing amendment. I think that she meant to say that it was a paving amendment. There is an important distinction. It is a paving amendment, and I was concerned when she said that it was a probing amendment.
Baroness Hooper: According to my grouping, we are also speaking to Amendment No. 113AR.
Lord Carter: Amendments Nos. 113AM and 113AN seek to give local authorities the opportunity to demonstrate the scale of spending on a service which they would have wished to introduce had there been no constraints on their spending. They go a little further in that they require a community care plan report for the following financial year to specify the amount which will be spent, the amount which the authority would consider it desirable to be spent in that year and an explanation of the variance between the two figures.
Amendment No. 113AR places a duty on each local authority to prepare and publish a community care plan report after the adoption of its annual budget. That report will have to specify the amounts to be spent on different aspects of community care.
As the Committee will be aware, the removal of the local business rate from the control of the local authorities has meant that one half of the locally determined revenue of the local authority has been removed to central government. (We shall be looking at that point again and again in regard to different amendments.) To the extent that it is not financed by increased central grant or business rate, 1 per cent. local authority spending will amount to approximately a 4 per cent. increase on the community charge. The reality of the matter is that without significant support from central government, community care will be one of the most prejudiced areas of spending because it has to compete with existing responsibilities. The pressure on the community charge that is produced by local spending as a whole is such that local authorities have little room to manoeuvre. Indeed, that was the Government's intention when they introduced the poll tax.
As the noble Baroness stated when moving the amendment, it underlines the importance of the decision of your Lordships on Amendment No. 108E on the first day of Committee. The Committee agreed with the earmarking of the government grant element of community care spending with ring-fence funding. A timetable for the implementation of community care is now the responsibility of the Secretary of State, who must satisfy himself that adequate resources are available and help with

1499
start-up costs. Those points were agreed by the Committee on Tuesday.
This group of amendments is of crucial importance if the performance of community care is to be measured against expectations.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I share the anxiety of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. As the matter progresses it is important that local authorities should have the means to ensure that the procedures work correctly for individuals. In the initial stages that will be difficult. There is no question about that matter. Change is difficult, and it is most difficult for vulnerable people.
I do not know whether the ring-fencing decision will stand. If local authorities' organisations want ring fencing (and I find that completely astonishing, as I have said before), the Government may let them have it, and they would have to live with the situation. I pity them; but that is their affair.
Given the fact that we look at this amendment not knowing whether there will be ring fencing, the way to ensure that individuals get the care they need and that the funding is there is not for local authorities to publish what they would like to spend, say what they think they will be able to spend and complain about the difference, which would be the effect of the report. There would be an annual row about the funding of community care. The whole matter then turns into politics and, as I am sure the noble Baroness agrees, that is not the way to ensure the best possible care of individuals.
I do not think that this is the right amendment. I am very anxious to hear what my noble friend has to say about standards and quality. I hope that the Government are thinking hard about the matter as the Bill goes through the House. The noble Baroness made an important point but I do not think that this amendment is the way to arrive at that situation.
Baroness Hooper: I cannot speak for or pre-empt another place in saying what will happen in regard to the ring-fencing amendment. I am somewhat surprised that the noble Baroness should ask me to attempt to do so.
The plans required by Clause 44 have to be kept under review. We have talked about them previously. In carrying out the obligations to produce a plan, we are providing that local authorities must consult with health authorities, family health service authorities, housing authorities, voluntary housing agencies and other relevant bodies.
There are two key features of that new responsibility which we are placing on local authorities to which I should like to draw particular attention. The first is the fact that plans have to be produced at all. A number of authorities already do so and seek to do so in conjunction with the other agencies with which they have to collaborate. We are now moving from a position where people tend to be fitted into services to a situation where the authority, in its enabler role, plans to meet the needs of the community it serves by clearly setting out its objectives and targets. The plans are therefore a tool
1500
to enable inter-agency collaboration towards meeting the needs of the local community.
The second feature is that the plans will be published. This is designed to heighten the local accountability of the authority and to enable statutory, voluntary and other organisations to participate in the planning process.
Our intention in preparing guidance for the planning approach is that they should be prepared on a three-year rolling basis which will involve annual review. Our approach meets the substance of Amendments Nos. 113AM, 113AN and 113AR. Therefore, to require local authorities further to produce reports in accordance with a particular format in the way that Amendments Nos. 113AN and 113 AR propose is asking them in many ways to duplicate what we are already expecting them to do.
The plans will in any case have to have full regard to the resources at the disposal of the local authority, and reviews will show progress according to overall objectives and particular targets and how resources have been applied to meet those targets. Our guidance, which we aim to produce in draft form for the widest possible consultation within the next few weeks, will indicate the main issues to be covered in the plans. That said, their purpose is primarily to facilitate the indentification of local needs and moves towards meeting them and to heighten the local accountability of the responsible authorities. Details of the way in which plans should be prepared are therefore something best left for local decision.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Carnegy, raised the question of quality. There are several safeguards for quality in our proposals. Authorities will have to agree quality standards in drawing up contracts and arrange to monitor them. They will have to set up arm's length inspection units. We are introducing Amendment No. 115FC, which would require authorities to have a complaints procedure. Those matters would safeguard the important aspects of quality in which we all believe.
On that basis, I ask the proposers to these amendments to withdraw them.
Baroness Seear: Although the noble Baroness's answer shows that the Government have some awareness of the quality problem, there is little in the Bill itself to reassure us that it will be taken into account. We attach such great importance to quality that its failure to figure adequately in the Bill means that I must take the opinion of the Committee.
5.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 113AM) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 105.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Blease, L.

Aylestone, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Bancroft, L.

Bottomley, L.

Birk, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

1501

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lockwood, B.

Longford, E.

Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McNair, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Molloy, L.

Diamond, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mulley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Ennals, L.

Northfield, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ogmore, L.

Falkland, V.

Oram, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Peston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rochester, L.

Hughes, L.

Russell, E.

Hunt, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Jacques, L.

Seebohm, L.

Jay, L.

Shackleton, L.

Jeger, B.

Stallard, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Stedman, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Thurlow, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Tordoff, L.

Leatherland, L.

Underhill, L.

Listowel, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Winterbottom, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Ampthill, L.

Halsbury, E.

Arran, E.

Hanson, L.

Auckland, L.

Henley, L.

Balfour, E.

Hesketh, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hives, L.

Beloff, L.

Hood, V.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Blatch, B.

Howe, E.

Blyth, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Boardman, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Limerick, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Butterworth, L.

Lyell, L.

Caithness, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mancroft, L.

Carnock, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Milverton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cox, B.

Munster, E.

Craigavon, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nelson, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Elles, B.

Peel, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pender, L.

Erroll, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Faithfull, B.

Porritt, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pym, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Reay, L.

1502

Rees, L.

Swansea, L.

Renton, L.

Swinton, E.

St. Davids, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Trefgarne, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Trumpington, B.

Sandys, L.

Tryon, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Ullswater, V.

Somers, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wise, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Wolfson, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.17 p.m.
[Amendment No. 113AN not moved.]
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 113ANA:
Page 50, line 12, at end insert: ("(d) shall, in consultation with relevant health authorities identify staff currently in the employment of any such health authority whose duties and responsibilities may be significantly affected by the local authority's proposed plan, and shall incorporate in the plan measures to secure the continued employment of such staff.").
The noble Baroness said: This is essentially a probing amendment designed to gain some assurances, we hope, on behalf of staff who will be affected by the transfer of responsibility from the health authority to the local authority in terms of providing care in the community, particularly for the elderly and the mentally handicapped.
In Community Care: Agenda for Action Sir Roy Griffiths noted:
"It is important that the skills of staff formerly employed in long stay hospitals are not lost, as patients are discharged and responsibility for their care passes to another authority. Such staff are likely to have direct personal knowledge of individual former patients and their needs, as well as a wide range of skills which are equally valuable in a community care setting. There are legislative and other problems which inhibit the smooth transfer of staff between agencies at present, which can delay desirable changes".
Sir Roy went on to say:
"There are a number of options for local action in regard to staff. They may be seconded to the local authority, which has the advantage of being a flexible approach. There can be locally arranged transfers to a local authority employment with no redundancy compensation and with the retention of NHS superannuation scheme membership, which can be an important consideration for the staff concerned. Finally the health authority can make the staff redundant followed by engagement of the same staff by the local authority. Each of these options has its own advantages and disadvantages".
However, he urged that central government should make,
"a clear decision on the action to be taken".
He argued that, if this did not involve legislation, local management should at least have clear instructions and detailed guidance.
Perhaps I may shift my focus for a moment to deal specifically with nurses. They represent possibly the largest number of staff who will be involved. The Royal College of Nursing is concerned that the Government have not been more specific about how they envisage the transfer of nursing staff into the community to follow their clients and patients. It may be that local authorities will wish to take over the employment of nursing staff. Obviously, if that

1503
is to be the case, the college wish to see an acceptable transfer of terms and conditions of service for its members who will then be working in the community.
The college believes that such nurses should not be denied any benefits which accrue to nurses who remain in the employment of district health authorities. For example, mental handicap nurses have long valued their entitlement to retire at the age of 55, their special duty payments for working in a priority group and their mental health officer status. That is a consideration affecting not only mental handicap nurses; it also affects all district nurses.
The Royal College of Nursing is also concerned to ensure that the statutory accountability of nurses to the United Kingdom Central Council is also protected if they are transferred to local authority employment. That is a most important issue in terms of professional accountability and maintenance of professional standards of conduct. Respect for that accountability will, therefore, be a vital safeguard in ensuring high standards of nursing care. Additionally, it is important that nurses working in a local authority environment have access to their own professional peer review and that they have a professional chain of management to ensure that they have access to managers with nursing experience. The RCN is also anxious that any nurses employed by local authorities are allowed time to attend mandatory refreshment courses which are shortly to be required by the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting.
In conclusion, perhaps I may make the point that the Royal College of Nursing believes that nursing staff will be of fundamental importance if community care is to become a reality, especially given the growing numbers of clients and patients who will be in the community and who will have health needs. It is therefore vital that the Government make clear how such staff and other staff currently working in institutions who will be moving into the community will be affected by the transfer to local authority employment. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I fully support the amendment. The noble Baroness presented the case on behalf of the Royal College of Nursing, and I support her in that respect. However, I should stress that the arguments do not apply only to nurses, as I am sure she recognises. We must consider, for example, occupational therapists. I have an interest through the College of Occupational Therapists.
There is more to the argument than simply picking out which professions must follow the patient. Mention has been made of the fact that funds must follow patients. I wish to ensure that staff follow patients. We are talking in many cases about people who may have been residents, occupants or patients of long-stay hospitals. Many establish a very close link with the staff looking after them. They will be moving into the community; in certain respects possibly moving into institutions in the community. We do not know the exact position.
1504
It is important to ensure, in the interests of staff and of patients, that those who might be called "key workers" can also be moved. Many patients who have to move from long-stay hospitals are not keen to do so. They have become institutionalised or have come to accept the hospital as their home. Accordingly, they are somewhat reluctant to move into the community.
I am not saying that there are no patients who need to stay in long-stay hospitals of one kind or another. However, every encouragement and assistance must be given to settlement into the community. Such encouragement could be enhanced by some staff—not necessarily those working in hospitals—moving into the community. We are dealing with both continuity of employment and continuity of treatment, friendship and understanding.
I hope that when the Minister replies to what, as the noble Baroness said, is a probing amendment, she will accept that aspect of the matter as well as the conditions of service argument put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, with which I agree.
Lord Swinfen: I too support the amendment. I especially agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. Members of the Committee will know that I work for the John Grooms Association for the Disabled. Over the past few years the association has taken very severely physically disabled people out of permanent long-stay hospital wards and has turned them from patients into residents, giving them a much greater degree of control over their own lives. The association has also taken staff from those hospitals, with local area health authorities' agreement, under various arrangements. It is essential not only to ensure continued employment but also to see that disabled people have the benefit of being looked after by people with whom they are familiar.
Baroness Blatch: This is an important issue. There is no doubt that the introduction of reforms can be unsettling not only for the staff but also for the recipients of the service; namely, the patients. Therefore, I hope that I can assure Members of the Committee about the Government's concern in the area.
In drawing up plans local authorities will most certainly need to consider the staffing implications and devise a personnel and training strategy to meet service requirements. District health authorities will need to go through a similar process in producing the plans. The two authorities will have to consult each other to decide who will be responsible for providing various services and how they will be staffed and funded.
If, in the event, it appears that the duties and responsibilities of employees of district health authorities are affected by the new arrangements, it will be for those health authorities to deal with the situation in accordance with arrangements which exist for this purpose. It may be that in some circumstances a transfer of staff to local authorities would be the best solution to maintain or provide services. But I do not think that it is sensible to

1505
pre-empt or to prejudge such issues. Indeed, amending the Bill as proposed could prevent local authorities and district health authorities from reaching agreements which would benefit their patients and clients.
I believe that local authority community care plans are not the right place in which to attempt to address the issue of the future of employees of district health authorities. Health authorities already have arrangements for dealing with changes in the duties and responsibilities of their staff. However, we accept that transfer of staff from health to local authorities may occur and the details of arrangements are already under discussion. But I do not believe that this amendment will assist authorities to reach the agreements which are essential for collaborative working.
My noble friend Lady Cox asked about the fate of community nurses moving from the health service into the community. I can assure her that they will continue to be employed by health authorities. The assumption is that conditions of service will remain unchanged.
I wish to emphasise that the Government appreciate the problems which can arise for members of staff as people previously cared for by the NHS move into the community to receive more appropriate care from local authorities. That theme was discussed at length in another place. In the light of that discussion the Government have tabled Amendment No. 115AEA which will be discussed in Committee on Monday. The amendment allows for regulations to be made dealing with issues such as continuity of employment which arise on transfer. My noble friend Lord Sanderson will be tabling a similar amendment for Scotland on Report.
I trust that this illustrates to the Committee that the Government are concerned and prepared to act on the important issue of continuity of employment.
Baroness Cox: I am most grateful to those who have contributed to this short and constructive debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for helpfully broadening the points that I raised in my opening remarks to include, entirely appropriately, the other members of the health workforce. He also emphasised the importance of continuity of care and relationships which have been established during long-stay care.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Swinfen. I strongly agree with the points he made concerning the continuity of friendship and personal support for people who have to face the challenges of moving out of long-stay care into what is often a frightening, strange and daunting community. I know from my own experience that many people making those adjustments need the continuity of care and support from the people with whom they have been familiar and who have formed part of their world for many years. I am grateful that those points have been made and an: on the record.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her sympathetic reply. I was glad to hear that the details of arrangements for the transfer of staff are under discussion and to know that reassurances can be
1506
given concerning nursing staff. We shall look carefully at the other points which she made in her helpful reply. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 113AP:
Page 50, line 12, at end insert:
("(1A) A plan prepared under this section shall set out what steps the local authority intend to take to ensure that they are able to provide assessments of and community care services for persons with low incidence disabilities, and in particular how they intend to secure such expertise as is necessary for the performance of those functions.
(1B) If the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the steps set out under subsection (1A) above are adequate for the purpose of the proper assessment of and provision of services to persons with low incidence disabilities, he may by order provide for alternative steps to be included in the plan for that purpose and it shall be the duty of the local authority to take such steps.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Carter, the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, I wish to make a few general points. I shall leave some of the detailed considerations that arise to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox.
In introducing the amendment I hope that I do not have to emphasise that we generally approve of the idea that local authorities should introduce plans for community care services. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was right with her amendment which, regrettably, was not accepted by the Government. It specified more clearly the nature of the planning process that would be desirable and in particular the importance of the distinction in the planning process between stating needs and objectives, on the one hand, and what can be afforded, on the other. It is a great pity that the Committee did not accept that we should place on the face of the Bill what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said at that time. So be it.
The amendment is a rather minor variant of the bigger amendment that we rejected. It concerns a particular aspect of the planning process. Again, it is one which I believe should commend itself to the Committee and it should be placed on the face of the Bill. I hope to receive a sympathetic response from the Government.
The amendment describes specific details about the plan that the local authorities should draw up; namely, that it should pay special attention to people with low incidence disabilities. In emphasising that, although I am a totally committed supporter of the National Health Service I do not pretend that it is perfect. I am not greatly sympathetic to the Bill but one of its advantages is that it enables us to put forward certain suggestions to improve the National Health Service.
The area we are discussing—that of low incidence disabilities—is one where we cannot be happy that the National Health Service has up to now done quite all that we should like. That is one good reason for introducing the amendment. Subsection (1B) goes further. It will enable the noble Baroness, in

1507
her reply, to say something more about the role of the Secretary of State. Subsection (1B) says that we cannot take it for granted that local authorities will do precisely what we want, even if they are instructed to do it under subsection (1A). Therefore the Secretary of State himself should be in a position to take the matter further. Those are the main points at issue and the principles involved.
The example to which I understand the noble Baroness will refer, concerns the deaf-blind. Here I wish to pay tribute to Deaf Accord, which, as the Committee knows, is a consortium of organisations concerned with the deaf. I pay tribute to it both for its work and for the excellent briefing it has given a number of us on this matter. The deaf-blind are not the only people to whom one refers when talking about low incidence disabilities. There are other more rare conditions which give rise to what are called low incidence disabilities.
I do not wish to pursue the matter any further in detail except to reiterate that although much good work is done here, it is an area where we are not doing enough. I am not convinced that the reason is solely to do with resources. It is not; nor is it obvious to me that this amendment is one on which an appropriate response on the part of the Government would be, "This is yet another of those blank cheque amendments". Certainly I shall not be happy with such an answer.
This concerns the perception of the role of the NHS, a perception of its priorities and the desire to emphasise that although this group of people is neither enormous in numbers nor trivially small, it is important for each person. The amendment seeks to ensure that they are not neglected. That is its purpose. I shall now give way to my collegues to allow them to make their remarks. I beg to move.
Baroness Cox: In supporting the amendment I believe that it may be helpful if I compliment —in both senses of the word—the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on his opening remarks. I do so by highlighting the seriousness of the needs of many people who suffer from low incidence disabilities. I highlight the complexity of their problems in order to show the need for the provisions of the amendment. These problems often represent some of the most acute, the most poignant and complex problems which can be confronted by people who live in the community.
Before I highlight two particular groups of such people, I join the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in paying tribute to those organisations that work with and for people who suffer from low incidence disabilities. I wish, without being invidious, to mention Headway, people who work with those suffering from brain damage and who have provided valuable information backing the need for the amendment; Deaf Accord, who do so much work with and for the deaf-blind; and also Combat, who do much work for people suffering from Huntington's chorea. I have the great honour to be associated with their work.
Perhaps I may illustrate, to assist the Committee, some of the problems that are confronted by people
1508
with low incidence disabilities, to show the need for the amendment. First, I take those who suffer from brain damage. They are inclined to fall, in terms of their problems, between the physically and mentally ill and the mentally handicapped classifications. They are not acknowledged as being in any of these categories. In addition, they may sometimes have behavioural or personality disorders as a result of their brain damage. They may therefore sometimes be discriminated against by those providing normal services, if I may put it that way. They often require care which involves a high staffing ratio.
Achievement of an adequate quality of life for people who suffer from brain damage is very difficult indeed. The assessment of the problems of this client group will be difficult because the range of deficits is often not widely understood. It is therefore j important that representatives of the relevant voluntary organisations are involved in these assessments and also in the subsequent decisions making, especially as in many cases the patients and clients themselves are unable to make a coherent or a coherently presented choice. Equally, appeal against assessment is an area in which those with normal cognitive powers have difficulty. Therefore people with such multiple disabilities will obviously have even greater difficulties. It will be particularly difficult for them to ensure that they obtain the quality of care that they need and for others to assure them on that front.
I wish to pass from the particular problems of those with brain damage to the problems of those who suffer from deaf-blindness. This is a low incidence disability which requires services specifically designed to meet the needs of people with a dual sensory impairment. The problems are highlighted by the fact that, again, they do not fall directly into any immediately predefined category. A deaf-blind person cannot just fit into a service designed for other needs. A service designed for mentally handicapped people will obviously not be good for those who are not intellectually impaired but who have communication, information and mobility problems as a result of sensory impairment. A service designed for hearing impaired people is probably no use for those with limited vision. A service designed for the visually impaired will probably depend on hearing. Therefore an alternative approach, based on tactile communication, will be required. That is a specialist approach but it is not necessarily widely available. It is important that deaf-blindness is diagnosed as early as possible and that the individual is supported through services that are designed to meet his specific needs.
I shall conclude by highlighting the fact that deaf-blind people are not an homogeneous group. Their degrees of hearing and sight loss influences their degrees of disability and their pattern of needs. Many have additional disabilities such as mental handicap. Their needs for education, habilitation or rehabilitation, help with communication for personal development and obtaining appropriate occupations and recreations and their needs for assistance with all the activities of daily living will depend to a significant extent upon all the related

1509
aspects of their particular unique disability and on the age at which they become afflicted with their disability and their personal circumstances.
Given the complex nature of this syndrome of disabilities, the need for specialist involvement in assessment, planning and provision of services and in the evaluation of the quality of those services is obvious. As the number of individuals involved is small, suitable services will not usually be available within any particular local area. A specialist service will often need to be provided from several local authorities, either by a voluntary organisation or by a consortium of authorities. At present there are hundreds of deaf-blind people in long stay mental handicap hospitals. They are often treated with drugs for their behaviour, which seems challenging or sometimes provocative. Many have not had their sensory impairment diagnosed and are receiving no specialist help. Their lives are often empty and confused. Without help and training they are unable to communicate as well as they could.
As the policy of community care begins increasingly to come into effect, many of these people will be considered for care in the community. Others are in the community but at the moment their handicap is not recognised, understood or given appropriate help. That is the position for many of them. They do not receive the support they need and they too often lead lonely confused, unhappy and sometimes isolated lives. With appropriate support and education they could maximise their potential and many could achieve a high level of independence and personal fulfilment.
People with such low incidence disabilities have profound needs. They are extremely vulnerable and they need specialist help. There must be provision for that specialist help to be available for them, wherever they live, in a systematic and comprehensive way and in a way that gives the best possible quality of life to people who often have agonising and acute problems.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: Little remains to be said, but the challenge is there. How does a local authority that does not have specialist knowledge obtain an accurate assessment of a person who is suffering from a rare disability? That is the key to the matter. We are talking about a rare and difficult disability. When it occurs in children, the matter may become urgent as new treatments and new possibilities arise. I suggest to the Minister that what is required here for a quality service is a special contract between a local authority and a hospital or a specialised unit within the health service that knows about this disability.
We should not rely on the former arrangement, which was for patients to go to the local hospital. Local hospitals then acquire the ambition to obtain doctors with additional skills. They want to extend their field of interest. However, that is not the way to tackle this matter under the new conditions that will apply to the National Health Service.
In other fields the Government have promoted the drawing up of contracts. We should take the
1510
opportunity here to draw up a contract which sets up a specialised paediatric unit in a town perhaps some distance away. A paediatric nurse with specialised skills who belongs to that unit can then visit a child and make arrangements for what has to be done. An avenue is then open for a child or an adult in the community to have access to the best possible advice on how he can be best looked after in the community.
Lord Renton: One must be sympathetic to the broad case that has been made with regard to this matter. Extreme cases of disability have been mentioned as being intended to be covered. The deaf-blind are the most extreme and tragic of all. But we have also been told of Huntingdon's chorea. We have also heard the expression "mental handicap". There are various causes of mental handicap. However, if I may refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, there should be no doubt about the difference between mental handicap and mental illness. I do not think it is feasible to think of a half-way stage between them either, because the essence of mental handicap is that it is a form of brain damage or brain deformity which is incurable.
Having said that, I want to understand the meaning of the words "low incidence" in this amendment. I at first thought that the words "low incidence" meant that the person suffered from the disability only from time to time. As a simple student of the language, that was what I thought it meant. Now I understand from the speech of my noble friend Lady Cox that it means that there are not many people suffering from it, and that therefore these are very special cases which do not often arise. But let me tell the Committee that it is estimated that one person in 100 is born mentally handicapped. If they all lived to adulthood and had a normal length of life it would mean that there would be 500,000 of them in our society. In fact a great many of them die, although not as many as formerly because antibiotics have prevented that —
Baroness Cox: As I was one of the speakers who referred to mental handicap, I should like to clarify the situation. I did not intend to suggest that mental handicap was a low incidence disability. The conjunction of mental handicap with some of the low incidence disability problems was the context in which the words "mental handicap" came into the discussion. It is not that mental handicap itself is a low incidence disability, but sometimes it is an associated symptom or problem with some of the genuinely low incidence disability problems.
Lord Renton: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that clarifying amplification. Nevertheless, I must point out from my own knowledge that there are many handicapped people who also suffer from other disabilities. They are referred to as those with multiple handicaps. They are numerous. If the term "low incidence" is intended to point to their rarity, then the amendment should not have included that expression.
Having said that, I believe that those who have asked that the local authority should in some way

1511
be required to consider what is to happen to each type of disability have a good point. The question is whether the amendment is an appropriate way of doing that. It follows from what I have said that I would wish the wording of the amendment to be reconsidered.
I should be interested to hear from my noble friend on the Front Bench when she replies to the debate to what extent Clause 44 as it stands—which is pretty broad in its terms—would already require the local authority to do what the amendment asks should be done. Having said that, this is a serious matter and I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to comment at this point. The term "low incidence" adds yet another complication, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The field of disability is so complicated and so wide that nobody understands it very well.
With reference to the White Papers, there is a great worry that there is almost no mention of handicap. Therefore it is very important that there is some provision, although perhaps the amendment is not the right one.
I have on my desk at home a letter setting out great anxiety about the pending closure of a school in Leeds which caters for children with multiple disabilities. They are assessed, looked after and helped at the school. The parents are also helped. The parents are now very worried. Those are the people who may fall between health and social services with no one to help them. Therefore, the Government should look very carefully at the matter. As has been said, a number of people are affected but their cases are complicated. However, we should not complicate legislation more, because the definition of disability is not easy.
Lord Butterfield: Perhaps I may make two points. The first concerns the word "incidence". Technically "low incidence" means that something occurs very few times each year. "Incidence" is the number of case or categories admitted to a certain diagnosis. "Prevalence" tells one the total of people with a particular condition at any time who have to be cared for. Therefore it may be that the amendment might benefit from a change from the word "incidence" to "prevalence". We are dealing here with chronic conditions and it is the chronicity which is reflected in the use of the word "prevalence". I make no apology for making this short intervention because it is a question which frequently appears in medical exams—"define the difference between incidence and prevalence".
I hope that my second point may be helpful when the Government reply to the amendment. There are people who may be able to help in the process in the course of their daily work. I am thinking particularly of regional rehabilitation consultants. All the people who need special limb apparatus or have special problems due to head injuries, for example, are brought to those consultants. I hope that the noble
1512
Baroness will reassure us that the Government will encourage local authorities to talk to those consultants—who have special lists and special experience —more than they have perhaps talked to them in the past, along the lines referred to by my noble friend Lord Hunter in his remarks.
Lord Swinfen: Surely the matter could be dealt with quite simply if the Government were to bring into operation Section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. That Act requests local authorities to make a proper assessment of each individual disabled person. Able-bodied people are like peas in a pod; disabled people, no matter what their disability, are all different. Although the disability may have the same clinical name the degree of handicap is different in each person, particularly when different disabilities occur in the same person. That makes matters very much more complicated.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may begin by assuring the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I do not intend to respond to the amendment as an issue of resources but more one of genuine concern that the needs of any client group or individual will be excluded from the planning process and thereby will be denied health or community care provision.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Renton will see from my response that the facility in the Bill as drafted provides what the amendment seeks.
I very much recognise the anxiety of the noble Lords who moved the amendment that people with low incidence disabilities should not be overlooked in our provisions. I accept what has been said about the confusion surrounding the term "low incidence". I believe that we now all understand what is meant by it even though there may be some argument about the word itself.
Lord Renton: Will my noble friend permit me to intervene? It has taken me 80 years to understand it. I had never seen the expression until I saw it in the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am greatly comforted by that intervention. When I saw the amendment I had to ask what it meant. I believe that it is accepted that we are talking about those illnesses from which few people suffer. We are also concerned with complex cases in which somebody may have a main illness, which may be a mental handicap, and also suffer from one of the illnesses which have been described or from multiple disabilities. We are anxious that people with substantial care needs should not be overlooked in our local authority provision. We have already, in connection with Clause 40, talked about which people are covered by the broad term community care services. We reassured noble Lords then, and I do so again now, that we include any person for whom it appears to a local authority that it may provide or arrange for the provision of community care services. That includes disabled people which, in the terms of the National Assistance Act 1948, covers people with communicative disorders—which would include blindness and

1513
deafness—mentally disordered or substantially handicapped by illness, injury or congenital deformity. I believe that there is a phrase which also refers to any other illness. That is genuinely intended to be a catch-all definition. Therefore, all the groups which have been mentioned by noble Lords in this and previous debates are covered by all of our provisions.
I can therefore assure noble Lords that community care plans will have to be comprehensive of the totality of need which the local authority has to address and the totality of the service provision it aims to provide within the resources available to it. I confirm that that also means working together with other agencies on the preparation of the care plan to ensure that all the resources at the disposal of the local community are brought to bear on both identifying the needs and then seeking out the most effective services to meet those needs, which will be further refined by the assessment process. The first part of the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
The second part of the amendment is also unnecessary because the Secretary of State may, in the terms in which the Bill is already drafted, direct local authorities to prepare and publish modifications to their current plans or, indeed, if the need arises, to direct that a new plan be produced. Therefore, the powers that the amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State already exist and no further words are required on the face of the Bill.
In their very effective interventions the noble Lords, Lord Butterfield and Lord Hunter, referred to how that would be done rather that what should be written on the face of the Bill in terms of providing powers to enable it to be done. The example given by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, and the advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, will be well worth thinking about in terms of the guidance offered to the authorities. I believe that those watching the debate will certainly take those comments on board.
Perhaps I may reaffirm what I said previously. Our guidance on community care plans will make clear that we are talking about the totality of potential provision for all client groups which the local authority serves. I hope that in the light of that reply, the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Peston: I thank noble Lords for that interesting debate. I am interested to learn that medical education has improved to such an extent that medical students now learn the difference between "incidence" and "prevalence" and will presumably learn about other aspects of epidemiology. That will stand them in good stead.
I am not entirely happy with the reply of the noble Baroness. As I said in my opening remarks, I would have been much more reassured if the Government had accepted the previous amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, which would have left in the Bill a much more specific provision about the planning process. Essentially, all we have is Clause 44. The guidance is not in the Bill. The guidance is
1514
simply the guidance. None of us doubts that it is possible for local authorities to do what we want them to do, but there is a world of difference between possibility, even with guidance, and making a specific provision in the Bill. That is the point. We do not suggest that those people with low-incidence disabilities will automatically be neglected. We simply say that, in order to ensure that they are not neglected, we would like to see a specific provision written into the legislation.
On the other hand, I am particularly glad that the noble Baroness has drawn our attention to Clause 44(1)(c) which states that
"the Secretary of State may direct, prepare and publish modifications to the current plan, or if the case requires, a new plan".
It is well worth bearing in mind that it looks, at least in theory, as if the second of the provisions in our amendment might be covered by the wording in the Bill. I say "might" because the wording in the amendment is more specific and places a greater obligation on the Secretary of State.
This is an important matter. Perhaps I may emphasise the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in his more commonsense way; namely, the worry that an important but minor group will be neglected, to put matters in ordinary, every-day language. That is the worry. That is not to say that they will be neglected. We hope that they will not, but one must recognise that they have perhaps been neglected until now. That is an important piece of evidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, raised the point about expertise and the possibility that the local authority must look over a much wider range than within its own area to gain that expertise. The best step that those of us who tabled and spoke to the amendment—I hope that this includes the Government—can take is to reflect on the amendment and perhaps come back on Report with a measure that will commend itself to the Government and will produce the fail-safe state of affairs that we seek. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm moved Amendment No. 113AQ:
Page 50, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) The plan for the provision of community care services referred to in subsection (1) above shall, in the case of those local authorities which are housing authorities, include details on how those authorities propose to meet the housing needs of the persons in their areas who are in need of community care services.").
The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment. The Committee will recollect that the importance of housing was made clear in the Griffiths Report, the White Paper and in Second Reading speeches. As far as I can make out, there is no specific reference to it in the Bill. The amendment seeks to ensure that, in drawing up community care plans, local authorities are obliged to provide information on how the housing needs of people who require community care services are to be met.
One tends to think perhaps too much that the community care provisions in the Bill refer solely to social services department and directors of social

1515
services, but local authorities have other services, such as housing, under their command. The Bill refers to local authorities, not to particular departments, so it is important that the Bill should make clear that those other departments are involved.
The special arrangements to be made with housing associations were discussed under a previous amendment on Tuesday and I not propose to take that matter further. However, the National Federation of Housing Associations has pointed out that there is as much need to consider and determine where and how people are to live as there is to provide other care services. This matter is as important as any other matter that we are to consider under Parts III and IV of the Bill. Not only is the welfare of the client vitally affected by his housing conditions, but the cost element of the provision, particularly in the early stages, could form the main cost of the bill.
Housing is the infrastructure of all welfare and it will require capital expenditure way beyond any possibility of financing it from the community charge. Perhaps we should have included arrangements in cases where the local authority is not the housing authority, but perhaps that point will be dealt with at another time. I shall be interested to know what the Government have in mind to deal with this matter. We are talking mainly about disabled people. It is no good providing a wheelchair or recommending the provision of one if there is no possibility of getting it in and out of the front door. Similarly, as people living in flats on the third or fourth floor grow older, there is no earthly way for them to get out and they need special separate accommodation arrangements. The strategy of housing provision with regard to community care must be looked at carefully. I have great pleasure in moving the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, for raising the issue because housing is one of the most important provisions for those with social need. As he said, there is no acknowledgement in the legislation that many people with social care needs are either homeless or inappropriately housed. That fact should be recognised in the Bill.
The provision of appropriate housing is of fundamental importance in the promotion of community care policies. There is often a relationship between the presence of social care problems and housing problems. Clients with social care needs are frequently also either roofless or inappropriately housed. We see that especially when we consider the problems of people who have been in and out of psychiatric hospitals. We all know of cases involving people who have been in and out of psychiatric hospitals three, four or even five times. A person is discharged from hospital and may land up in a night shelter, on the floor of a friend's house or under a bridge. More than anything else they need adequate housing which is appropriate to meet their needs. That is the strength of the amendment. The wording may not be the best, but it must find its way into the Bill.
1516
As the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said, we are talking about disabled people. Some Members of the Committee may have seen a new report by Dr. Terry Morris, published by Shelter and entitled Our Homes, Our Rights. The survey reviews the extent to which independent living for disabled people is dependent on adequate housing provision together with effective social support. It paints a gloomy picture of recent trends which have been exacerbated by growing financial problems, both for local authorities and for housing associations.
The report states that the number of wheelchair and mobility properties built by housing associations has declined. The building of new wheelchair-accessible properties declined from 129 in 1979 to 63 in 1988. Even more startling is the drop in mobility standard properties from 2,316 in 1979 to only 207 in 1988. The new financial system for housing associations is putting on a squeeze that will threaten their existence.
There are very few local authorities with strategies for the provision of appropriate housing. There is little evidence of the needs of people with disabilities being taken into account in the increasing number of deals with the private sector.
We are not talking only about housing and the availability of a place to live. For disabled people we are talking about appropriate housing. It may often have to be housing that has been converted to meet the needs of disabled people. My name and that of my noble friend Lord Carter are synonymous; we are one and the same man or woman on the Bill. We do not pretend that the amendment solves the problems. But it will ensure that housing authorities have a duty to assess the need and make plans to meet it in line with the other aspects of the community care plans. Without that requirement the community care plans for individuals both in the community and in residential care will lack credibility or effectiveness.
I hope that the arguments that have been used and those to come will convince the Minister that this amendment, or words to its effect, is needed to show the importance of housing within the provision of social care.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and my noble friend Lord Ennals in their emphasis on the housing problems, which are absolutely central to the situation. Members of the Committee who are active in this field know that it is often impossible to implement the social care services until the housing problem is solved. Just imagine the difficulties of social workers who have to contact families in bed and breakfast accommodation, with all its attendant horrors. They often have to follow families from relatives to relatives. When the situation becomes desperate many relatives have to take these families in. It becomes very difficult for social workers to produce the social care services that they know the client needs.
Social services will have to work very closely with housing departments, housing associations, charities

1517
and, as my noble friend Lord Ennals said, the private sector in particular. If they do not do so we shall not be able to develop a full and flexible range of housing.
I am sure that all Members of the Committee have been inundated with letters and briefing about the Bill. I was impressed, but sadly, by the citizens advice bureaux, which made a report that it found, and I quote,
"very poor liaison between social services departments and housing departments and a reluctance by the latter to accept their statutory responsibility for homeless clients".
Frail and elderly people cannot live independently, comfortably and safely at home unless their home is well repaired and properly adapted. The Committee knows that housing associations have over the years acquired the experience and expertise that is needed to provide appropriate accommodation, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said. But it is essential that they should be in at the very beginning of the local authorities' planning. If the community care plans ignore the necessity for available housing, the community care services may well fail. That would be a very serious matter. It is essential that the local authorities co-ordinate with the relevant departments and organisations and, above all, with the users of the services. It gives me great pleasure to support the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to add a few points that have not yet been mentioned. I speak now as president and founder of the Spinal Injuries Association. I assure the Committee that in every single spinal unit in the country there are acute beds being blocked by patients who cannot go home.
I have had numerous letters from a surgeon in Newcastle, many of which I have sent on to the department. He is a surgeon of vascular surgery. Many of his patients cannot go home because the local housing authorities will not help with rehousing them. Some of their homes are completely and utterly inadequate. Many of his patients are elderly. They will have only a few years of life left. It is very important that the quality of that life should be good. He has had to keep patients for more than one further year in an acute hospital bed. That is not very good for the operating waiting lists. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is not present. It is a very serious problem.
There are also many people who go home to very inadequate housing. Some time ago I dealt with a young man who had to evacuate his bowels in the kitchen. That was not very hygienic and not very pleasant for the remainder of his family. But is was the only room that he could get into with his wheelchair. The bathroom was totally inaccessible and he had to use a commode. I could tell the Committee many horror stories about paraplegics.
A young women with a child and husband cannot get out of her house. She becomes very seriously depressed. Depression is a problem. If people cannot get in and out of their homes to go shopping—they have a family to provide for—the situation is bad. Some measure ought to be provided to make local authorities do something about this very serious issue. But it is expensive to their health service.
1518
At the Second Reading of the Bill I asked a question to which I have not yet had the answer. With the new system, if someone remains in hospital after he has completed his hospital treatment and rehabilitation, who pays the bill? It is quite unfair that the hospital, the health authority or the GP should have to pay it. That patient is ready to go home but cannot because he has no suitable house. Is it therefore the housing authority, the local authority, which will pay that bill? I am still waiting for a reply.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I too should like to support the amendment. My noble friend has said much of what I should have liked to have said in relation to people with spinal cord injury, the problem of blocking hospital beds and of trying to rehabilitate people in unsuitable housing.
I refer briefly to one letter from the Spinal Injuries Association to a director of housing about a paraplegic woman. She was moved into unsuitable housing on the understanding that it would be for just six months. That was five years ago. She now has a baby. She cannot take the baby out unless her husband is home to help her up the step back into the house. They have one bedroom. She can hardly move around the room in her wheelchair to look after her baby. She has injured herself on numerous occasions trying to reach for things which were difficult to reach. She injured herself and required stitches at one point after trying to leap onto a work surface to reach items in a cupboard in the kitchen. That has continued for five years. It is not acceptable. In terms of human happiness, independence, ability to contribute to the community, medical fitness and, as my noble friend said, leaving valuable hospital beds free for those who need them, the amendment is necessary.
Lord Swinfen: I also support the amendment. It is absolutely essential that we should be able to move people out of hospital to give them a much better quality of life. I have said in the Chamber on a number of occasions that an alteration to the building regulations would make very many more houses accessible to people in wheelchairs.
The ordinary house built by private developers in particular has doors, passages and rooms which are too small for anyone in a wheelchair. For the most part, the housing associations and local housing authorities are now building dwellings with sufficient space. However, the problem needs to be taken into account when considering such building. It is interesting to note that in the past financial year the Housing Corporation gave a great deal less funding to housing associations catering for physically disabled people. I understand that this year there is virtually no funding for residential accommodation for physically disabled people. That, coupled with the new financial arrangements for the housing associations whereby they must raise some 30 per cent. of their funds from voluntary or other sources, makes it extremely difficult to provide sufficient accommodation.
The population as a whole is becoming older and therefore many more people are becoming disabled

1519
as a result of infirmity and disease. The doctors do a good job and can keep people alive when they are merely becoming older or when they have a medical condition. However, that is resulting in a problem because we are running out of properly designed accommodation. That problem must be considered fully.
Lord Wise: I too support the amendment. The citizens advice bureaux have reported a number of cases where there is a relationship between the presence of social care and housing problems. People with social care needs are often homeless or in entirely inappropriate housing conditions. Not only do those conditions exacerbate the problems, but they make it impossible to deliver the necessary social care services. That cannot be done until the housing problem has been resolved.
If the intentions of the community care legislation are achieved there will be a significant increase in the demand for an inadequate supply of housing for the disabled. It is crucial that legislation provides a mechanism for that expansion to take place. I shall support the amendment because it provides a starting point for such a process. It proposes that the community care planners shall determine how any additional accommodation shall be provided.
Baroness Hooper: This is a difficult area and it was beneficial for the Committee to be made aware of those examples. In reply to my noble friend Lady Masham, I point out that while anyone remains in hospital, the health authority must foot the bill. Therefore, the problem of bed blocking is best solved by co-operation between health and local authorities. The problem cannot be solved by elaborate cross-charging systems between the authorities. Later today the Committee will consider a Government amendment, No. 114ZA, which will require the social services departments to bring apparent housing needs to the attention of the housing authorities. Although that applies only where the authorities are separate we agree that a similar situation should apply when the same local authority is involved.
The effect of the amendment will be to require local authorities which are both social service and housing authorities—they are the metropolitan district councils and London boroughs—to include in their community care plans details of the way in which housing needs are to be met for everyone, whether they are disabled or merely have housing needs. I was surprised that no mention was made of the fact that the Government have already amended Clause 44 to include a provision for consultation with housing interests, including housing authorities, where they are different from the social services authority. The changes that were introduced by the amendment agreed in another place are contained in Clause 44(2) to which Members of the Committee may wish to refer.
I take the point behind the amendment which is designed to cover the situation where there will be no requirement to consult. I suggest that we should
1520
consider further the best way of addressing that situation. It may be that we shall decide that guidance should be given to authorities; but if legislation appears to be necessary, that could be introduced at a later stage of the Bill.
I must hide behind the fact that the points raised by my noble friend Lord Swinfen about building regulations are a matter for a different department. Therefore, I must research the subject a little further and write to him.
Lord Swinfen: I realise that it is the responsibility of a different department. However, perhaps my noble friend can bring pressure to bear on that department because the situation would be made easier for elderly and disabled people.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: A point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has been forgotten; it is the serious lack of hospital social workers and occupational therapists working in local authorities as a link. There must be that important link between the hospital and the community particularly in respect of housing.
Baroness Hooper: I fully agree that it will be important to have proper and appropriate co-operation. Whether that can be achieved as a result of the provisions in the amendment is another matter.
Lord Hylton: The Committee will be grateful to the Minister for the sympathetic views she expressed, particularly about the possibility of a tighter or better-drawn Government amendment.
Nevertheless, further remarks must be made because the impression should not be given that the problem affects only people in wheelchairs, for example.
The recent survey of homeless people in London carried out by the Salvation Army and Surrey University showed that approximately one third of ex-mental patients discharged from hospital become homeless within a matter of months. That is a serious matter. Other groups are affected such as drug addicts and alcoholics who have been rehabilitated in hospital or elsewhere. There are also people suffering from AIDS or who are HIV positive. There is the generality of single homeless people many of whom suffered from a lack of medical attention and primary care in the first instance. That may mean that later they must be admitted to hospital. We know that there is a lack of liaison between the Department of Health and the Housing Corporation. They are additional reasons showing why the Government need to reconsider the position and bring forward a suitable amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: Before I decide what action to take on this amendment, perhaps the noble Baroness will give an assurance that there will be something like this written on the face of the Bill, whether that is by an amendment brought in by the Government or by acceptance of a similar amendment at a later stage. Without that, I do not believe that the Committee will be satisfied.
Baroness Hooper: I am sorry, but I feel that it is very important to recognise that as valuable as is the co-operation about which we have been speaking, that will not be achieved by writing something on the face of the Bill. That will be achieved by effective co-operation and methods of co-operation being developed at local level. There are other ways of achieving that. Therefore, in agreeing to consider the amendment, I make that offer without commitment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the noble Lord decides what to do, I should point out that if something is written on the face of the Bill, it places emphasis on it and it is not then forgotten. Sometimes people forget matters which are not written on to the face of the Bill.
Baroness Hooper: As I pointed out, in Clause 44 there is already reference to this matter. That is the amendment which was introduced in another place.
Lord Hylton: With respect, that only says "shall consult".
Lord Seebohm: I am not satisfied, and I feel that I must ask the Committee to express an opinion.
6.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 113AQ) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 66.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bancroft. L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Birk, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Butterfield, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carter, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Craigavon, V.

Ogmore, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B

Peston, L.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Russell, E.

Faithfull, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Seebohm, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Grimond, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hacking, L.

Swinfen, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hylton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Jay, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Jeger, B.

Wise, L.

Jenkins cf Hillhead, L.

1522

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Layton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lyell, L.

Arran, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Balfour, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Birdwood, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Blatch, B.

Merrivale, L.

Blyth, L.

Mersey, V.

Boardman, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mottistone, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mountevans, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Munster, E.

Caithness, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Nelson, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

O'Hagan, L.

Carnock, L.

Orkney, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Peel, E.

Colwyn, L.

Pender, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Reay, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Elles, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinton, E.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hesketh, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hives, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hooper, B.

Trumpington, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Ullswater, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Vinson, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.39 p.m.
[Amendment No. 113AR not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 113ZAS:
Page 50, line 12, at end insert:
("(1A) Any plan as defined by subsection (1) above shall include the local authority's proposals for ensuring that community care services are provided in a manner consistent with its powers and duties under the Children Act 1989.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 113ZAS, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No. 115ZCA. These are probing amendments whose purpose is to clarify the relationship between the National Health Service and Community Care Bill and the Children Act 1989. These are two major and overlapping pieces of legislation which will come into force within the same parliamentary Session. However, there seems to be an absence of a clear government or departmental rationale for the relationship between the two pieces of legislation. There is an urgent need for clarification of the relationship and, if a relationship between the two is intended, what the nature of that relationship might be. These amendments are intended to probe that relationship.
The government and departmental statements which deal with the overlapping of the two pieces of legislation are somewhat confused and apparently in conflict with each other. Both the Children Act and the National Health Service and Community Care Bill require the assessement of the need for services. Each allows the assessment to be carried out under the relevant sections of the Disabled Persons (Services Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. As that Act requires the ability of carers to

1523
continue to provide care to be taken into consideration, some clarification is required of the position of parents as carers under the provisions of these related pieces of legislation.
Under Clause 44(3)(c) of this Bill, local authorities may provide or arrange services under Section 21 of and Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977. They relate to certain social services for mothers and children. Under the Children Act 1989 those relevant sections are removed. That means that for an interim period between the Children Act and the implementation of this Bill there is a direct recognition of the provision of some community care services for children and their families. However, it appears to be inconsistent to allow that relationship for a few months but not to ensure that it continues in the longer term.
The need for clarification is exemplified by the experience of organisations which are trying to provide services for children in such a way that they can be encouraged to move towards independence and the acceptance of adult responsibilities in the most constructive manner achievable. Those points have been put to us by Dr. Barnardo's, the Children's Society and the National Council of Voluntary Childcare Organisations.
The two amendments emphasise the need to ensure consistency between the two pieces of legislation which affect child care and community care. That is the intention of both amendments. Amendment No. 113ZAS attempts to ensure that in elaborating their plans local authorities take account in practice of the inevitable relationship between the two pieces of legislation, particularly at the point when young people with special needs move from childhood to adulthood. As we all know, there are some very real problems when special educational provision ceases because there is a major gap in disability care at that point.
The second amendment addresses the need for local authorities to work jointly with other organisations. It is a slightly modified version of Section 27 of the Children Act 1989 and attempts to incorporate the principle of co-operation between authorities equally in both pieces of legislation. Again, that is essential. Perhaps that requirement should be more forceful, as is set out later in Amendment No. 113E. We shall consider that point later.
It cannot be emphasised too much that there is an urgent need to ensure consistency between these two pieces of major legislation —the Children Act and this Bill—affecting the delivery of social services. For that reason I hope that the principles incorporated will be widely recognised and will gain general support. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, had to say about the interrelation of services for children and community care services. The Government share his concern that the two sectors should be managed as effectively as possible and that the boundary between the two does not cause any problems. It is a well-established fact that territorial disputes are most unproductive.
1524
There are three possible areas where this type of provision might apply. First, in what may be termed philosophy of care, a local authority may wish to apply similar principles and practices in its children and community care work. The needs of different client groups will of course be distinct, but there may be lessons from one that can be applied to another. That is essentially a matter for professional and local judgment, however, not one for legislation.
Secondly, at the level of planning a local authority will have to have regard to its commitments and duties in relation to child care when it frames its community care plan. That is simply part and parcel of good management. Given that we have integrated social services departments, I see no reason why that should cause difficulty to any director of social services or to a social services committee. Even if it did, I am bound to say that a statutory duty would sow further confusion rather than clarify matters.
Finally and perhaps most importantly, the amendment could relate to the circumstances in which somebody needs to move from a service designed for children or teenagers to one designed for adults. That is always a challenge to professional social workers and can be unsettling for the young person concerned. The key is surely good communication and co-operation within the social services department and with any other agencies that may be involved. Again, I am not clear what a statutory duty would add in practical terms for the individual client.
I am also reluctant to endorse any amendment that seems to merge the statutory base for the provision of adult and children's services. As noble Lords will be aware, the base legislation we are discussing in this part of the Bill is quite separate from that which underpinned the Children Act 1989. That separation has borne the test of time remarkably well and has given social services departments clear statements of their responsibilities in each field. We lose that distinction at our peril.
In the light of what I have said about the need to recognise and manage carefully the problems which can arise for individual clients and for local authorities at the boundary of their two areas of responsibility, I hope that some of the noble Lord's concerns have been allayed.
Turning to Amendment No. 115ZCA, this new clause would empower a local authority to seek the help of any other local authority, education authority, housing authority, health authority, or person authorised by the Secretary of State—for example, a social services inspector—who they consider could help them with their community care functions. The noble Lord has underlined, quite rightly, the importance for community care of collaboration between authorities. The guidance on these functions which we are in the process of preparing will also stress that point. We plan to issue this guidance to other authorities concerned as well as to local authorities. But we do not see any need to add to existing statutory provision. Section 22 of the National Health Service Act 1977 already requires local authorities of all types to collaborate in the exercise of their respective functions.

1525
In the spirit of this provision collaboration is something which must be worked out locally by the authorities concerned. I do not feel new legislative provisions which give wide-ranging powers to local authorities and lay such an open-ended duty on those receiving requests will prove helpful in improving collaboration. I can assure the Committee that the social services inspectorate and other staff of the department stand ready at all times to respond to requests from local authorities with advice and assistance with their community care functions. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that we shall cover that aspect fully in our guidance.
Baroness Faithfull: I apologise for not giving notice of this question, but perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister how many handicapped children are still being cared for in hospitals in this country. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will feel that his amendment is applicable to that point, because there are a number of hospitals and therefore there are children who are not in the care of the local authority. They are not children in care, but they are children in mental hospitals.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that my noble friend will accept that I am unable to give a specific reply to that question at this time. In view of the promise that these amendments will not be pressed this afternoon we shall all have time to consider that point. I shall write to my noble friend and make the reply available to the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
Lord Hylton: I am sorry that the Government do not feel able to be a little more forthcoming on these two amendments. We must bear in mind that an increasing number of children in need of care or support of one kind or another are either adopted or fostered.
Secondly, in regard to the second amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the wording, should be helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in relation to the problem she was seeking to address on the previous amendment. I say that because Amendment No. 115ZCA states,
"may request the help of that other authority or person, specifying the action in question".
That, I submit, is much more helpful than the existing wording of Clause 44 which, as I have already pointed out, simply says "shall consult". The amendment continues in subsection (2) to use the words,
"shall comply with the request [provided it] does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their functions".
That also seems to be highly relevant.
Baroness Blatch: I think that my response addressed the issue of properly serving the needs of both children and adults, and also the transitional point where children become adults. We are all concerned about effective working relationships that transcend both the provisions for children and for adults.
I believe I clearly made the point that separation of provision for children has worked very well. I have also promised that I will take into account the
1526
question posed by my noble friend to see whether there is room for modification. I hope that for the moment that will suffice.
Lord Carter: I think it is only for the moment. As I said, these are probing amendments and although I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply, I have to say that I am a little disappointed. We shall need to read carefully what she said. In addition to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, there are other examples which I shall not take up the time of the Committee by relating. There are a number of areas of overlap and confusion. If there is an opportunity for discussions before the next stage of the Bill perhaps we could usefully have them. However, in the meantime I reserve the right to come back later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 113AS:
Page 50, line 27, after ("area") insert:
("(dd) organisations of or for service users, their families or carers").
The noble Baroness said: The Government claim, sometimes with justification, that they stand for the interests of the consumer. We seem to have heard that rather often. They also preach the doctrine, with which many of us agree, of collaboration between the statutory, voluntary and private sectors. That is not always an easy doctrine to apply but it is one of which we on these Benches certainly approve.
The amendment is aimed at inviting the Government to apply the doctrine to which they pay so much lip service. In the drawing up of a local authority plan the Committee will notice that the local authority is told that it must consult the district health authority (a statutory body), the family health services authority (another statutory body), the local authority, the local housing authority and the voluntary housing agencies—the voluntary sector gets a look in there—to provide housing or community care services in its area.
The people at the receiving end or the people who speak to the people at the receiving end do not feature in that consultation. We believe that it is of the greatest importance that in drawing up the plan there should be consultation with the beneficiaries of the plan, who may not think that all these bureaucratic bodies necessarily fully understand exactly what they would like.
I remind the Government that partly in response to and, I have to say, partly as a result of the encouragement given by the Government, there are now many organisations who are well placed to speak for the beneficiaries, the clients or whatever one wishes to call them, of these services. All that we ask in this amendment is that after the word "area" in Clause 44(2)(d) there should be explicitly included, "organisations of or for service users, their families or carers".
It is extremely important that at the stage of the drawing up of the plan these people are consulted and are able to put their contribution into the consideration of the plan. It is not good enough for them to come along to make comments on it after

1527
the plan has been formulated and when thinking has been crystallised.
I suppose that I should declare an interest, in a sense, in that I am president of the Carers' National Association. That body has branches throughout the country as well as a national organisation. It is steeped in knowledge of the problems of people who are doing the caring and, together with other organisations, it should be given the opportunity when the plans are formulated to put a point of view on what the plan should include. I beg to move.
Baroness Cox: I support the amendment, for three brief reasons. First, it would allow people to be consulted who can make a most important contribution to planning. For example, they may be aware of a range or, if I may use the word, prevalence of need which is not perhaps known to those who are charged with planning the arrangements for care.
Many potential recipients of care who could benefit from it may not be known to the local authorities or social service departments and therefore might never come within the orbit of being included. It is important that organisations representing carers' families and receivers have the opportunity to be involved in the planning process. Equally, it is important for an effective contribution to the appropriateness of the care provided that there is the best possible match between needs and services.
Finally—an important point which will arise in later amendments but which is met in this one—the amendment is one way of ensuring that the interests of the carers themselves are taken into account in the formulation and planning of care. For those three general reasons I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Hylton: Perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words in support of the amendment. If accepted it may well be the first time that carers will appear on the face of the Bill. If so, it is high time that they did. From personal experience within my family I know how extremely wearing it can be to support people who, for example, have lost their memory or are suffering from a depressive illness. There is a great need for respite help for carers and their views should be very much taken into consideration.
Lord Kilmarnock: I find it hard to imagine that the Government could actually refuse this amendment, for the reasons which have already been well stated. One consideration that we must take into account—I hope this is in the Government's mind—is the sheer volume of the number of people affected. According to a reputable article in The Times of 10th May, more than 2.5 million elderly people are looking after someone older, more ill, more disabled or more frail than themselves. Of the estimated 6 million carers nationally who provide a regular unpaid service to friends or relatives, 42 per cent. are over the age of retirement.
That is an enormous volume of effort, but the Bill as drafted does not appear to be prepared to take that into account. After all, these people perform a 24-hour-a-day job, seven days a week, with little or
1528
no assistance from either the statutory or voluntary services. I know that there has been a slight improvement in the invalid care allowance but it does not affect a large number of people. It has been estimated that 90 per cent. of the mentally ill and 80 per cent. of the mentally handicapped are cared for full time by their families. The number of long-stay hospital beds has been reduced but the necessary places in the community—for example, in NHS and local authority day-care centres—have not increased correspondingly. The result has been an increased burden on carers.
Families are now expected to cope on an unprecedented scale. I do not want to give too many statistics, but beds in the geriatric, mental illness and mentally handicapped sectors have declined in the period 1979 to 1989 from 55,000 to 51,000, from 89,000 to 63,000 and from 50,000 to 30,000 respectively. That is a total reduction of 50,000 beds in all those sectors, whereas the residential places in local authority homes for the equivalent groups over the same period have risen by only 17,000. There is a loss of 50,000 beds being replaced by only 17,000 places in the community. The gap is obviously being coped with by the growing army of informal carers. They are the people who make up the difference. These are figures on a large scale. It seems inconceivable that the Bill can be written in such a way that those carers are not consulted at all at the point of drawing up the local authority's community care plan. My party has advocated all sorts of things for carers. We have advocated a carers' benefit and various other rights that we shall come to in subsequent amendments. The amendment before us simply requires that carers, or their organisation, should be consulted in the preparation of the local authority community care plan. I would have thought the case absolutely unanswerable and I should be totally amazed if the noble Baroness did not accept the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: The statutory authorities, as will be apparent from the face of the Bill, have a large number of functions to perform. They are probably understaffed and will tend from year to year to come up with the same ideas and plans. There will be a tendency to become fossilised. The carers and disabled people themselves are facing, and dealing with, problems on a daily basis. They know the changing needs not only of themselves but also of society in general. They will have a much clearer idea of what is needed and will produce far more accurate advice in the way of consultation than will the statutory bodies.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Government will realise that they have grouped this amendment with Amendments Nos. 113AW and 113AX. We were quite happy about that. The amendments refer specifically to Scotland. The Minister will see that Amendment No. 113AW proposes to omit in line 9 the words,
"as appear to the authority to".
so that the Bill reads,
"such voluntary housing agencies and other bodies which provide housing or community care services".

1529
I do not think that there is any necessity for examination by an authority. Once it was discovered whether such bodies did or did not provide housing, no question would arise of appearing to provide housing. The amendment tidies up the Bill.
Amendment No. 113AX deals with a matter on which much has already been said. I shall be brief. The Bill lists a number of bodies to be consulted in the preparation of community care plans. It fails however to list the most important group—the consumers of community care. After all, if there were no consumers of community care we should not be discussing this matter now. If there were none we would not be discussing them.
The Bill says that voluntary organisations providing services rather than those which represent service users need to be consulted. The omission is surprising when paragraph 5.7 of the White Paper clearly states that the views of the service users and carers should be taken into account. It is not sufficient to argue that this will be achieved by another method. The views of consumers should be afforded the same status in the legislation as those of service providers.
In Committee in another place the Minister for Health, on 13th February at col. 940, recognised the strength of feeling on this issue and undertook to reconsider the position. Clearly, if the omission is being rectified it should be recognised in those clauses referring to Scotland.
Lord Mottistone: I am advised, as I believe the Committee knows, by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. Our view is that the amendment should be supported. It is really a question of whether the reference to "community care" in paragraph (d) is good enough. Those who work in the field do not think it is.. I would not go to the stake on the wording of the amendment that we are discussing, and I do not suppose that anyone else would. But there is need for something more than the existing paragraph (d). I hope that the Government will be able to consider some sort of change even if they do not accept the amendment as it stands.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke powerfully at Second Reading about the position of the carers and the fact that she did not feel that they had sufficient mention in the Bill. I looked afterwards at the White Paper. At the beginning in Chapter II, paragraph 3, the Government point out—and I must remind them of this—that,
"the reality is that most care is provided by family, friends and neighbours. The majority of carers take on these responsibilities willingly, but the Government recognises that many need help to be able to manage what can become a heavy burden".
I take it therefore that the Government see the involvement of carers in the planning as important. This must be the case. Whether their inclusion as a category, along with users, in the list of people to consult is right I do not know. However, the point made by the noble Baroness is important. I hope that having heard the barrage of approval for the amendment my noble friend will take it on board. I do not think that we shall be very pleased if she does not.
The Earl of Balfour: As we are discussing this group of amendments I should like to refer to the last amendment, Amendment No. 113AX, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I feel that at line 12, on page 54. the words,
"such other persons as the Secretary of State may direct"
achieve a great deal of what we need. I had hoped that perhaps my noble friend Lord Sanderson could add a few words.
This is the sort of case where the new organisation, Scottish Homes, could provide accommodation where required for those people who require wheelchair facilities or special facilities in a home. I feel that this is one of its functions and something it should do.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, may not be sure, or may not quite know, but I certainly know. I consider it most extraordinary for consumers and carers to be left out of a decision. It looks to me like the age of Dickens and forgetting to involve those people who are the most important.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: May I remind the noble Baroness that we are talking about local government which represents all those people and is in close touch with them. My only query was whether putting them in a list and looking for organisations was the right way to proceed. Much sympathy exists in Scotland and I think that people there feel that there are sufficient organisations, so I back the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I thought that the Government's whole emphasis was that people should be as responsible for themselves as possible. I should be very surprised if the amendment were not accepted.
Baroness Hooper: I would hate to cause so much surprise. I am sorry that I have not been able to intervene sooner in this interesting discussion. I have been keen to comply with the invitation made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and to underline the Government's commitment to the involvement of users and carers in the whole process of planning through to service delivery, and in achieving the best possible outcomes for the clients of the services.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, stated—a fact which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, chose to ignore—that is something which is both implicit and explicit in the White Paper and in the guidance that we are preparing.
I am entirely sympathetic to the reasons behind the amendment, although we may wish to make some modification to its wording. If we may consider this matter further, I undertake to come back at a later stage to introduce a government amendment. I understand from my noble friend Lord Sanderson that this commitment applies equally to the Scottish amendments. I hope that in the light of that assurance, the movers of the amendment will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Seear: In the light of that near promise and on the strict understanding that if the provision is not to our liking we shall move our amendment at the next stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In so doing, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee resumes not before ten minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Parliament Electoral Reform Bill [H.L.]
7.12 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Amendment to European Assembly Elections Act 1978]:
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("Parliamentary").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move Amendment No. 1, but what I shall say also applies to Amendments Nos. 2 to 32. These are entirely technical amendments which were drawn to your Lordships' attention by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, at Second Reading. I undertook to make the necessary alterations which they suggested should be made.
I should like to mention in passing that it would have been of considerable assistance if the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 had been updated to take account of the 1986 Act, which changed the term "assembly" into "parliament".
Perhaps the Minister will look into this matter so that members of the public who try to obtain a copy of the relevant Act from Her Majesty's Stationery Office are not misled by the use of an out of date term. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 1 in the light of the amendment which I moved at Committee stage. If that amendment had been approved, this amendment would have been essential. I withdrew the amendment at Committee stage. Some noble Lords have questioned why, in the light of the comments that I made at Committee stage, I have not submitted any amendments of my own at Report stage. The reason for that situation is that, having submitted my amendment at Committee stage, there was nothing left which I could propose because that would have required amending Clauses 2 and 3. As I made quite clear, I oppose a Private Member's Bill which lays down a
1532
system of election, and there would be no point in my submitting an amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I accept that these amendments are necessary to make the Bill technically correct. Therefore I agree the amendments. I shall also undertake to pass the comments that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, about the Act to the right quarters and hope that that matter can be put right.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("Assembly election") and insert ("Elections to the European Parliament").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [The electoral system.]
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 12:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliamentary").
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliament").
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliamentary").
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliamentary").
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliamentary").
Page 1, line 22, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliamentary").
Page 1, line 24, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliamentary").
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliamentary").
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliamentary").
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliamentary").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3 [Assembly constituencies in England.]
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendments Nos. 13 to 32:
Page 2, line 19, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliamentary").
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("2(1) of the 1949 Act") and insert ("3(1) of the 1986 Act").
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliamentary").
Page 2, line 31, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliamentary").
Page 2, line 34, leave out ("2(3) of the 1949 Act") and insert ("3(3) of the 1986 Act").
Page 2, line 35, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliamentary").
Page 2, line 39, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliamentary").
Page 2, line 43, leave out ("paragraph 4 of Part III of Schedule 1 to that Act (local inquiries) and section 4 of the 1958 Act (procedure)") and insert ("section 6 of the 1986 Act (local inquiries)").
Page 3, line 4, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliamentary").
Page 3, line 14, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliamentary").
Page 3, line 16, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliamentary").
Page 3 line 19, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliamentary").
Page 3 line 20, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliamentary").
Page 3, leave out lines 28 to 31 and insert (" "the 1986 Act" means the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986;").
Page 3, line 41, leave out ("an Assembly") and insert ("a European Parliamentary").
Page 3. line 43, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliamentary").
Page 4, line 8, leave out ("2(4) of the 1949 Act") and insert ("5(1) of the 1986").
Page 4, line 12, leave out ("an Assembly") and insert ("a Europear Parliamentary").
Page 4, line 13, leave out ("an Assembly") and insert ("a Europear Parliamentary").
Page 4, line 14, leave out second ("Assembly") and insert ("European Parliamentary").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.15 to 8.10 p.m.]

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 44.
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm moved Amendment No. 113AT: Page 50, line 28, at end insert:
("2A) The plans shall include arrangements agreed between the local authority and each District Health Authority concerred regarding the discharge from hospital of disabled persons who have been resident for more than 3 months.
(2B) In accordance with such arrangements the local authority shall (subject to subsection (2D) below carry out an assessment to satisfy the provisions of section 45 below regarding the needs of that person for community care services.
(2C) The arrangements shall provide for the assessment to be carried out where reasonably practicable before the person is discharged from hospital but otherwise no later than 14 days thereafter.
(2D) The assessment shall specify the services which are required to meet the needs of the person for continuing health and social care following his discharge from hospital, and shall appoint a named individual to ensure that the needs of the person are met in accordance with the assessment.
(2E) For the purposes of this section "disabled person" shall have the same meaning as in the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.)").
The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment. It should not take too long to explain because practically half of it at least is lifted straight out of the White Paper, although, admittedly, the White Paper dealt primarily with those suffering mental illness. It is important that people should not be discharged from hospital without genuine arrangements being made for their care. I have made inquiries of a friend of mine who has a schizophrenic son who lives with another schizophrenic boy. She asked them about my amendment. Both said that it was first rate and admitted that they had discharged themselves before now knowing that they were not
1534
well. Tremendous dangers can arise. We know that there are large numbers of schizophrenics among the homeless and among those who get into serious trouble and sometimes end up in prison.
The amendment states:
"The assessment shall specify the services which are required to meet the needs of the person for continuing health and social care following his discharge from hospital, and shall appoint a named individual"—
that is extremely important to my mind —
"to ensure that the needs of the person are met in accordance with the assessment".
The difference between the amendment and the White Paper is that we extend it to people other than the mentally ill. It covers those who have been in hospital for a considerable time and the disabled. It is important that they should be covered because they are just as important. We should ensure that proper and appropriate arrangements are made when they are discharged.
I need not say much more. Some people have said that what is in the White Paper does not really matter because it is not a legal document. It is important that in this instance the proposal should come out of the White Paper and be placed on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: Grouped with this amendment is my Amendment No. 113C. Perhaps I may speak to both. In respect of schizophrenics, I much prefer Amendment No. 113C because Amendment No. 113AT introduces the most unfortunate aspect of Section 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act, to which has been added a three month limit. Of 25,046 admissions of schizophrenics in 1986, 13,307 were discharged in less than a month and 20,665 in less than three months. For the purposes of schizophrenics, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, does not suit.
I would prefer to direct the Committee's attention to Amendment No. 113C, which of itself is not restricted to schizophrenics but picks up an essential feature of my Schizophrenia After-Care Bill which we debated at about this time last year. The Bill had three main features—the assessment of a person's needs; a decision as to whether any services should be called for and what they should be; and the provision of those services. This Bill very splendidly takes care of the first two requirements. I should like to thank the Government and my noble friends on the Front Bench for taking in so much of what I was trying to say during the discussions on my Bill last year. However, this Bill does not cover anything with regard to the provisions.
I do not want to waste the Committee's time with long argument, but the purpose of my amendment is to make it possible for the provisions to be discussed and provided. That is what is lacking from the Bill as a whole. I should like to see the provisions in it. Although I would be quite prepared for my noble friends on the Front Bench to say that my amendment is not suitable—at this stage, I am speaking to my amendment and not to Amendment No. 113AT—I should be very happy if they could

1535
say that they see the point of my argument and would be prepared to take it away and consider it.
It is not my intention to press my amendment at this stage; but I shall certainly come back at a later stage if I am not satisfied today. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, will do about his amendment, but that is up to him. However, in due course, when it comes to my turn, I shall be ready to move my amendment and even speak to it if I am not happy.
Baroness Faithfull: I rise to support the spirit of both amendments. We have already said how important it is that there should be joint assessment and joint planning between the district health authority and social services. That is written into the amendment. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, has said, it is important to have the words, "shall appoint a named individual".
It is sad that many social services departments are not stable in that people do not stay very long in them. When a social worker leaves a department, it is often some time before someone else is nominated to take over his cases. It is important that it should be written into the Bill that a social worker should always be attached to each case.
My noble friend Lord Renton is unable to be present. He especially wishes me to say that on behalf of MENCAP he supports the amendment.
Lord Ennals: I support the principle of the two amendments. The name of my noble friend Lord Carter is attached to Amendment No. 113AT. If I had to make a choice, I might choose the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. But we are not in the game here of choosing. I wish to make a number of points which I hope will eventually see their way into the Bill whether by means of these amendments or by something put forward by the Government.
Both amendments deal with the important question of assessment. Amendment No. 113AT states:
"The assessment shall specify the services which are required to meet the needs of the person".
The assessment with the specification of creating a plan for the patient is extremely important. I go along also with the concept of a named individual. The more I look at the problems of people, especially those who have been discharged from hospital, the more I am convinced that there needs to be one person whom the authorities know and whom the patient knows. It does not matter much whether it is a nurse, an occupational therapist or even a volunteer of some kind. Unless there is one person who understands the patient and can take him by the hand and help him with the plans which have been made as a result of the assessment something is lost.
During discussions on an earlier amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, which I also supported, I referred to the importance of having an individual who has been given the responsibility to ensure that the people who are to provide the services
1536
are there, that they meet the patient and that he can in a sense be steered through all the problems of bureaucracy. We know of case after case concerning people who have been discharged from a long-stay mental hospital, a hospital where they have been treated for a handicap of some kind or even from a mental hospital, where a plan was made. In some cases the patient did not really understand the plan and those responsible for carrying it out did not really understand the patient. Subsequently the plan was lost somewhere along the way. I want to see the provision for a named person in the Bill. In my view it is a crucial issue.
In the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, reference is made to,
"the advance notification to the local authority of the discharges into their area from the Authority's hospitals of all persons who in the opinion of the Authority may need the provision".
That consideration is most important. It ensures that the information is known to the local authority as well as the main person involved. The authority knows when it will happen and can ensure that the plan is put into practice. I have read a report from the social services inspectorate regarding day services for people with mental handicap published in 1989. It says:
"A number of units expressed concern about the adequacy of information provided on discharged clients. Records seen by the SSI lacked important elements, including medical information, which would be of considerable significance for the care of the clients".
We must ensure that that advance information is made known.
Those are that main points that I wish to raise. I realise that the Minister may not perhaps be able to accept the exact wording of either amendment. Indeed, if I were in her place I think that I would have some doubt about specifying the period of three months. Some people may say that it is too long in the case of schizophrenics, while others may say that it is too short if one is trying to describe long-stay patients.
In my view to require that an assessment is carried out,
"where reasonably practicable… no later than 14 days thereafter",
is too quick. We must recognise the difficulties in that connection. Those are the kind of changes that I should wish to make. However, I hope that the Minister in her reply will admit that there are some points which ought to be on the face of the Bill and that she will return to them on Report.
Baroness Seear: Although on these Benches we have not put our names to these amendments, I should like to confirm that we entirely support the idea behind them.
Lord Seebohm: Before the noble Baroness replies I should like to make a suggestion. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and myself could get together and produce another amendment which may be tabled on Report. However, we would of course submit it before that time to the Minister to see whether it meets with her approval. I make that suggestion on the assumption that the spirit of what

1537
is proposed is already accepted by her. That may perhaps be a simple way of short-circuiting future argument.
Lord Mottistone: I must say that I like the idea suggested. However, I should like my noble friend the Minister to say more positively at this stage that she likes the idea behind these amendments and therefore there will be no need for her to wait for the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and myself to produce a further proposal. If we produce yet another amendment we shall waste a whole stage of the Bill's proceedings.
Baroness Blatch: This is an important subject which has exercised the minds of Members of this Chamber on many occasions. We have already outlined what we see as the major purpose of Clause 44 in requiring local authorities to prepare and publish plans which are compatible with those of other agencies involved in the provision of community care. We will be issuing more detailed guidance on the interface between health and social service authorities. Essentially we want them to agree on how they will handle arrangements for the care of people in whom they have a mutual interest.
I believe that it is important that both social service and health authorities are allowed the freedom to determine the detailed arrangements about how they will consult one another and work jointly to ensure that a seamless community care service is available which covers both health and social needs.
I should like first to mention some general points about these amendments, which are concerned with assessment. Local authorities will be required to assess the needs of those who may require care services. My noble friend Lady Hooper will be putting; before the Chamber at a later stage a government amendment (Amendment No. 114ZA) which requires local authorities to invite involvement by district health authorities and local housing authorities in the assessment process. I believe that this goes a long way towards meeting the proposal in Amendment No. 113C and subsection (2D) of Amendment No. 113AT which seems t.o seek a way to ensure health as well as social care needs are met. But we shall have an opportunity to debate this in due course.
Perhaps I may say at this point of the proceedings that I am not clear as to the meaning of subsection (2B) of Amendment No. 113AT, although I believe that it follows on from proposed Amendment No. 115 to Clause 45. Therefore at this stage I shall not address that point in my response.
I turn now to deal with subsection (2D) of Amendment No. 113AT. This requires that a client's or patient's need for services should be specified and an individual named who would be responsible for ensuring that needs are met in accordance with assessment. On that particular point, the naming of an individual as a case manager is something that we accept would be good in practice. As such it is the type of practice that we would expect the social services inspectorate to include in advice to all local authorities. However, it is not something that we
1538
believe should be included in the Bill and in a Bill designed to provide a framework for good practice, given that it is a framework and that the actual operational practice will be dealt with in guidelines.
Noble Lords have drawn attention to the practical difficulties which local authorities would face in implementing the proposal at present. I believe that it can only be developed once the local authorities have put in place the organisation and trained the necessary staff to carry out the type of case management which we hope will develop. I must emphasise that we do not expect such change to occur overnight.
Baroness Seear: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She said that the provision mentioned in subsection (2D) would be better dealt with by regulation or by advice and not by provision in the Bill. It has been said, although it is not mentioned in the Bill, that no one will be discharged from an institution until satisfactory arrangements have been made. It is extremely important that that provision should be covered by legislation so that if proper arrangements are not made the matter can be challenged in terms of the legislation. I hope that the noble Baroness can comment on that point. What is proposed would give people the right to challenge if it is thought that adequate arrangements have not been made. The fact that people may be discharged from hospitals without such arrangements being made is a source of great anxiety.
Baroness Blatch: I understand the point made by the noble Baroness. I certainly take it on board. If during the course of my response I have not adequately addressed her point then we shall see where the amendment leads us and perhaps meet in order to discuss the matter.
Assessment will identify needs for services. However, Clause 45 requires that, following assessment, local authorities must decide, having regard to the results of the assessment, whether there is a need for them to provide services. Therefore, the local authority is required to decide which of the needs it will meet taking into account duties under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Apart from that, it is not obliged to meet all needs and will wish to take into account its priorities and resources. We believe that local authorities are best placed to decide which care needs of any individual they can meet, bearing in mind the statutory duties and the local availability of services and resources.
The final part of Amendment No. 113AT requiring a named individual to be responsible to ensure care needs are met is, I believe, a matter better dealt with in good practice guidance rather than legislation. Local authorities are diverse organisations; their structure and staffing bear witness to that. While this proposal undoubtedly reflects good practice in many authorities, there are also other ways, perhaps equally good, of ensuring that the services which the authority has agreed to fund are delivered.
As regards disabled people and domiciliary and day care, local authorities are already under a duty

1539
to provide such services as they decide are called for by virtue of Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. That is not affected by the proposals in the Bill.
I understand the thinking behind subsections (1A) and (1B) of Amendment No. 113C in the name of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I realise that he is concerned that patients should not be discharged from hospitals into situations in the community where adequate social care has not been arranged. That is the very point which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised.
We believe that the proposals in the Bill and the action that the Government have already taken will address the valid concerns that have been raised in this area, particularly in the case of mentally ill people. Our approach has four main strands. First, we have issued guidance on discharge planning for all patients in a comprehensive circular issued last year. This covered the care of patients released after a short spell in hospital, as well as those who have received long-term care.
Secondly, the improved arrangements for the planning of services enshrined in the Bill and the need for consultation with health authorities should help to guarantee that effective discharge plans are made and implemented at local level.
Thirdly, in relation to mentally ill people, we have made it crystal clear that mentally ill people discharged into the community should have a precise plan drawn up for their aftercare. This should also help both to prevent inappropriate discharge and to lessen the risk of people losing touch with the caring services at a later stage.
Finally, thearrangements for the mental illness specific grant which will be paid through the regional health authorities will bring further pressure to bear on local authorities to bring all their services and arrangements up to scratch and encourage co-operative planning locally. I believe that this approach represents a sensible mixture of guidance and legislation which will be more effective in practice in addressing the aims that we share than the rather more blunt instrument of the amendment. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I hope that I shall be able to get satisfaction on my point. The issue I raise is this. Suppose someone is discharged and their next of kin or a close friend who will be concerned believes that the plan is inadequate. What right have they to challenge it? That is what I am getting at. If it is in the legislation, they have a right of challenge. I believe that there should be a right of challenge. If the noble Baroness can assure me that somewhere in the Bill there is the right of the next of kin to challenge a plan as being inadequate then I am happy. If that is not so then I am not.
Baroness Blatch: I understand that if problems occur in this respect the direction-making powers in Clause 47 can be used to address them. However, I
1540
believe that the action I have already outlined should adequately cover the requirements.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to my noble friend for what she has said. Much of it has gone a long way towards satisfying me; I do not know about the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm. However, my noble friend has not covered the opening part of my Amendment No. 113C, which states:
"and (c) if they decide that any such services are called for, shall provide, or arrange for the provision of, all the services necessary to meet his needs".
On that point my noble friend started to talk about resources, and I quite understand that. There may be another way of putting this, but I do not believe that her answer covered this part of my amendment.
Lord Seebohm: I feel that what we have heard is not quite sufficient. The local authority knows nothing about it. These people either discharge themselves and walk out of hospital or they are discharged by the hospital without reference to the local authority because it may think that they do not need care and it pushes them out.
The other comment I wish to make concerns the named individual. The White Paper states on page 56, paragraph 7, that this shall be done. It is rather odd if something is stated in the White Paper but in this Chamber the Government say that it is not necessary. We always have to guard against this. White Papers are not law. We have to pick out of the White Paper matters which we should see on the face of the Bill. I would rather go back to my previous suggestion and try to work out with my colleagues and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, an amendment which we might bring forward again at Report stage. Naturally I do not propose to press the amendment, but much more thought should go into the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 113AU:
Page 50, line 38, leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 113AU, I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 113AV, 118DB and 118EA. Subsection (3) of Clause 44 of the Bill defines community care services by listing the various statutes which empower local authorities to provide the services we wish to designate in this way. Most services for mentally disordered people are already covered by the references to Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948 and Section 21 and Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977. However, Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 gives an additional duty to local authorities to provide aftercare services for people leaving hospital after a period of compulsory detention under the terms of the Act. These amendments add this provision to the statutory definition and bring the duty within the provisions for community care services in the Bill. I therefore commend them to the House.
In looking at the Mental Health Act 1983 we decided that two further amendments were required. First, the reference to the district health authority needs amending in line with the amendment that

1541
the Committee made the day before yesterday to Clause 40 of the Bill. This is done by Amendment No. 118DB. Secondly, Amendment No. 118EA repeals Section 124 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This contains default powers which are rendered redundant by the general default powers in Clause 47 of the Bill. I beg to move Amendment No. 113AU.
Lord Mottistone: May I just say, thank you.
Lord Ennals: I shall say a little more than that. I am somewhat surprised that the Government have only now got around to realising that it was necessary to make these clarifications of Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This enables us to return to the debate that we had on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Allen. The inclusion of the services described under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act on the face of the Bill perhaps gives some encouragement for the argument that we put forward in relation to other parts of the Bill and a clear list of the category of persons covered by community care. This seems to follow on the amendment which the noble Baroness herself proposed and which I support. Perhaps she would re-examine the debate on the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, to see whether she could consider a follow-on amendment to those now before us.
Baroness Hooper: We always conscientiously read the debates that take place in the Chamber.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 113AV:
Page 50, line 40, at end insert ("and
(d) section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 [Local authority plans for community care services]:
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden) moved Amendment No. 113AVA:
Page 53, line 33, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections").
The noble Lord said: I am pleased to move Amendment No. 113AVA, and I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 113BDA and 115FC which respond to concern expressed when the Bill was being discussed in another place. I know that what is being proposed will also be acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, who was anxious that people should have scope to make representations about the results of their assessments and the services they are offered.
These amendments insert two lengthy sections into the appropriate legislation. For Scotland, that is the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and, for England and Wales, it is the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. The effect is to give the Secretaries of State power to make orders requiring local authorities to establish a complaints procedure.
We need to ensure a proper hearing for the concerns and complaints that people inevitably have
1542
about the services they are getting, or may not be getting. Some local authorities have introduced or are building up effective arrangements for dealing with representations and complaints. We want now to see this good practice spread across the country. The amendments are the first and perhaps the most important step in that direction. They reflect the belief we all share that the voice of the often vulnerable people who need social care —and those who care for them at home—must be heard; and that the structure and ethos of the system should allow this to happen. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am sorry to be marginally less enthusiastic than perhaps the Minister had hoped after he has gone to so much trouble. I must stress that I welcome his attempts as far as they go. However, they are limited in their scope of representation. It is not clear, for instance, whether an individual's assessment of needs is covered by the measure. It appears to be activated only after the individual has either been provided with a service in terms of the proposed new Section 5B(1)(A) or has been refused a service. I believe it would be better if the measure included representation prior to the granting or refusing of a service. That might avoid that procedure.
The wording should include an obligation to implement such a scheme. At present that is not mandatory. That provision should be stated on the face of the Bill. The scope of representation in relation to a child is also welcome but other categories—for example, the mentally handicapped, the disabled and others—should be included in the term "representations" so that they can be properly represented. An excellent guide to this topic—it has already been mentioned—is provided in the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) (Scotland) Act 1986. I have made a mistake. I mentioned Scotland because a colleague in another place, Mr. Tom Clarke, was the driving force in that legislation and I think of it in terms of a Scottish Act. In the second part of that Act an excellent guide was provided. The Act was in fact entitled the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.
Unfortunately, at present it appears that local authorities could act as the judge and jury in an appeal. Some kind of procedure should be established which would protect the client. I beg to move the amendment.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I apologise to the Committee. This is not my amendment. I thought that my suggestions were rather better than the Government's suggestions and that is why I attempted to move the amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, had to say because this is an important government amendment. I noticed that Amendment No. 113BDA states at 5B(1)(4):

1543
"A local authority shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State as to the procedure to be adopted in considering representations … and as to the taking of such action as may be necessary in consequence of such representations".
I took that to be a safeguard that the Secretary of State was watching over local authorities to see that they carried out the provisions that they had undertaken to carry out. That provision would be helpful to the kind of people to whom the noble Lord referred. It will be interesting to see whether my noble friend can confirm that.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am not sure whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was helping me in attempting to move the amendment. All I can do is try to put the mind of the noble Lord at rest. I shall come to appeals in a moment as that is quite important. He asked whether individuals could complain at the assessment stage. The answer is yes. The amendment does not prevent that. I should draw his attention to my Amendment No. 113BDA, which states:
"The Secretary of State may by order require local authorities to establish a procedure for considering any representations (including any complaints) which are made to them with respect to the discharge of their functions under this Act".
The word "functions" includes assessments.
On the question of appeals, our intention is to lay the foundations for the setting up of local procedures which will give anyone who might have reason to complain the means of doing so. The amendment seeks therefore to cover everyone who uses services and those who have some claim to a service whether or not that claim is being met. I know that some say —indeed, the noble Lord has suggested it —that a complaints procedure cannot deal with representations from people who have been refused a service. For this, it is said, we need a separate appeal mechanism. I do not agree. Of course local authorities' procedures will have to be sufficiently flexible to deal with the whole range of complaints, from grumbles to serious accusations of abuse.
The guidance which will be produced by the Department of Health in the case of the English and Welsh versions, and the Scottish Office will have this need for flexibility as one of the main concerns. It will, I think, be quite feasible for a single, carefully thought out procedure to give proper attention to representations about the non-availability of services. This unified approach seems to me to have distinct attractions. It avoids the complication of separate systems. It will not impose on authorities and service users the rigidities of a legalistic appeal system.
We believe it is also realistic. We have embarked on ambitious reforms. There is a great deal to achieve over the next 12 months and beyond. The targets we set must be achievable.
I hope that with those explanations the noble Lord will reconsider the amendments which I am proposing and which I hope will be carried. I hope he will realise that we have gone all the way in meeting the concerns which were expressed on a previous occasion in another place.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Lord sits down—I must apologise for being a bore on the subject—will he clarify what he meant when he said that one can appeal against an assessment? I hope to get this on the record. Did he mean by that that if an assessment is made of someone who was coming out of an institution and it is appealed against, that person will not leave the institution until the appeal has been settled? The important point here concerns whether such a person will be held in an institution until there is a satisfactory plan. Is that what the noble Lord meant?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The important point that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, made concerned whether an individual could complain at the assessment stage. I have given an assurance on that point. As regards the specific point of whether someone who is leaving an institution is held there until something is settled, I wish to consider that matter and I shall write to the noble Baroness on it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I do not want to be churlish. I agree that the Minister has gone a very long way and listened to many of the representations that have been made. There are still some problems which may be resolved with experience. One of my worries was that the local authority could be judge and jury, which is always dangerous, but that may perhaps be straightened out when the legislation has been in operation for a period. If the local authority still has some independence there may be other ways of tackling that particular problem. Despite what I have said, I am grateful to the Minister for the efforts he has made.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 113AW and 113AX not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 113B:
Page 54, line 13, at end insert:
("( ) Each local authority shall report annually to the Secretary of State on progress in relation to the implementation of the community care plan. The Report shall be in a form to be specified by the Secretary of State by regulation.").
The noble Lord said: It may be convenient for the Committee if Amendments Nos. 113B and 113BA are taken together. The purposes of the amendments is to require a progress report relating to the implementation of the community care plan.
There is no requirement in this clause, or anywhere else in this part of the Bill, for the local authority to report on progress in relation to the plan. It may be thought that Clause 45 gives sufficient sanction to the Secretary of State to issue directions to any local authority which is not meeting the objectives set out in its published plan. However, we believe that in this important area local authorities must have a degree of accountability and we would welcome the inclusion in the Bill of a clause requiring the local authority to report annually to the Secretary of State on progress in relation to implementation of the plan. The Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 contains such a requirement in Section 11. It appears to us to be

1545
appropriate that this amendment should be made to Clause 49.
Turning to Amendment No. 113BA, one of the main obstacles to good community care is that services; are provided and planned by a multiplicity of agencies without proper co-ordination. Although it has been stated that social work departments will take the lead role in delivering community care, the definition of community care services in Clause 49(4) restricts the plan to those services provided by social work departments. People's needs for social work services cannot be considered in isolation from their needs in education, training, housing and health care. The proposed subsection is intended to ensure that community care plans take all of those aspects into account.
Furthermore, it is important that the bodies providing those services are not only consulted in the preparation of plans but do not act in a way which contradicts the aim of the plans. Therefore the subsection would oblige them to take the current community care plan into account so far as is appropriate in performing their own functions. The subsection is very much in the spirit of the White Paper, which explicitly stated that housing and health were vital parts of community care. Despite that statement, the Government seem reluctant to take practical steps to deal with the matter. They have failed to implement the section of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 which would establish joint liaison committees to plan services.
In the debates on this Bill the Government have repeatedly said that community care will cover wider issues than social service provision. However, they have refused to say how social services authorities can be forced to consider what they might view as extraneous matters given the narrow definition of community care services in the Bill. They have conceded that there will be no obligation, for example, on housing authorities to pay any attention to community care plans. We believe that those are great omissions from the Bill. We hope that the Minister will look at the matter with sympathy and perhaps even come back at a later stage with proposals going some way towards meeting our objectives. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I entirely share the noble Lord's concern expressed in Amendment No. 113B that local authorities should be fully accountable to the Secretary of State for implementing their community care plans. Indeed, as the noble Lord said, one of the Government's key objectives, set out in the White Paper Caring for People, is
"to clarify the responsibilities of agencies and so make it easier to hold them to account for their performance".
We wanted to be as clear as possible whether or not local authorities are achieving their aims, and that is why we intend to issue guidance to authorities about the contents of their community care plans.
As part of that process, we shall require them to specify their strategic objectives for community care, as well as the range of services they intend to develop, and to say what quality assurance and systems for
1546
safeguarding service standards they will establish, including their procedure for handling complaints. In this way we shall be able to measure local authorities' deeds against their words. I can assure the noble Lord that the Scottish Office will be closely involved in monitoring the performance of social work authorities and of health boards under their separate plans.
Of course we want local authorities to be accountable not only to the Secretary of State but also, and arguably more importantly, to the populations they serve. That is why community care plans will have to be public documents which, in the words of the White Paper, are
"intended to communicate an authority's policies and plans to the widest possible audience in as straightforward a manner as possible".
The central guidance which I have referred to will deal with the procedure for an annual review of plans and require that the progress made in each year is brought to account in that process.
Given the lines of local accountability we are creating, subject to central oversight, I am not convinced that any additional purpose would be usefully served by requiring local authorities to produce an annual report of the kind suggested in the amendment. We must be careful not to overburden local authorities in this way when major new responsibilities will already be conferred on them by the Bill.
I turn now to Amendment No. 113BA. It seeks to extend the coverage of community care plans by requiring them to address a wide range of services which might be needed by the users of community care services. Like many of the amendments which have been tabled by the noble Lord opposite, it has the perfectly laudable aim of ensuring that all relevant interests co-operate and that services are properly co-ordinated and planned on a comprehensive basis. I can certainly assure the Committee that the need for this type of co-operation is accepted by the Government and close attention will be paid to it in the guidance which is being prepared on the drawing up of community care plans and the need for consultations.
I am afraid, however, that Amendment No. 113BA goes further than is necessary or desirable and is in any case incompatible with the framework of the existing provisions in the Bill on community care plans. Community care plans can properly relate only to community care services as defined in Clause 49. Community care plans in this limited field alone will be quite complex documents as matters stand. We should not wish to see them further enlarged to include detail about all of the many services which elderly, handicapped or disabled persons might require outside the local authority social work sector. That is a factor to which the noble Lord referred. They are not designed to be information packs, nor is it desirable that responsibility for producing them should be shared with several other agencies, thus diluting accountability. Clearly, community care users have a need for services in those various fields but the plans should address only those services which the local authority itself intends to provide after consultation with other providers.

1547
The further requirement in the amendment that other agencies should have regard to community care plans is both unnecessary and incompatible with the long title of the Bill, which in the context of community care refers only to the social service functions of local authorities and not to transport, housing and education. Such matters can in any case be dealt with in administrative guidance addressed directly to the authorities concerned if that is felt to be necessary in due course.
The noble Lord mentioned the interaction between agencies. The whole process of integrating the use of local resources for community care will require close inter-agency consultation at local level. That was one of the main reasons why we accepted Sir Roy Griffiths' recommendation that the local authority should have the main co-ordinating role in community care. We are equally clear, however, that consultation should be a matter for a simple statement of basic duty and that is what we already have in subsection (3) of the new Section 5A of the 1968 Act provided by Clause 49. The inclusion of specific housing agencies is not necessary and the duty of consultation within a regional council, which is both social work and education authority, does not lend itself to statutory prescription at all. Consultations with Scottish Homes will be at regional rather than national level and will be more suitably dealt with in directions as provided for in Clause 49 as it stands.
The Government are keenly aware of the need for full consultation and collaboration among service providers. That is stressed in the White Paper, covered in the clause and will be dealt with in guidance.
The noble Lord was concerned as to whether Section 13B of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act would be implemented. Joint liaison committees exist in a number of areas on a voluntary basis without the section having been implemented. The Bill now repeals Section 13B, as noble Lords will see on page 112 of the Bill. We are confident that the new statutory basis of co-operation between authorities under the Bill will be a more satisfactory arrangement. That accords with the Griffiths Report conclusions.
I have spoken at length about this matter which is extremely important. Given those general assurances and the fact that Amendment No. 113BA extends beyond the proper bounds of Clause 49 as drawn up and agreed in another place, I hope that the noble Lord will look carefully at what I have said, as I shall look at what he has said. I hope he will realise that the spirit, if not the wording, of his amendment is certainly contained in the various answers that I have given.
9 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him whether the guidelines which occupy an important place in the scheme of things will be published and therefore available for public comment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Yes, indeed. Unfortunately, the drafting of those guidelines is not yet complete and I cannot quote the terms of the proposed guidance at this stage. However, they will be published as soon as possible.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question regarding what he said about Amendment No. 113B. The Law Society of Scotland is anxious to know whether my noble friend thinks that Clause 45 gives sufficient sanction to the Secretary of State to issue directions to any local authority which does not meet the objectives set out in its published plan. Clearly, if that is an adequate arrangement, the annual report will probably not be necessary. However, I wonder how the Secretary of State will know whether the plan is being implemented correctly. Is that a problem?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I do not think that it is. The Secretary of State has adequate powers to deal with the situation if, as I think my noble friend suggests, there should be any backsliding. I am sure that that is the case, but again I shall look to see whether there is a loophole here, although I do not think so.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister gave a long reply. I had the impression that he attempted to meet the spirit of the amendments, although, as is usually the case, the wording from outside the Government is never quite right. He has given me a great deal to think about. I shall take the amendment away with the greatest of goodwill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 113BA not moved.)
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 113BB:
Page 54, line 15, after ("services") insert (", other than services for children,").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 113BC and 113BD.
The definition of community care services as originally drafted was not quite right. Clause 49(4) defines those services as including those which a local authority has a power or a duty to provide under Part II of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Unfortunately, that simple definition would bring in services for children which are excluded in the corresponding English definition in Clause 44.
The first of the two amendments now before us therefore serves to exclude services for children from the definition of "community care services" and hence from the provisions in the Bill on community care plans, assessment of needs and other matters. The second amendment extends the scope of the same definition in a rather different direction. Section 11 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 creates for local authorities a duty to provide for the training and occupation of mentally handicapped people in their areas. Clearly such provision should form an integral part of community care and there

1549
is no doubt that the definition should be extended to include it alongside the duties in relation to after-care and the provision of accommodation which are already included in the definition. That matter was brought to our attention by the Scottish Society for Mentally Handicapped and I am glad to acknowledge the helpfulness of its action in this regard.
The effect of the amendments and those made earlier to the equivalent definition for England and Wales is to ensure that the scope of community care services is the same throughout Great Britain.
I wish to say a little more about children's services so that there is no doubt about the matter. At present, the full range of children's services are provided under the various parts of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and, with regard to day-care and child-minding, under the Children Act 1989. The White Paper, Caring for People, makes it clear that services for children are different from those for elderly and disabled people and should be considered separately. They are subject to separate proposals for service development, but those matters should be carefully and fully considered and not simply included in the present Bill without proper groundwork of the kind which Sir Roy Griffiths so ably carried out for other services. For England and Wales, proposals are contained in the Children Act, and for Scotland they are being formulated through the childcare law review. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 113BC:
Page 54, line 18, leave out ("or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 113BD:
Page 5 4, line 18, after ("services)") insert ("or 11 (training and occupation of the mentally handicapped)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 113BDA:
Page 54, line 19, at end insert:
("Complaints procedure.
5B. —(1) The Secretary of State may by order require local authorities to establish a procedure for considering any representations (including any complaints) which are made to them with respect to the discharge of their functions under this Act by or on behalf of—

(a) any person for whom, in the exercise of those functions, a local authority provide a service, either directly or by making arrangements with another person;

(b) any person whose request for such a service has been refused by a local authority; or

(c) any person who, as a private carer, is providing a substantial amount of care on a regular basis to a person who is living at home and for whom, in the exercise of their functions under this Act, a local authority have a power or duty to provide a service.

and any such order may be commenced at different times in respect of such different classes of person as may be specified in the order.
(2) In relation to a child, representations may be made by virtue of subsection (1) above by the child, or on his behalf by—
1550

(a) his parent;

(b) any person having parental rights in respect of him;

(c) any local authority foster parent; or

(d) any other person appearing to the authority to have a sufficient interest in the child's wellbeing to warrant his making representations on the child's behalf;

(3) In this section —

child" means a child under the age of 18 years;

"parent" and "parental rights" have the same meaning as in section 8 (interpretation) of the Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act 1986; and

"private carer" means a person who is not employed to provide the care in question by any body in the exercise of its functions under any enactment.

(4) A local authority shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State as to the procedure to be adopted in considering representations made as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section and as to the taking of such action as may be necessary in consequence of such representations.
(5) Every local authority shall give such publicity to the procedure established under this section as they consider appropriate.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Assessment of needs for community care services]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 113BE:
Page 50, line 43, after second ("services") insert ("or when requested to do so by any person").
The noble Lord said: I move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Carter and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox.
Assessment of needs is an integral part of this section of the Bill of which we all strongly approve. It represents a genuine step forward. Clause 45(1) imposes a duty on the local authority to provide or arrange for the provision of community care if it appears to the local authority that that needs to be done. On the basis of the experience of people over many years on the provision of community care, the clause weights the duty too much on the side of the local authority.
The Government throughout the Bill are arguing the primacy of the individual. That is the philosophy of the Bill. It is curious therefore that nothing is said about the rights of the individual in the clause. I cannot see a provision anywhere else in the Bill which covers that issue.
I shall not weary the Committee with the large number of cases that one can cite of dependent individuals failing to obtain the help that they need for reasons which, in the cases that I have in mind, I do not find persuasive. It appears that some people who are most in need of help in our society fall to the bottom of priority lists.
The purpose of the amendment is straightforward. The Bill states that any person—one has in mind the individual or a relevant carer—can request the local authority to carry out the assessment. That is all that it provides at this stage. On reflection, I wonder whether the wording is exactly right. However, since it is merely an amendment to test the Government view about the matter, whether the

1551
wording is right is immaterial. The point that is being made is the need to get the balance slightly closer to the individual and away from the local authority. Are the Government willing to take that on board? Are they willing either to bring forward an amendment or to consult with my noble friend and the noble Baroness on the matter?
I am asking the Government, first, to recognise the problem. It is based on experience. I ask them then to produce some sympathetic response to what I insist again is very much in the spirit of what the Government advocate in this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Cox: Perhaps I may briefly give three reasons for supporting the spirit of the amendment. They relate to the client and the client's own needs, the accountability of social services, and the needs of carers. First, given that the client or patient always must know best what his or her own needs are and how best they might be met, it seems strange that at the moment there is no ostensible provision for him to have the right to take the initiative to request an assessment. I therefore support that part of the amendment on the fundamental principles of consumer or client power and consumer or client independence.
Secondly, as regards the accountability of social services, unfortunately it is well known that social services may not always be able effectively to fulfil their responsibilities. Already there are cases where they are proving to be less than efficient or effective. Therefore, it may be important for someone else to be able to require an assessment of a situation as a corrective device.
The citizens advice bureau has given examples, pointing out that many of its clients are receiving an extremely poor response from social services departments when they request help. It gives numerous examples of, at best, long delays when seeking help and, at worst, no response at all. Under the Bill as it currently stands the decision as to whether to provide an assessment rests with the social services departments. Unless the amendment is accepted it is highly probable that when they ask for help many people will continue to be faced with a totally inadequate response to their needs.
Thirdly, I support the amendment with the interests of carers at heart. It will provide a corrective device for them when it is apparent that the person for whom they are caring is receiving inadequate support or perhaps did not have an adequate assessment in the first instance.
I strongly support the amendment in terms of the principle of the independence of patients and clients, of the accountability of social services departments and of preventing people from falling through the safety net of care and support.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, is right in having doubts about the drafting of the amendment. It will put an obligation on the local authority to carry out an assessment on request, however frivolous or ill founded that may be.
1552
I have looked at Section 4 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 to which I had intended to refer in relation to the next amendment; perhaps that is a preferable approach. It relates only to disabled persons, but it provides that:
"When requested to do so by a disabled person, his authorised representative [or a carer] a local authority shall decide whether the needs of the disabled person call for the provision by the authority of any services in accordance with [the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970".
If the idea were accepted, such an approach would be preferable.
Lord Mottistone: I too support the amendment. In Amendments Nos. 113BDA and 115FC, which are grouped with this amendment, the Government have accepted that an individual person can ask for a social service and complain if it is refused. Presumably that would not happen without an assessment and therefore there is no harm in enabling an individual to ask for one.
The present clause is worrying, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, because it depends on whether it appears to the local authority to be necessary without any other body being involved. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Allen, that perhaps the wording is incorrect. However, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will say that a similar provision could be introduced involving another body apart from the local authority. If the pressures were such that it would be difficult to provide an assessment it would be easy for a local authority to say that it does not appear to be necessary. I hope that the Government will give the amendment sympathetic support even though they may not like the wording.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am glad that the question of the positive voice of the patient is raised at the outset of discussions on the clause. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that the amendment is too imprecise to prosper. Subsequent amendments may be more eligible for the Government's agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, obviously has in mind that one of the key objectives set out in the White Paper Caring for People was to make proper assessment of need and so forth. It is no good designing packages of care unless they are in line with individual needs and preferences. Unless there is a more specific amendment on the same lines, one cannot know what the individual needs and preferences are. I am much in favour of the spirit behind the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: The amendment would require the social services authority to carry out an assessment whenever it is asked to do so. Clause 45 as drafted provides that a local authority must carry out an assessment whenever it appears to it that a person may need community care. The wording was deliberately chosen to reflect the situation in which a person presents himself to a social services department and asks what can be done for him. At that stage the social services department does not

1553
know whether he will turn out to need community care. Obviously further preliminary inquiries are needed to determine whether this is likely to be the case. If the person's needs turn out not be for community care services then the preliminary inquires may in fact amount to the assessment and this may be a perfectly reasonable way of dealing with the request. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, made the point that some requests can be very simple and can be dealt with by one visit to the department. Until one has made inquiries one simply does not know.
The words;
"where it appears to a local authority"
in this clause mean that when anyone presents himself to a social services department, or is otherwise drawn to its attention as being likely to need community care services, the local authority must carry out an assessment, although, as I have already explained, the form that assessment may take is. a matter for the local authority to decide having regard both to the outcome of preliminary inquiries and to the likely care needs of the person concerned.
To expect local authorities to carry out assessments on request —and the word "assessment" is not defined in the legislation but again is a matter of local authority discretion—would impose upon the authorities the wholly unrealistic burden of requiring them to carry out some form of proper assessment in every case; otherwise, it would amount in practice to no more than what happens under the clause as drafted.
The form of the assessment must be left to the local authority. To raise expectations that a full, detailed assessment would be carried out in every case, even where the person's needs are manifestly simple, would not be helpful.
In answer to my noble friend Lady Cox and other Members of the Committee, I assure the Chamber that a carer can ask for an assessment both of his own needs and those of the persons for whom he is caring. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, feels reassured that we meet the spirit of the amendment. We share the objectives. I hope that the noble Lord is sufficiently convinced that his amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Peston: I thank Members of the Committee for their interesting contributions. I thank especially the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, the point which he raised was precisely that which I had in mind when I said that on reflection I was not very happy with the wording of the amendment. The matter was further clarified by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
I am not very happy with the Minister's answer. My point was one of balance. Unless I have totally misunderstood the Bill, it does not say what the noble Baroness said. It is left entirely to the local authority to say whether or not it will make an assessment. As I see it, there is no obligation on the local authority to respond to any individual request.
As someone who has spent his life in the general study of markets and consumers, I feel that all those
1554
who oppose markets and consumers do so in terms of the frivolous consumer. That is the whole foundation of the consumer as nuisance. The Government should face up to the fact that if they adopt a consumer orientated approach to the National Health Service, then certain matters follow; namely, that if the consumer intends to insist on his rights, that is what the system must provide. Therefore, perhaps the noble Baroness will go away and think further about the matter.
At this late hour it would be ridiculous to divide the Committee. However, those of us who have spoken on the amendment are trying not to over-burden local authorities but to move the balance a little further towards the patient qua consumer. I know that the noble Baroness always tries to reassure me but I should be less than honest if I said that her answer had reassured me. I must say that it did not.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is quite wrong to suggest that the Bill does not lay an obligation on local authorities. Clause 45 does just that.
Lord Peston: In that case, I must go away—as I am sure will other Members of the Committee—and read the Bill again. However, the Bill states:
"Where it appears to a local authority that any person",
and does not say at any point "where it appears to any person", he should go to a local authority. I have never claimed to have any degree of expertise in the law or in reading Bills, but I can on the whole follow the English language. That does not correspond to what I and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, were talking about. However, at half-past nine at night it may be that we are unable to follow elementary logic or English.
All I ask is that the noble Baroness accept the fact that this is a point within the spirit of the Bill. She may find it advantageous from the Government's point of view to think about it a little more. We shall certainly think about it a little more. We shall come back to it with a view to persuading Ministers that we are right and that the Bill does not do precisely what the noble Baroness thinks it does and what I say it should do.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is raising his expectations of what may happen from here on. The discretion that he is reading into Clause 45 is there for precisely the reason raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. Where the local authority deems that there is no case to take the assessment further, it may choose not to do so. The obligation to make an assessment where it is needed is contained in Clause 45. I do not believe that there is any more to consider on that matter.
Lord Peston: In absolute terms the noble Baroness has now made the point very clearly. The Bill says that it is where the local authority thinks the assessment is needed. The noble Baroness does not understand my point, which is that the person or carer may think that assessment is needed and may disagree with the local authority. That is the whole point of the amendment.

1555
I have not raised my hopes. The noble Baroness knows my view of the Government's attempt to respond to my amendment. My hopes are not raised, but do not let the noble Baroness raise her hopes. It is not a matter one can possibly allow to go away nor is it one which the noble Lords opposite who espouse the spirit of the Bill should allow to go away. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 113BF:
Page 50, line 44, after ("needs") insert ("and the needs of his carer").
The noble Baroness said: A number of amendments are grouped together, but I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 113BF, 113BG, 113BH and 114ZB. These amendments together may be regarded—to put it rather grandly—as a carers' charter as regards this Bill. The point I wish to make and which was referred to earlier is that the position of the carer as distinct from the person cared for does not figure sufficiently on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 113BF requires that it is not only the needs of the person requiring care that should be assessed; it is also the needs of the carer. Amendment No. 114ZB makes the point quite bluntly that that includes the carer's right not to care. It puts on the face of the Bill the requirement that because a carer is a member of the family or a close friend it should not be taken for granted by the local authority that that person will begin to care and go on caring however difficult that caring task may be.
Those of us who support the amendment believe that the carer has a right to say no and that that right should be on the face of the Bill. We all know that it is only too easy for those in authority, when they find it difficult to deal with a particular case, to take advantage of the fact that most members of a family will continue struggling to care without adequate resources when it is really not practical or in the interests of either the person being cared for or the carer that that should happen.
As the noble Lords have said this evening, there are a large number of people already struggling with the job of caring with very inadequate resources. By definition the people leaving institutions will be more difficult to look after than the people who are not in institutions and are looked after at home at the present time. I am sure that many carers, sooner or later, will feel that that task is quite beyond them, and they should have the right so to say.
When these assessments are carried out they should include an assessment of the needs of the carer as well as those of the person who is to be cared for. Amendment No. 113BG provides for respite care to be considered if requested. That is only one example. Other examples are adequate domiciliary help and adequate community nursing, which are absolutely essential.
In particular, there is a need for assistance in looking after people during the night. I suppose all
1556
of us have had experience at one time or another with our families of what that is like. If a carer has to go on night after night without relief looking after a person who awakens them four, five or six times a night, sooner or later both the carer and the person being cared for will be in a very bad state indeed. That will come back on the local authority to make far more drastic and expensive provision than giving support to the carer while it is still possible to do so. I hope that we can have proper protection for carers written on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Cox: As my name is linked with the amendment, perhaps I may speak briefly in support of the group of amendments which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, is a kind of carers' charter. Carers make a major contribution in the provision of care but often receive an extremely raw deal.
Perhaps the first point one should make is that the financial implications of the amendment should be dear to the Government's heart. Carers are helping to support a system which is very cost-effective. It is estimated by the carers' national association that carers save about £24 billion a year by providing care in the community. Often that care is provided at very great cost. The majority of carers are women. They are unpaid and provide a service at great cost to themselves both financially and often in terms of their own personal lives. In the case of younger women, it is often at great cost to their own careers and personal development.
At the other end of the age scale, many carers are elderly people caring for the even more elderly. It is common for people who have reached the age of three score years and ten, or more, to be caring for those who are well over the octagenarian hurdle. One often hears poignant stories of the elderly caring for the even more elderly, with broken nights and in difficult financial circumstances.
The Government are ostensibly committed to supporting the carers and community care. The White Paper states that, but that is not enough; it must be on the face of the Bill. Many carers face enormous difficulties. According to the National Association of Carers, 83 per cent. of carers receive no help of any kind for the care which they provide, either from professionals, family or friends. They carry this enormously important burden entirely alone. We are asking too much of them.
I should like to make one or two suggestions on what should be done. The amendments put forward some proposals. I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said about respite care, particularly night respite care. I should like to see the proposal for night respite care centres taken seriously. Elderly people, and particularly confused elderly people, could be taken to such centres to be looked after at night and given the appropriate care. It would not matter if they were incontinent. The most important point is that relatives could get a good night's sleep. The major reason for re-admission of people back into residential care from the community is that those who care for them

1557
can no longer put up with broken nights for week after week, month after month and even year after year. It is utterly exhausting and puts people at the end of their tether quicker than anything else.
Night respite centres would be extremely cost effective in terms of staffing. Day centres which often have to be kept warm at night could be used. They would be a very humane and appropriate form of helping people in the community to stay in their homes. If they have insomnia and are confused at night, the night respite centres would enable the relatives to get a good night's sleep while giving the elderly person the right kind of care.
There are other forms of more systematic, practical help in addition to those mentioned by the noble Baroness, for example, assistance with laundering for people who look after incontinent relatives. Another important point is that relatives who are carers must be given the right to say no. They must be encouraged to say no without feeling guilty. That is one of the most important aspects of these amendments—to encourage the right to say no; to say that one can no longer provide care on either a temporary or permanent basis. A final point is the need for financial support or compensation for the implicit, or explicit, financial costs of caring.
These amendments are crucial for carers, for those they care for, and, I might just finish by saying, for the implementation of the objectives of the Bill itself. After all, this part of the Bill is designed to keep as many people in the community as possible and as many people out of long-stay care as possible for as long as possible. It is impossible to achieve that goal with good quality care without exploitation of carers, without due recognition of the care they provide and without recompense for the costs they incur.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I was glad to add my name to the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, reminded us some time ago that the White Paper explained that the great bulk of community care is provided by friends, families and neighbours, and fiat many carers may need help to be able to manage what can become a heavy burden. When we came to read the Bill the carer was invisible. There was perhaps a chink of light in what we were told earlier when discussing Amendment No. 113AS. It could even be that the Government will come forward themselves with an amendment that actually refers to carers.
We have been reminded that there are perhaps six million carers. The numbers are hardly likely to grow less as longevity increase. Some three-quarters of them are over 50 and, as we have been reminded, most get no help from the statutory services. Most of us know from personal experience of the great strain people suffer in looking after elderly or disabled people all the time: it can be a great burden.
It seems to me, despite what the noble Baroness the Minister has said, that without some provision on the face of the Bill local authorities may well be uncertain about the right of carers to ask for an assessment and about their role when an assessment is carried out. There is also the need to take account of the needs of carers themselves. A particular need,
1558
as has been well explained, is that of respite care. This is complicated by the fact that quite often the disabled or elderly person violently objects to respite care being taken. The carer quite often needs some help in resolving a difficulty of that kind. It is important that a local authority should not automatically assume without inquiry that the carer will simply be willing to carry on with his, or her, responsibilities.
I referred earlier to Section 4 of the Disabled Persons Act 1986. Clause 45(4) says rather mysteriously:
"This section is without prejudice to section 3 of the Disabled Persons … Act 1986".
But it does not refer to Section 4 which, as I explained, specifically gives a carer a right to ask a local authority whether the needs of the disabled person call for the provision of services. I could not remember the Act when I spoke earlier: it is the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. That Act, I think, does not provide for respite care.
It seems that if some such amendment as we are now proposing is not put into the Bill there is a risk of a sort of two-tier arrangement under which there will be certain rights under the 1986 Act and an absence of rights, or an ambiguity about rights, under the present legislation, whereas amendments on the lines proposed would put the matter beyond doubt. The carers, who are the main prop of community care, deserve statutory recognition and a rather clearer statement of the local authorities' responsibility towards carers than can be inferred from the Bill.
Lord Mottistone: I strongly support the amendments. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship, which advises me, was created by carers who had been caring for decades and longer. It consists mainly of carers.
I do not intend to say much more because my noble friend Lady Cox has said it all. It is of interest that respite care it something that has recently come to cognisance, and I strongly support that aspect of the amendments.
The National Schizophrenia Fellowship in Northern Ireland has recently pioneered a respite home, but it has only recently opened and there is no experience of it as yet. That is a factor that will grow, and it is right that it should be included in the Bill. Above all, it is right that the carers should be provided for because they suffer as much, and sometimes more, than those that are cared for.
Lord Ennals: The case has been powerfully put by the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Cox, and the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Mottistone. However, I feel that I must emphasise some points. Before doing so it should be noted that the last five amendments in this very large group apply the same principles to Scotland. Therefore, it is not necessary for my noble friend Lord Carmichael to speak to this amendment.
I should like to refer particularly to Amendment No. 114ZB. If it were not for the carers, the burden upon local authorities, the Government and

1559
everyone else would be tremendous. All of us, including local authorities, governments, politicians and people who are not yet involved as carers—although they may have had a role in the past —take so much for granted. As the population grows older, the carers are themselves getting older. Some carers almost need carers to look after them. People who are entitled in the last years of their lives to rest, pleasure and enjoyment are being denied those things because of the family responsibility which they feel they must take.
I do not think that any of us can criticise the way in which families support their own. However, there comes a time when we ought to intervene. It is not that carers should have "the right not to care" —the words used by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear —but the community ought to say to that carer: do you think that you should go on any longer with this burden?
I read of a case that was sent to us by the Spastics Society. It concerned a woman in her late sixties who was caring for a disabled husband and a 36 year-old son with cerebral palsy. The son cannot walk and sit, he is blind and can only speak a few words. He is totally incontinent. He requires full personal care and has to be fed a special liquid diet. Sometimes he is violent. Both of the two older people suffer as a result of that situation.
The condition of the carer must be taken into consideration when an assessment is made. A carer's right to an independent community care services assessment must be written into the Bill. It is difficult to see how respite care can best be written into the Bill—although I support the amendments that are before us. The amendment is very important from the point of view of the people who care so much but at the same time suffer so much.
I should also like to draw attention to Amendment No. 114ZD, in the name of my noble friend Lord Carter, which deals with the homeless. It states:
"If at any time during the assessment of the needs of any person … it appears to a local authority that —

(a) that person is homeless; and

(b) he is in need of advice or counselling as to the provision of accommodation for him,

then the local authority shall provide him with written details of where such advice or counselling may be obtained in the local authority's area".
We should not leave out the tragically growing number of homeless people. They have rights too. They have a right to decent opportunities in their lives. Local authorities cannot simply shuffle it off. I hope that the noble Baroness will demonstrate a sympathetic approach to these issues. The rights of the carers must be written into the Bill. If we do not do it today, we must do it on Report.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not know what the Government's position is at the moment, but come what may, it must somewhere be made plain to local authorities that they have to take proper account of the carer. We all have experience of what it feels like to do the job. One feels that one cannot do it any
1560
more. One tries to get help but one does not get it. Someone may say, "You will go on, won't you?" but one is not sure that one can. It is a difficult burden to bear. Because of the nature of local authorities and the nature of the job that people will be doing, it will not be an easy thing to get right.
I hope that, come what may this evening, the Secretary of State will look carefully at this issue. It seems to me that the point of assessment is the nub of the matter. The words,
"shall not assume that the carer will continue",
certainly give the spirit of what we all mean, although perhaps it is not completely appropriate to include such a provision in the Bill. I hope that my noble friend, who I am sure understands everything that has been said, will give serious consideration to this issue.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I support the amendments. I should like to give one example of respite care which has not been mentioned. I refer to the carer who is caring day in and day out for someone who is heavy. If carers know that they will have a holiday, just for a week or two weeks, it can make all the difference and enable them to carry on for the rest of the year. Otherwise, relationships can sometimes break. I know that relationships break. In this case, it can be that absence makes the heart grow fonder. A stitch in time saves nine. It is so important.
Baroness Hooper: I should like to make it clear that I am speaking to the grouping of Amendments Nos. 113BF to 113BH and to Amendments Nos. 114ZB, 115ZD, 115ZE, 115AA, 115AB and 115DA, as all those amendments have not been specificaly referred to before.
I am capable of understanding the thinking behind the amendment. We have at several stages in our debates talked about the involvement of carers in the process of arranging and providing services. I wonder sometimes if the parents of small children regard themselves as carers. They certainly have to cope with interrupted sleep and probably they too need night respite care. Nevertheless, however wide the term "carers" is defined, the development of practical support for carers is a major overall objective behind our White Paper. We want to work towards a situation where the independence, dignity and choice of carers figure largely from planning through to delivery of services.
In speaking to Amendment No. 113AS, which I undertook to reconsider, although I fully appreciate the scepticism which that undertaking received, I explained that the approach of the Government is to make a reality of more support for carers and to ensure that the guidance we issue to local authorities covers the interests of the carer.
The interests and needs of carers are not, of course, necessarily the same as the needs of the person they care for. Therefore, apart from thinking it unnecessary, I believe that the amendment before us is flawed in that it suggests that the needs of the carers should be assessed in the same way as the person they care for; this may not be the case at all.

1561
I entirely agree that the need for respite care may often be one of the important services that could be provided to assist an individual, him or herself, or the carer of that person. During visits around the country, I have seen very good examples of the development of that kind of respite care. But respite care is one among many options that may be more or less appropriate to the individuals concerned, and each case needs to be considered on its own merits. I see no value at all in singling out one particular form of care over and above any others on the face of the Bill. All this is likely to do is to channel the thinking of those undertaking assessment, and those who need to think what provision they might be able to make and how and when, towards narrow objectives rather than considering the overall needs of the individuals with whom they are dealing. I therefore urge Members of the Committee not to agree to the amendments for those reasons.
At the same time, it is quite obvious that any particular form of service needs to be considered should the person being assessed ask for it. A two-way process is needed throughout assessment so that needs, wishes and available or potential services can be brought into the most appropriate package. With my assurances that our guidance will cover this important point of taking account of the needs of carers themselves, perhaps for respite or other support care, I can only repeat that I hope Members of the Committee will not find it necessary to press the amendments.
Reference was made to Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 which refers to assisting disabled people in taking holidays and which would also provide a break for the carer. Assuming that carers are prepared to continue caring, which is a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I have already explained that carers can ask for an assessment of their own care needs. Our guidance on assessment will provide for carers to be consulted during the course of the assessment of the needs of the person for whom they are caring. That would include seeking the views of the carer on continuing to care. In other words, in accepting the spirit of the amendment, I nevertheless feel that it is not appropriate to put such a provision on the face of the Bill.
So far as concerns disabled people, I should point out that there is already provision for their carers to be consulted when their needs for day and domiciliary care are being assessed by virtue of Section 8 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. To that extent, no further statutory provision is required. Further, Section 4 of that Act, which refers to requests for assessment, is also specifically mentioned in Clause 45(2)(a) of the Bill. For those reasons I urge the Committee not to accept the amendment.
Baroness Seear: I find the response of the noble Baroness totally unsatisfactory. Apparently she has not grasped the point of what we were trying to say. It is essential that the carers' position and the carers should be on the face of the Bill. I wish to press the amendment.
9.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 113BF) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 29.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hylton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Peston, L.

Carter, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Cox, B. [Teller.]

Russell, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Ennals, L.

Seebohm, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Thurlow, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Balfour, E.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Mersey, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mottistone, L.

Butterfield, L.

Reay, L.

Caithness, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Carnock, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinton, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hooper, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.2 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 113BG to 113C not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 113D:
Page 50, line 47, at end insert:
("and
(c) if, as a result of that assessment, they decide that his needs call for the provision by them of any such services, it shall be their duty to make arrangements for the provision of those services.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 113D, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 115D. I shall be brief although in this case brevity does not reduce the importance of the amendments. They are intended to ensure that once a local authority has undertaken an assessment and decided that certain services are needed by an individual, it then has a duty to provide those services. We are advised that throughout the country there is concern over the failure of local authorities to provide the services which are desperately needed by elderly and disabled people in order for them to be able to remain in the community.
We feel it is of fundamental importance, if the express commitment to community care service is to be translated into good practice, that the local authority should have a duty—I emphasise the word "duty"—to provide the level of service which is judged to be necessary for an individual. Without

1563
that duty the elderly, the vulnerable and disabled people who are living in the community have no guarantee of the provision of the services they need in order to cope. This amendment would provide potential users of services with a right to those services and a right to a satisfactory quality of care in the community.
The organisation, Turning Point, which helps people with drink, drugs and mental health problems fears that without a duty on local authorities to implement the conclusions of assessments, the needs of people with drug and alcohol problems will not be met. The present lack of priority afforded by local authorities to those groups is evident. Extreme difficulty has been experienced by Turning Point in obtaining maintenance payments for clients from individual authorities. Turning Point says that at a conservative estimate it should have received £870,000 in maintenance payments for 1989-90. In fact, only £107,000 was received, leaving a shortfall of more than £700,000. The amount received was only 12 per cent. of that requested from local authorities in respect of clients for whom they are responsible and who were placed in Turning Point projects.
It has been pointed out that in view of the re-routed income support payments the top-up money required from local authorities will increase significantly and therefore it is likely that many of the residential projects will close.
The figures which I gave in respect of the shortfall in maintenance payments and the point about the re-routing of income support indicate the importance of the first group of amendments which were rejected by the Committee.
There is concern that without a duty on local authorities to provide services which have been assessed as needed the clients who need care as a result of drug or alcohol dependency will not receive the assistance. For those reasons I hope that the Government will accept the amendments or agree to come back with their own versions of them. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: The amendment and Amendment No. 115D to which we are also speaking would lay on authorities a duty to provide services to meet assessed needs. As I have said, as regards disabled people in domiciliary and day care, local authorities are already under such a duty by virtue of Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
As the White Paper Caring for People makes plain, the aim of assessment should be to arrive at a decision on whether services should be provided by the local authority and in what form. Decisions must take account of what is available and affordable. It follows that local authorities, apart from where they are under a statutory obligation, will be expected, wherever possible and practicable, to supply or arrange the services for which assessments of need call, taking account of the policies and priorities laid down by the social services committee. Where high priority needs are identified which cannot be met within the resources available, information flowing
1564
from the assessment process will need to feed back into the local authority's planning process so that a view can be taken on whether new provision is necessary. It would not be realistic under their statutory duty in Section 2 of the 1970 Act to lay authorities under a specific duty to meet all conceivable needs for community care across the board. Thus, given the practicabilities of arranging care provision we do not think that it would be desirable to impose on an authority a specific duty to provide services to meet all individuals' assessed needs, as would be required if the amendments were agreed to.
For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply although I found it disappointing. I believe that she gave the game away when she mentioned "affordable". It is a question of resources. As a result of the Govenment's view, we could end up with a patchwork quilt of community care which will differ in quality from authority to authority. I do not propose to divide the Committee on the issue. I shall read what the noble Baroness said and reserve the right to come back to the matter at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 113E:
Page 50, line 47, at end insert:
("( ) Where it appears to the local authority that a person who is the subject of an assessment under this section may be in need of the services provided by a relevant authority, they shall notify the relevant authority and the relevant authority shall co-operate with the local authority in assessing the needs of that person;
( ) Where it appears to the local authority that a person who is the subject of an assessment under this section may be in need of specialised diagnosis or assessment or the assessment requires skills not available amongst the employees of that authority, that authority must involve the services of a relevant authority or other agency or some suitably qualified or skilled individual in the assessment.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 113E, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Carter and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is grouped with Amendments Nos. 114ZA, 114ZC, 114C and with Amendments Nos. 115CB, 115CBA and 115DB, which are Scottish variants of those amendments.
The two amendments are variations on the theme of assessment. Perhaps I may concentrate initially on Amendment No. 113E, which has two parts. The first is very straightforward and is recognised by the Government because they have an amendment which falls at least within the same broad area; namely, Amendment No. 114ZA. Essentially, the amendment recognises that the assessment may not be capable of being done correctly within the local authority. In order to ensure that the quality of assessment is sufficiently high, it may be necessary for the local authority to obtain help from other bodies.
I draw the Committee's attention to the wording of the first paragraph where, for reasons that I do

1565
not understand, the brackets contain no numbers or letters. I assume that that is standard procedure. By the first paragraph, I mean the first unnumbered paragraph. The key phrase there is:
"shall notify the relevant authority and the relevant authority shall co-operate".
I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the word "shall" is there and the word "may" is not. That is extremely important.
The second part of the amendment is rather different and again leads us back to the vexed question of what should be in the Bill. The amendment concerns the authority having a duty to ensure that properly qualified people—people with sufficient skills —are available for or can be involved in the assessment. To anticipate the Government's reply, I assume that they will say, "We believe that the local authority will do that because that is the sensible thing to do", or will use some such argument to show that they do not like the provision being included in the Bill.
My judgment and that of those who tabled the amendment and others who have spoken to it is that it is better to spell out those points in such important areas. That is why the provision is included in the amendment. Clearly, since the Government must have thought about the matter, they have decided not to include an equivalent provision in their Amendment No. 114ZA. Perhaps I may summarise the arguments. Essentially, Amendment No. 113E is just a much stronger version of the thoughts that the Government have expressed in their amendment.
Perhaps I may now draw the Committee's attention to Amendment No. 114C, which defines the relevant authority mentioned in our original amendment. Again, I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the list of relevant authorities is longer than the list that the Government have in mind for their amendment.
I assume that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, Amendment No. 114ZC, is grouped with this amendment because it concerns bringing in other organisations, in this case voluntary organisations. I am interested that the noble Baroness states in her amendment that,
"a local authority shall have power to enter into arrangements".
Like the noble Baroness, I shall be interested to hear from the Government whether that power is already there and her amendment therefore merely teases out the information or whether it is needed to ensure that the power is there. One way or the other that matter reeds determining most strongly.
Unless I have misunderstood the situation, other than paying due deference to the importance always of spelling out the Scottish interests I do not believe that the Scottish amendments raise any further points of principle. I simply take it for granted that the arguments that apply cogently to the remainder of the country always apply at least as cogently to Scotland. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Cox: I rise to support the amendment. It addresses one of the most fundamental problems associated with community care: the fact that the
1566
needs of many clients involve both health and social problems. The proposed legislation places the primary responsibility on social services departments which have great expertise in social problems. The amendment puts a duty on those concerned with assessment to consult and collaborate with other disciplines relevant to each client's own distinctive needs. Without the amendment there is a real danger that appropriate personnel will not be involved in the assessment of clients. For example, to call on the incontinence adviser or the occupational therapist requires the ability to recognise a disability and knowledge of the possible solutions.
I have great respect for social workers and their professional competence in their own fields. But they are not clinically trained. They will not have the expertise at the initial diagnostic stage of assessment. It is a possible and indeed real danger that people may fall through the net of care because adequate expertise was not available at the initial crucial stage. I believe that the strong version of these amendments is very important.
Baroness Seear: I am a strong supporter of the social services taking primary responsibility. I wish also strongly to support the amendment. I fully recognise the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has made that at this stage it is vital that those with health and medical expertise should be involved in the assessment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to speak on Amendment No. 114ZC. It has the backing of the Crossroads care attendant scheme, John Groom's Association for the Disabled—and had he been here the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, would have spoken—Alcohol Concern and SCODA, the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse.
The amendment is very important to local Crossroads care attendant schemes. At present those operating the schemes are responsible for carrying our their own assessment of families' needs. This is an integral part of Crossroads' approach to service provision and is important to its continued independence as a voluntary sector organisation. There is very real fear that under the Government's proposals local authorities will carry out an assessment of the needs of a carer and then approach Crossroads to ask it to provide the necessary care attendant services. That is unacceptable to the schemes which feel that they will lose their autonomy and become no more than an arm of the statutory sector. There is a danger that they will lose the goodwill of the voluntary management committee whose commitment is to Crossroads and not necessarily to the social services department.
Local schemes would like to have a block contract with local authorities under which they would be able to continue to assess the needs of the carers requesting their services. Crossroads believes that that is an arrangement which most local authorities would prefer as they know of its expertise in the matter.
On drug and alcohol abuse, perhaps I may clarify the current ambiguous position as to whether or not

1567
local authorities may contract out the assessment of individual needs to voluntary organisations with the appropriate expertise. There are a number of reasons why, in the case of people with drug and alcohol problems, it may be necessary for assessments to be carried out by a voluntary organisation on behalf of the local authority social services department.
First, and most importantly, the majority of people with drug or alcohol problems simply will not be willing to present themselves for an assessment by social services. That may be for fear of consequences such as having their children taken into care, for fear of an unsympathetic hearing or simply to avoid adding the stigma attached to being on the books of social services to that of having a drink or drug problem. Problem drinkers or drug users generally present themselves only at specialised agencies where they can expect an understanding and sympathetic reception. The visibility of specialist agencies is an important factor in that respect.
The second issue is that of confidentiality. The confidentiality that can be maintained by a voluntary organisation contrasts sharply in many people's minds with the formal record-keeping of the statutory agencies. A large proportion of the clients of drug and alcohol services undoubtedly see confidentiality as being a major issue, especially those who may be HIV positive and will develop AIDS. That is particularly so at the initial assessment stage when they may be unsure about whether they will want or be able to engage the service.
Thirdly, many people make the decision to seek help as a direct result of the public education and training work carried out by a voluntary agency. The decision is directly linked to the image of the people projected by the local agency and it would be nullified if the client was asked to go somewhere completley different for his assessment.
Fourthly, such assessments call for specialised skills and expertise which do not exist within most social service departments. The White Paper Caring for People makes it plain that there must be a variety of potential routes into assessment. The chosen route for large numbers of people with drug and alcohol problems is through a voluntary agency. Many arrive with mixed feelings about whether they want or feel able to go through with the initiative they have taken to seek help. It is vital that such clients are given immediate access to assessment and, if appropriate, to services. Suggestions that they should be passed on to the social services for an assessment would be counter-productive and result in the loss of the client. Therefore, it is vital that it is open to local authorities to contract out certain specialised areas of assessment to appropriately skilled and experienced voluntary agencies.
I chair an organisation called Phoenix House, of which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is a member of the board. A director of the organisation is an adviser to the Department of Health. One of our concerns is that at present drugs and alcohol come under health authorities and the change to social services is new. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about the matter.
Lord Hylton: In connection with this group of amendments it is relevant to mention a matter which may appear to be extremely obvious but it should be stated. There can be little point in conducting painstaking assessments unless they are followed up by a form of treatment, provision of services or action that will remedy the condition in question. First, if an assessment is carried out and nothing happens for several years, that is a waste of the professional effort involved. Secondly, if nothing follows the assessment, that can be extremely depressing for the person assessed.
For that reason I like the phrase which appears at the end of the Government's Amendment No. 114ZA:
"likely to be made available for him by that District Health Authority or local housing authority".
I do not believe that that goes far enough. I suspect that it should add at the end, "or voluntary body".
Baroness Hooper: Amendment No. 113E addresses two situations. The first is where a person needs services not provided by the social services department and the second where the person needs a specialist assessment involving skills not present among employees of the authority concerned. I have already explained to the Committee how the assessment process will work and that we intend that it should go wider than the statutory requirement which the Bill lays on social services departments and would embrace health and housing needs. The first part of this amendment shares that concern. The second part overlaps with Amendment No. 114ZC, which like it concerns the need for social services departments to seek help from other bodies in carrying out community care needs assessment.
I have much sympathy with the intention behind these amendments. We want assessments to be assessments—objective explorations of individual need with a view to determining the best way to help the person concerned within the resources available. It should not be "guesstimate" and we recognise that social services department staff may need training in order to carry out this new duty effectively. But even so there will be some areas where the social services department is likely, initially at any rate, to have little relevant experience. I know that services for problem drinkers and substance abusers are very much in the minds of some Members of the Committee but the whole question of assessments for nursing home care is likely to loom larger in the minds of some authorities.
Clearly in such cases the local authority will need to bring in outside expertise. The White Paper states:
"all agencies and professions involved with the individual and his or her problems should be brought into the assessment procedure when necessary"
and goes on to list a wide range of people, some from the social services department and some from other agencies who may need to be involved. The White Paper lists:
"social workers, GPs, community nurses, hospital staff such as consultants in geriatric medicine, psychiatry, rehabilitation and other hospital specialties, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, continence advisors, community psychiatric nurses, staff involved with vision and hearing impairment, housing officers, the Employment Department's resettlement officers and

1569
its employment rehabilitation service, home helps, home care assistants and voluntary workers".
To that extent I believe that we are all of one mind. The question we have to address is the best way of achieving what we all want. The first thing to make clear is that there is nothing to stop a social service;; authority doing any of the things suggested in these amendments. The guidance we will be issuing to authorities will say all this, and I remind the Committee that under the new powers we are taking in Clause 47 of the Bill we will be able to reinforce the guidance we give by directions. Much of the detailed provision is probably best left to guidance and it is not appropriate to include it on the face of the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Henley said in winding up the Second Reading debate, if we were to put on the face of the Bill everything suggested to us the Bill would be as thick and detailed as the White Paper itself. I am sure no one wants that. Assessment is essentially a social work process. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Faithfull will agree with that. It involves working with an individual and any carers to determine how his needs may best be addressed.
In carrying out an assessment a local authority's first concern should be to respond constructively to the individual situation, not to thread its way through a maze of legal requirements. Our intention therefore is that the legislation should be kept to a minimum. Following this principle we therefore intend to place nothing on the face of the Bill about the requirements of the community care assessment itself, except where these arise in connection with other statutory provision as is the case with disabled people. That is why we are not suggesting that there should be anything in the Bill to cover consultation with individuals or carers or involving other people, formally or informally, in the community care assessment.
Following debates in another place, something is required to cope with the situation where the assessment for community care needs reveals needs for other services. The social services department will have no responsibility for those services and it would be inappropriate for it to assess such needs and then to seek services from the responsible authority. We should also ensure that the assessment for community care needs does not take place in a vacuum; hence the proposal by the Government of Amendments Nos. 114ZA and 115CBA, which place on the face of the Bill a power to enable the authority to contract out assessment work. That covers the drug and alcohol abuse areas referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I take the opportunity of saying to her that local authorities will need to know whose treatment they are paying for but that appropriate arrangements are intended to maintain confidentiality.
As I have already explained, we do not feel it necessary to place on the face of the Bill any detailed provision about local authority assessments, but special considerations arise over contracting out assessments. Assessment is closely related to the decisions the local authority has to make about whether an individual's care needs call for the
1570
provision by the local authority of any community care services. Such services should take into account both what may be provided by the health or housing authority involved in the assessment and also the overall level of resources available.
It follows as I have said, that although it may be necessary to involve other agencies, particularly certain voluntary organisations, in the assessment process there can be no question of the local authority writing a blank cheque to them to spend as they see fit on what they decide to be the needs of an individual for whom they provide services. That would simply transfer into another sphere some of the elements of the uncontrolled use of public funds which occurs through the use of income support and which our community care proposals are aimed at remedying.
Furthermore placing a power on the face of a Bill creates an expectation that the power will be used. Local authorities may be faced by demands from various bodies, suitable and unsuitable alike, to be allowed to assess and admit individuals. If we agree to that, that would be in a sense to undermine the local authority's key role as the enabler of community care. Our guidance will cover that point. It will offer advice which I hope authorities will find useful and which will enable them to use the freedom they already possess to involve other bodies in the assement process to best advantage. If they fail to do that we have the fall-back powers of the Secretary of State.
I have spoken at length in order to cover in detail the issues raised by these amendments. I hope that they will be withdrawn at this stage.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness caused me a little surprise by quoting my noble kinsman, Lord Henley, as saying that if the amendments were accepted the Bill would be as thick as the White Paper. I have been looking at it; I think it is already.
Seriously, I do not see what is so very wrong with having a Bill which is as thick as a White Paper. When Bills are drafted with the sort of verbiage they regularly have, if this Bill is properly filled out it should be thicker than the White Paper.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has already referred to the concept of a framework Bill. There is a certain amount of suspicion in some quarters of this Chamber regarding the tendency to leave so much to regulation that it becomes extremely difficult in the Chamber to give legislation proper scrutiny. That suspicion can only be increased by the noble Baroness's simile of the purpose of the Bill—to restrain the uncontrolled use of public funds.
The trouble with the whole question of community care is that mental illness, for example, does not happen in a planned way and one cannot plan exactly what will be needed. Therefore, if one does not have at some point the capacity in an emergency for an uncontrolled use of public funds one cannot have the capacity to meet need. There is a great deal of cause for anxiety in the speech we have just heard.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: The noble Baroness referred to guidance which is to be issued by the Government. Indeed, the main plank of her response to an earlier amendment was that the substance of the amendment should appear in guidance rather than on the face of the Bill. Can she tell the Committee in what form the guidance will appear? Will it be in the form of a code of practice and be generally available for scrutiny?
I hasten to say that I am not asking, as the noble Earl appeared to ask, that the guidance or subordinate legislation should be on the face of the Bill, which would thus exceed the size of the White Paper. I merely ask where the guidance will appear and what sort of authority it will have. Will there be any sanctions if it is not conformed to?
Baroness Hooper: My understanding is that the use of the word "guidance" is different from the use of the word "guidelines". "Guidance" apparently has some significance in that, if an authority fails to observe guidance, the Secretary of State can enforce the suggestion by means of directions. Therefore, the effect of guidance is quite strong.
Whether it will be in the form of a code of practice or whatever I should not like to say, but it will be clearly in written form and will go to the authorities, which will be expected to comply with the guidance.
Baroness Faithfull: Under the Children Act guidance has been issued called Working Together. It is used by every local authority in the country. It is known to every voluntary organisation and is well carried out.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I was attracted to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. It is important to include voluntary agencies. One reason is that it is most important to keep their good will. It would be exceedingly expensive for the government if some of these agencies were to go out of business. The Government would then really be in trouble.
Another reason is that there is some professional jealousy between statutory and voluntary agencies. That is well known to many of us who work in this field. The Bill would not be much bigger if voluntary agencies were included. I shall not divide the Committee but I certainly intend to return to the matter on another occasion and that will make the Report stage longer.
Baroness Hooper: The noble Baroness must do what she feels to be appropriate. We have emphasised again and again that voluntary agencies will be consulted. They will certainly be mentioned in the guidance.
Baroness Seear: Is the noble Baroness right in saying that the guidance will be issued and if it is not followed the Secretary of State will have powers to enforce it? That means that the guidance ultimately will have the force of law. That being so, will we have the opportunity of seeing the guidance regulations when they are produced? Will they be in the form of an affirmative or negative resolution, or not at all? Will they be sent through the post?
Baroness Hooper: As I have said on a number of occasions, the guidance will be put out for consultation. It will be issued initially in draft form. I have raised this in the context of certain specific amendments and specific guidance which will relate to the performance of those amendments.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I do not seek to press the noble Baroness closely on this matter but is what she calls "guidance" to be issued in the form of a circular? That is what I have in mind and if that is what the noble Baroness has in mind I know what she is talking about. That is all that I am concerned about.
Baroness Hooper: I apologise to the noble Lord if I did not pick up his initial question. As I understand it, it will be issued in the form of a circular or a book, and it will be comprehensive and detailed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: With the indulgence of the Committee I want to try to impress on the noble Baroness the importance of this for the drug and the alcohol situation, not the disabled. They have been linked now with mental health, and there are no local authority votes in drugs and alcohol. They are exceedingly unpopular. You have no idea of the difficulty we have in setting up houses in various towns. One needs help over this and not hindrance. I can assure the noble Baroness that it is the most difficult field. She knows this because she is the Minister concerned with drugs.
Lord Peston: We have learnt a great deal this evening. We are most indebted to the noble Baroness. As I understand it, with guidelines you are free to choose what you do, and with guidance you are free to choose what you do so long as you do what you are told. Many of us have brought up children on that basis.
The noble Baroness has thrown light on these matters. Her statement was rather long and involved and I still do not know the answer to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in her amendment. Is it or is it not the case that the local authority has this power stated in this amendment? I could not understand the noble Baroness on that. Does a local authority have the power to enter into arrangements with voluntary organisations in order to carry out assessments?
Baroness Hooper: I believe that I said yes.
Lord Peston: I was a little lost. It is my fault and not that of the noble Baroness. I am delighted —as is the noble Baroness, Lady Masham —to hear that the local authorities have that power, and I hope that the local authorities exercise it as required. Having said that, and having thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for clarifying these matters, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm moved Amendment No. 113F:M
Page 50, line 47, at end insert—
("()In the assessment of his needs for community care services under subsection (l)(a) and in the provision of services to rreet his needs under subsection (l)(b) above, a local authority shall take into account his housing circumstances, requirements and wishes.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment comes at the beginning of Clause 45, which is the procedure for the assessment of needs for community care. All it says in the Bill at the moment is:
"Where it appears to a local authority that any person for whom they may provide or arrange for the provision of community care services may be in need of any such services, the authority (a) shall carry out an assessment of his needs for those services; and
(b) having regard to the results of that assessment, shall then decide whether his needs call for the provision by them of any such services."
All we are asking to add on to that is that they,
"shall take into account his housing circumstances, requirements and wishes."
We have already, with a somewhat slender majority, passed a previous amendment on housing; but that is concerned with the overall plan of the local authority. This is specific on whether an assessment is being made. I hope that that could be accepted.
With the permission of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I should like to speak to Amendment 114ZD. Where it appears to a local authority on making an assessment that the person is homeless, or is in need of advice or counselling as to the provision of accommodation for him, then the local authority shall provide him with written details of where such advice or counselling may be obtained in the local authority's area.
There is little enough about housing, as we know, in this Bill, and these two amendments seem to me to be perfectly harmless and could provide just a little extra authority that should be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: As the Committee has already demonstrated in regard to Amendment No. 113AQ, many noble Lords believe that it is crucial that housing should be a central part of the plans and just as crucial that it be a central part cf the assessment.
We welcome Amendment No. 114ZA, which suggests that housing and district health authorities should assist in the assessment process. The amendment will further advance the noble Baroness's amendment by ensuring that the needs and wishes of the people to be assessed form an essential part of the whole process. The housing associations should play an essential part in this process. They are much smaller than local authorities and more familiar with the intimate and down-to-earth special housing needs. They have particular skills in adapting housing to the special needs of people requiring community care services. Their advice to people being assessed will be invaluable.
The amendment will ensure that assessments consider whether improving, repairing or adapting people's existing homes can assist their
1574
independence in the community. That is a very important factor. It will also make more certain that the housing needs of people who do not have decent housing will be considered. For those reasons, I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Carter: I am very pleased to be able to support Amendment No. 113S, but I should like to speak to Amendment No. 114ZD which is in my name. It draws attention to the problems of homelessness and particularly to the operation of the Vagrancy Act. Sixty or so people a week are prosecuted for begging in London, which is in the order of 2,000 to 3,000 people a year.
We are all familiar with the problem. We have heard about it on a number of occasions in this House. Young people are discharged from care on to the streets with nowhere to go. If they are 16 or 17 and they are not on YTS they get no benefits. They cannot house themselves; they cannot raise a deposit and they cannot pay the high rents. They sleep rough and they beg. A similar cycle applies to the mentally ill who are discharged into the community. As we know, many of them end up sleeping on the streets and begging. They are then prosecuted. That is morally wrong because such prosecutions have no deterrent effect. Those people then have a criminal record. Harassment is commonplace. Such prosecutions merely add to the degradation of the homeless.
It is not just a question of numbers, although they are extremely important; a point of principle is involved. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government intend to repeal the Vagrancy Act. The noble Baroness will be aware of the campaign to repeal this Act. If she does not wish to reply to me now, perhaps she can write to me about that because it is extremely important.
I should like to point out in passing that begging is no longer a criminal offence in Scotland, and many states in America have ruled that vagrancy laws are unconstitutional.
The amendment is intended to place a duty on local authorities to direct homeless people to places and organisations where they can obtain advice and counselling. Homelessness degrades our society. It seems extraordinary that we are using an Act of 1824 to deal with some of the results of homelessness—begging, sleeping out and being found on enclosed premises. I hope that the Minister can give the Committee some reassurance on that very important matter.
Earl Russell: I should like to add my support to these amendments, particularly to Amendment No. 114ZD. My name should have been put to that amendment. It is an oversight of my own that it is not, but I should like to speak in favour of it.
The Vagrancy Acts have been out of date for even longer than the noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggested. I am told that parish constables in Middlesex realised that they were ineffective and unenforceable as early as 1618. It is time something was done about the situation.
One does not do any good by picking up people and bringing rather minor prosecutions when they

1575
are not being given any practical way of meeting very urgent needs. This amendment offers a practical and, I hope, helpful alternative, and I very much hope that it will be considered.
Baroness Hooper: We do not feel it necessary to include either of the amendments as the government amendment, Amendment No. 114ZA, to which I have just spoken and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, referred, provides that, if an assessment made by a local authority for the provision of community care services uncovers a housing need, the person concerned will be referred to the housing authority. It would be for the authority to act as appropriate.
A local housing authority to which an apparent housing need is referred could if it agreed that there was such a need arrange housing through a housing association. Furthermore, we believe that it will not always be necessary to provide an individual with written details of where he or she can obtain advice and counselling about homelessness, and we do not think it appropriate to place a specific obligation on local authorities as suggested.
I am not in a position at this moment to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, about the Vagrancy Act, but no doubt he will have heard what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, had to say on the subject. On that basis, I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: Would the Minister be kind enough to write to me with the Government's views of the Vagrancy Act?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, if the noble Lord does not hold me to a timetable.
Lord Seebohm: I shall not divide the Committee at 10 minutes to 11 o'clock. On the other hand, it is important that the housing problem should be raised whenever possible in the Bill. It has been raised only once so far. We shall want to look at the matter again. In the meantime, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 51, line 9, at end insert ("and
(c) shall convey to him in writing the outcome of his assessment and set out in writing the services they intend to provide.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 115. The Association of Directors of Social Services considers this amendment essential. It is easy for a busy person who is making an assessment to say something person to person or even on the telephone and then not deliver the goods. Much more important than that is the fact that many people who need care are confused. It is essential that they should have the assessment in writing. They can then discuss it with their friends. If they disagree with it they can go back to the local authority. For every reason, we must have assessments in writing.
I turn now to Amendment No. 115. With the many different advances in technology we may find that the services being given are not applicable and are not successful. Therefore, after eight weeks it is fair enough that there should be a reassessment to find out whether the services that are provided are satisfactory. I do not believe that that can be argued against. It is important that both amendments should be passed. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the amendment. Many people listen but do not hear. They interpret what they want to interpret and not what is actually said to them. If the assessment is in writing, it is a help not only to them but to the social workers who are dealing with them.
Lord Peston: I support the amendments. I agree that it would be best if they were accepted and included in the Bill. What the amendments say corresponds with what anyone would regard as good practice. It would be silly if an authority having become involved in this did not do what the amendments require. Nonetheless there are good reasons for making it clear that authorities ought to. The alternative, having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, reply to an earlier amendment, would be to do it under guidance. That now seems to carry great weight. I wait to hear whether the Government will either accept the amendment, which I think would be the best course, or tell us that guidance will be the way that they will do it, which means that they will do it.
Baroness Blatch: We are in sympathy with Amendment No. 114. Clearly, people requiring an assessment of their needs and those caring for them need to know quite clearly and understand what services the local authority may be able to provide to meet those needs. I am sure that many authorities will quickly institute the kind of written procedure that the noble Lord has in mind. The guidance which the Department of Health is in the process of preparing will take on board this and other points from our discussions in Committee in order to advise and support local authorities in setting up the systems they will need to have available for assessment.
We do not want to enshrine in legislation the particular means by which local authorities decide to communicate with clients. For example, their method may well be most appropriately by regular visits from the responsible local case manager, not least in cases where written communications might be confusing or intimidating to confused clients. I agree, however, that communicating the outcome of any assessment to the individual is absolutely key to the mutual understanding of what can and cannot be provided, and one that the new system of assessment must foster.
Amendment No. 115 requires a local authority to review an initial assessment six weeks later and convey the results in writing to the client. It further requires that subsequent reviews of the assessment take place at intervals of not more than six months. We have no desire to enshrine in legislation the time

1577
period over which reviews of assessments should be carried out nor how these should be done. This takes away the flexibility that we want to give local authorities to provide the services that their clients most need.
We must not forget that the authority will be assessing people some of whom will have need of very substantial support to enable them to live at home and who may be on the verge of requiring residential care. They may need much more and frequent review and adjustment of services than the noble Lord's amendment suggests. At the same time many other people will need a much more modest level of support.
The key to meeting all these many and varied needs is the flexibility to target resources where they are most needed. I fully accept that this means review and monitoring but it is inappropriate in my view to prescribe the timescales over which this should be done. Our guidance on assessment will advise authorities that assessments should be reviewed at regular intervals and that the review intervals should be agreed with the client and carers at the initial assessment. Our White Paper commends the development of a case management type approach in local authorities where someone familiar with the cases can help to make adjustments to the services provided without waiting for the formality of a specifically timed and dated review.
Lord Seebohm: Do I understand from the Minister's reply that the guidance—if "guidance" is the right word —will contain rules that the outcome of such assessments will be given in writing? Can I take it that there will definitely be guidance in this respect?
Baroness Blatch: Yes. I am sorry. I did not hear the end of the noble Lord's question. Perhaps he will be kind enough to clarify his request.
Lord Seebohm: In the circumstances, I think that I should beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 114ZA:
Page 51, line 9, at end insert:
("(2) If at any time during the assessment of the needs of any person under subsection (l)(e) above, it appears to a local author ty —

(a) that there may be a need for the provision to that person by such District Health Authority as may be determined in accordance with regulations of any services under the National Health Service Act 1977, or

(b) that there may be a need for the provision to him of any services which fall within the functions of a local housing authority (within the meaning of the Housing Act 1985) which is not the local authority carrying out the assessment,

the local authority shall notify that District Health Authority or local housing authority and invite them to assist, to such extent us is reasonable in the circumstances, in the making of the assessment; and, in making their decision as to the provision of the services needed for the person in question, the local authority shall take into account any services which are likely to be made available for him by that District Health Authority or local housing authority.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment was spoken to earlier in connection with Amendment No. 113E. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 114ZB and 114ZC not moved.]
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 114A:
Page 51, line 16, at end insert:
("(4A) Sections 1 and 2 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 shall come into force on the same day as this section.").
The noble Lord said: I propose to speak only to Amendment No. 114A. It has been grouped with Amendment No. 114B, but it seems to me that they cover entirely separate issues and that they should not have been put together. The 1986 Act, which was piloted with great skill by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, through this Chamber, has had a strange history. Four years after its enactment many of its sections have not been implemented and one of them —namely, Section 7 —we are told will probably never be enforced. Section 1 gives the disabled person the right to have an authorised representative. That is someone unpaid who acts on his behalf in his negotiations with the local authority and his assessment.
Section 2 lays down the rights of the authorised representative, which are similar to those of the disabled person. I know that Ministers have referred elsewhere to the desirability of an assessment taking account of those who support the individual concerned. However, the truth is that without an authorised representative, many handicapped people, especially the mentally handicapped, will have no one to support them or speak on their behalf.
When the 1986 Bill was being considered, as I recall, the Government expressed sympathy with the principle of advocacy, which would help those with mental illness or mental handicap to understand not only their rights but also the services available. It is pretty disappointing that four years later the Government are, I understand, still talking about beginning discussions with the local authorities on implementing these sections.
As the Committee will appreciate, disabled people have for a long time been told by professionals what they need and how it will be provided. They themselves have had very little say in the provision to be made for them. Even for the most articulate disabled person, a meeting with a professional can be quite intimidating. To have someone with them who they know is on their side can be an enormous support. Pilot schemes have confirmed that the resulting assessments and decisions are more likely to be successful and cost-effective. It has been proved possible to improve the quality of life of the individuals concerned without incurring additional expenditure. These sections have already received parliamentary approval and if they were in force it seems to me that the operation of Part III of the Bill would be made more effective. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for moving these amendments. As he said, it should be the noble

1579
Baroness, Lady Masham, who piloted the 1986 Bill through this House, who should move them, particularly the first one, which is the one that covers Sections 1 and 2 of the 1986 Act. Amendment No. 114A, as the noble Lord said, falls firmly within Part III of the Bill. If we look at the White Paper and the Bill we see that Part III cannot be properly implemented without the bringing into force of Sections 1 and 2 of the 1986 Act. That is why we were disappointed to find Part III of the Bill without this clause and why we thought it necessary to introduce it. There is no hope of the proper implementation of Part III without it.
There are those who, because of mental, sensory, or physical impairment or disability, cannot express their wishes and require somebody to be their advocate. Unless that is provided for in Part III, the aspirations and intentions of the Government in the White Paper cannot be fulfilled in the Bill, which is supposed to be the statutory implementation of those aspirations and intentions. For that reason it is in my view, and certainly in the view of the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and I am sure in the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, essential for this amendment to be incorporated into Part III of this Bill.
I regret that this amendment has been discussed so late at night. It is clearly not a time when one can take the opinion of the Committee. All one can hope is that the noble Baroness who speaks for the Government will agree that the Act which has the imprimatur of Parliament should now, belatedly, four or five years after its passage, be brought into operation when this clause in Part III of the Bill is brought into operation. I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Allen, in what he has said.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I also support this amendment; but having taken it through the Chamber, I did not want to say too much. I think it is better that I do not say too much. Physically handicapped people have to pay the community charge, and many of them find that difficult. Therefore they are even more deserving of this amendment.
Lord Carter: I am very pleased to support Amendment No. 114A from these Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, is entirely correct that Amendments Nos. 114A and 114B should be treated separately. The arguments have been explained so well that I do not propose to add to them, but I must say—other speakers have already mentioned this—that it seems extraordinary that an Act which has been on the statute book for four years is still not fully enacted. The failure to enact the 1986 Act in full calls into question the Government's determination to ensure that a proper level of community care is provided for disabled people. I hope the Minister will be able to tell the Committee that the Government intend to implement those parts of the Act which have not been brought into use.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I also wish to support these two amendments most warmly. However, I
1580
have one or two questions to ask the Minister. The Government are at the moment consulting with local authority associations on the full implementation of the Act. The consultation letter from the Department of Health is rather half-hearted in its approach, to say the least. It accepts that local authorities may not want to implement the remaining sections of the Act. The letter states:
Ministers would welcome your views on whether implementation should in any case be deferred until at least the community reforms … have been put into effect and had time to settle down".
In a way that misses the point because the Act, and in particular Section 3 of the Act, is highly relevant to community care. I should have thought it was very necessary. It has a symbiotic relationship with community care. The situation is worrying because services for physically disabled people in particular are being increasingly downgraded by local authorities as opposed to services for child abuse, the mentally ill and elderly people. That is something that the social services inspectorate report rather brought out.
I hope the Minister can tell me why the consultation letter was written, or at least why it was written in that lukewarm fashion. Do the Government accept that disabled people are a low priority for many local authorities? Will the Government accept the importance of Section 3, and if further funds need to be made available to implement it, will they make them available? It is worth pointing out that the pilot study on the implementation of Section 3 found that it proved very cost effective to involve disabled people in assessments. The pilot project also found that local authorities found Section 3 a useful tool and that it did not result in additional demands for services. There were no appeals under the pilot study. That indicated the value of involving disabled persons.
Baroness Hooper: It may be helpful if I recap the substantial progress that the Government have made so far in implementing the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. Noble Lords have referred to the passage of that Act as a Private Member's Bill. I am sure the Committee would agree that any other approach to a complex measure of this kind other than according to the sensible proviso that it could only be implemented as the necessary resources were identified would have been irresponsible.
The Government did not lose any time once the Act reached the statute book. Four important sections, Sections 4, 8(1), 9 and 10, were implemented on 1st April 1987. They require local authorities to assess need on request, to have regard to the abilities of carers, to provide additional imformation and to consult organisations representing disabled people when making appointments. Progress continued with the implementation on 1st February 1988 of Sections 5 and 6, which impose duties on local authorities to identify and assess the needs of young disabled people when they leave school. Recently, at the end of 1989, Section 11 was brought into force, with the laying of a report on community care for mentally ill and mentally handicapped people.

1581
All this has been achieved despite the considerable resource implications of the Act. At each stage agreement has been reached with the local authority associations as to the costs, and they have been taken into consideration in the relevant public expenditure round. This year the figure taken into account for the implemented sections of the Act was £31 million —a sizeable sum by any standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred to Section 7 of the Act. We announced in the White Paper Caring for People that we do not now intend to implement Section 7, which would impose statutory obligations on health and social service authorities to identify and assess the needs of people leaving hospital after receiving treatment for six months or more for a mental disorder. That decision was taken in the light of new proposals to improve the provision of services for mentally ill people, including from 1991 the preparation of care programmes. The need to implement Section 7 will of course be reconsidered in the light of several years' experience of the introduction of the care programmes.
Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Act concern the appointment and rights of authorised representatives of disabled people and their rights to make representations about their needs. They are the most complex and potentially the most expensive of all the Act's provisions. I reconfirm statements that have been made previously that no decisions on their implementation can be made until we have established their cost. Following preliminary consideration of their resource and service implications, an official approach was made to the local authority associations in February this year seeking their views on these issues. Further action will depend on the outcome of those consultations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), referred to that point in her comments and asked about the consultation letter. Whether or not it was half-hearted must be a matter of opinion. In the letter we asked for a reply by the end of May and I understand that no reply has yet been received.
I should like to assure the Committee that the Government are anxious to ensure that disabled people and their carers have a say in the provision of services which affect their lives. Indeed, the whole thrust of our proposals for the future of community care is geared to maximising choice and independence for the consumer, as we have been reminded from the Opposition Benches. However, we cannot accept the amendents at this moment for the reasons I have given.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: The noble Baroness has been put in to bat on some sticky wickets by the Government, but to explain why it has taken four years to fail to implement legislation approved by Parliament on behalf of the disabled is a task which is beyond a government spokesman. I fear that the reply is totally unsatisfactory. For one thing the noble Baroness lumped in Section 3, about which I was not talking but which could certainly involve a great deal of expenditure.
As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, there is not much point in dividing the Committee at this
1582
time of night. However, I must put on record our profound dissatisfaction with the reply which has been given and our fears that this will hinder the implementation of Part III of the Act with which the Government have inspired so many hopes.
I cannot help thinking—this is going rather wide—that the Government would expedite their business if, just occasionally, when there is an overwhelming case for doing something they could accept an amendment. I thought that this was perhaps one such case. I must be disappointed and, in the circumstances, I can only ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Henderson Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 114B:
Page 51, line 16, at end insert —
("(4B) Section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 shall come into force on the same day as this section.").
The noble Lord said: As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said when he moved the previous amendment, this is a distinct amendment from the previous one and deserves separate treatment. The previous amendment concerned advocacy and this amendment does not concern advocacy. It concerns the assessment process, so it is essentially a different amendment. Although the reply of the noble Baroness purported to address itself to this amendment, it is worth separate consideration.
The principle of involving the disabled person in the assessment process has run through the Government's thinking from the White Paper into the Bill and has been current throughout the discussion, especially on this part of the Bill. I shall quote the White Paper to put on record the fact that,
"Assessments should take account of the wishes of the individual".
That is precisely what Section 3 of the 1986 Act is about.
I should have thought that the Government would think about that in advance of bringing the Bill before Parliament. Here we have an Act which has been on the statute book for four years and the Government have been preparing this part of the Bill for a long time; yet it is only now that they issue a consultation paper or that a letter is sent to local authorities to which they ask for replies by 31 st May. Here we are in the Committee stage; yet I doubt whether we shall hear what the reply to the Government from the local authorities is by the Report stage because the Government will say that they have not had time to assess the reply or react to it, even if they receive it by that date.
One cannot help feeling that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said, the Government have not only been extremely tardy in their consultation letter, but are almost inviting the answer "No" from the local authorities which they purport to consult. That is extremely unsatisfactory when the implementation of Section 3 of the 1986 Act is just as essential as the implementation of

1583
Sections 1 and 2 and if Part III of the Act, particularly Clause 45, is to have the full meaning and effect which the Government say that it should have. That is entirely unsatisfactory. The Committee cannot be satisfied. At this hour of the night we cannot hope to test the opinion of the Committee as to whether the amendment should be incorporated in the Act, as it manifestly should be in the Government's own terms and in accordance with the Government's thinking.
I should like to say what Section 3 does. If I read out what it does, it will be manifest to the Committee and to anyone who reads Hansard that it is central to this part of the Bill that Section 3 of the 1986 Act should be implemented. Section 3 gives three rights to disabled people. The first is the right to make representations concerning their needs and to have their views taken into account during the assessment process. What could be more germane to the Bill than that requirement passed by Parliament in 1986?
Their second right is to have a written statement of the outcome of the assessment. Again I should have thought that that falls four square within the terms of Part III of the Bill. The noble Baroness has stated on an earlier amendment that a written assessment may not always be the right way to convey the information. We do not need to stand absolutely four square on it being written, but at least the assessment should be conveyed either in writing or in the most convenient manner appropriate to the disabled person.
The third right of the disabled person is enshrined in Section 3 of the 1986 Act. It is the right of review against the outcome of the assessment to which the disabled person may have some objection or may feel aggrieved by. Those seem to be elementary rights and should be incorporated in the Bill.
I shall say little more. Once again I have to refer to the unfortunate lateness of the hour. Pilot studies have been done on the implementation of the section. They tend to the conclusion that its implementation would not increase the call on government funds, which is the fear of government. It seemed to those who conducted the pilot scheme that the implementation of Section 3 would be cost-effective. I should like to hear what the noble Baroness has to say about Section 3. If it is as disappointing as her remarks about Sections 1 and 2, it will clearly be a matter to which we shall return at a later stage of the Bill.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like briefly to ask how one undertakes an assessment without taking into consideration a person's views. It is most extraordinary. I cannot understand it. If a person has a view and can express himself and that view is not taken into consideration, he is being treated like an animal. When one assesses a pig or cow one cannot ask them, but with a human being one can. Otherwise relationships break down, and surely one wants good relationships.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, explains what he will do to a patient on whom he is going to operate. The patient has the right to say, "I do not wish to be operated on". Surely a person who
1584
is being assessed should have that right. I cannot understand why that cannot be accepted. It has already been accepted by Parliament.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I rise briefly to support the amendment and to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. In my keenness to support my noble friend's amendments and to make only one speech I pre-empted what he was going to say on the importance of implementing Section 3.
I shall not repeat what I have already said. I agree with what the noble Lord said. I ask the Minister whether the Government accept that, if all local authorities will provide a uniform standard of assessment and good practice, Section 3 must be implemented and we should not rely on guidance from the Government.
Lord Carter: From these Benches, we support the amendment. I do not propose to extend the arguments. However, the Minister spoke about the consultation letter. The answer had to be received by the end of May and the department has still not had a reply. It is only 10th May. I understand that it will receive a reply before the end of May. The point that she made was a little unfortunate because in February, Act Now, the disability consortium, wrote asking for a meeting to discuss the implementation of the Act and it still has not received a reply.
Baroness Hooper: There is not a great deal that I can add to my previous response because I dealt with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in my comprehensive reply. I remind Members who have spoken to the amendment that the implemented sections of the Act to which I referred—Sections 4, 8(1), 9 and 10—require local authorities to assess need on request. I should find it amazing if someone who requested an assessment did not have their views taken into account.
It is only fair to admit that, with or without implementation of these provisions, considerable progress has been made in this respect. In response to an earlier question doubting the commitment of local authorities to this area, I remind the Committee that over the past decade spending on personal social services has increased substantially without the implementation of such provisions.
As regards the famous letter of 19th February, I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Although we have not yet received any replies, I am sure that after this evening we shall receive them in abundance. The next step will then be to use the information contained in the responses in negotiations with local authorities which will be held on the same basis as those conducted prior to the implementation of the other provisions of the Bill.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: There is not a great deal that can be said at this stage. I re-emphasise that the pilot study stated that the implementation of Section 3 of the 1986 Act would be cost effective. That should weigh heavily with the Government in

1585
deciding whether they can agree to the implementation of the section when this part of the Bill comes into operation. I fully understand that the cost incurred by the Government during the past four or five years in respect of the welfare of disabled people is considerable. However, the implementation of Section 3 may not add to that cost or will add only very little. That should make the Government highly sympathetic to the implementation of Section 3 as enshrined in the amendment. I shall withdraw the amendment on the clear understanding that we must return to the matter at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 114C and 115 not moved.]
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 115ZA:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
("Provision of community care for disabled persons.
—(1) When requested to do so by—

(a) a disabled person,

(b) his authorised representative, or

(c) any person who provides care for him in the circumstances mentioned in section 8 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986,

a local authority which provides or arranges the provision of community care services shall decide whether the needs of the disabled person call for the provision by the authority of any services in accordance with section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948.
(2) Where a local authority are satisfied that in order to meet the needs of a disabled person it is necessary for that authority to make arrangements for any services referred to in subsection (1) above, it shall be the duty of that authority, with the consent of the said person, to make those arrangements.
(3) In this section —

"disabled person" and "authorised representative" have the same meanings as in the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

"local authority" has the same meaning as in section 44 above.").

The noble Lord said: A great deal has been said about the disabled persons Act of 1986. Section 4 emphasised the obligation to assess a person's needs in response to a request. However, some local authorities maintained that they had no duty to do so, although it was then 15 years after the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The new clause merely extends the same principle to potential users of residential services and to the disabled.
I can be brief in moving the amendment because those Members whose names are also appended to the new clause will add their weight to it. The purpose of the clause is to give disabled people and their representatives the right to ask for an assessment of their need for residential care. Section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 places a duty upon local authorities to provide residential accommodation for people who need it. The question is: do these people need it?
Currently disabled people or their representatives or carers have the right to ask for an assessment of their need for domiciliary services. As I said, that is under Section 4 of the disabled persons Act 1986.
This new clause would give also a right to an assessment of their residential care needs. That is particularly important in view of the fact that the National Health Service and Community Care Bill passes to local authorities all responsibility for arranging residential care.
In that context, when we talk about disabled people we are also talking about those who are mentally handicapped. There is almost universal agreement that people who are mentally handicapped should not live in long-stay hospitals or be stuck in the family home beyond a point at which they can no longer be properly cared for. In most cases they cannot live wholly independently. Therefore, for that group, residential care is the preferred option rather than the last resort.
I hope that the Minister sees the significance of the amendment and will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: When considering this amendment one must refer to a corresponding provision in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 together with Section 4 of the 1986 Act. A duty is imposed on local authorities to assess a disabled person's need for day and domiciliary care and other forms of support to enable them to remain in their own homes.
The provision was sought because it protected the position of disabled people and recognised their right to remain in their own homes if at all possible. Where a disabled person has a variety of needs and it is necessary to arrange a complicated package of care, it would often be much simpler to place the person in a residential care home or some other form of institutional care. It was because of that that the special provision for day and domiciliary services was introduced. The amendment would undermine the position by putting residential care on the same basis as day and domiciliary care by virtue of the 1976 Act.
When a local authority assesses a person as needing residential or nursing home care, by virtue of that assessment it has concluded that it is not possible for the person to be supported in his own home and that it is therefore necessary to provide or arrange provision of the accommodation concerned. For those reasons I do not feel that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord is required and I ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Ennals: That was not a reply at all. However, it is half-past eleven and no one expects me to press the amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise—
Baroness Blatch: Does the noble Lord not agree that it is preferable, if at all possible, to keep such persons in their own home and that that should be the first priority? Only if that is not possible should residential care be resorted to. The amendment precludes that.
Lord Ennals: I submit that that is not the case. The amendment clearly states that the local authority,
"with the consent of the said person"
shall make the necessary arrangements. If the local authority could require that a person should go into a residential home, I should not support the amendment. It clearly establishes that a person would not go into residential care against his or her wishes but would have that right if it was so desired.
As I said, I shall not press the amendment to a Division but I am totally dissatisfied with the reply. I shall consult with other Members of the Committee whose names are appended to the amendment as to how we can return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pestons Lord Pestons moved Amendment No. 115ZB:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to take account of users background.
In preparing and publishing its plan for community care services under section 44 above, and in carrying out any assessment or making any decision under section 45 above, or providing any services or arranging for the provision of any services under section 45 above, or in monitoring or inspecting any services under any part of this Act, the local authority shall give due consideration to the religious persuasion, racial origin, gender and cultural and linguistic background of the persons for whom they may provide or arrange for the provision of community care services.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment addresses two matters. Again, perhaps they should have been separated. The first matter concerns considerations which arise in connection with the plans for community care services. I hope that I need not emphasise again how much we approve of the idea of having such a plan. In preparing and publishing its plan, one is saying that the local authority should take fully into account the society in which it finds itself.
If one reads the amendment carefully, one sees that it refers to making specific assessments. Again, when making specific assessments it is necessary to take into account the appropriate characteristics of the people concerned. Obviously a local authority behaving sensibly would do that. There is no doubt in my mind in that regard. It would certainly do it for the individual. It will be noted that I said "behaving sensibly".
However, it is regrettable that in community care people make assumptions about other people which are quite unwarranted; people whose racial background is different, who have rather esoteric religious beliefs or other special characteristics. People make assumptions and are often insensitive in so doing. None of us doubts that. The question therefore is how we should deal with it. I always look forward to hearing what the Ministers say, but as I have said before. I could easily write their replies in terms of their view that the amendment is not needed. My view is that it is needed.
I return to the point with which I am extremely taken —the idea of guidance. I have now become fully committed to guidance. It will be the basis of all future legislation. I must advise noble Lords that when we on this side of the Chamber are in power in the very near future we shall base our approach
1588
on guidance and not waste time on legislation or anything trivial of that sort. Guidance seems to me to be the way to get things done in the way one wants them done.
That may sound somewhat cynical, but we require some assurance from the Government that they take very seriously the point that it should not be assumed that all people are standard, ordinary people and do not have special needs and—I emphasise this—special sensitivities. The point which was put to me was that although we may agree that it makes perfectly good sense to behave in that way, there is a fair amount of insensitivity in this area and one would like to see some leadership, some guidance, coming from the Government on these matters. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the amendment and shall make just one point. In dealing with the various people who require help, if they want a particular sort of service—for example, a woman from the Middle East who does not want to go to a hospital where there are men, who does not want a male doctor and there is no suitable hospital in the area—it is very easy, when one is busy, to say that there is no other service. One must make some effort to find them a place, even if it is out of the area. The amendment was suggested to us by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. We support it from the standpoint of gender, religious persuasion and the point of view of women.
Baroness Blatch: We appreciate the friendly atmosphere in which these amendments are being discussed but the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, belie the enormous amount of work and thought that have gone into the responses from these Benches.
The Government fully endorse the aim of the proposed clause. It is noteworthy to point out that paragraph 2.9 of Caring for People states:
"The Government recognise that people from different cultural backgrounds may have particular care needs and problems. Minority communities may have different concepts of community care and it is important that service providers are sensitive to these variations. Good community care will take account of the circumstances of minority communities and will be planned in consultation with them".
No such clause was included in the Bill because the obligation to carry out an assessment of need can be taken to require giving due consideration to the various factors listed. We do not believe that it would be helpful to put on the face of the Bill the need to take them into account and are therefore not prepared to support the inclusion in the Bill of a clause on these lines.
If the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment I can assure him that the need to account for these important social factors will be reinforced in the guidance.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I am delighted to discover that not only work but thought has gone into preparing the Government's case on these and related matters. I shall not reminisce on my own happy days in the public service, and so on.

1589
I was particularly delighted to hear the coda, so to speak, of the reply from the noble Baroness. I agree with her that good practice will be along those lines and if guidance, or indeed guidelines, are chosen we would find that most satisfactory. Having heard the reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 115ZC:
Alter Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
("Payments for purchase of care or personal assistance.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 29(6) of the National Assistance Act 1948, a local authority, having regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State, may make payments to a disabled person for the purchase of care or persona assistance services.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would enable local authorities to make payments directly to disabled people so that they can make their own care arrangements. In another place the Minister, Mrs. Bottomley, said that she would reconsider the proposal because the issue is complex.
There are a number of local authorities that already make such payments, either directly to disabled people or via a charity such as the Spinal Injuries Association. Shropshire, Hampshire, Kingston, Somerset, Staffordshire, Westminster and Tower Hamlets are, to name but a few, places where this occurs and the arrangements work extremely well. Therefore, I hope that we shall hear some good news tonight. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: Earlier this evening the noble Lord, Lord Allen, asked the Government to accept a few amendments but I am afraid that I cannot go quite as far as that. However, I hope that I can assist the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness reminded the Committee that a similar amendment was considered by another place and, as she knows, at that time my honourable friend the Minister for Health agreed to take the amendment away and consider it. I have to say that consideration is still in progress and that we are not in a position to bring forward a government amendment at this stage. Nevertheless, I listened to what the noble Baroness said and I assure the Committee that if it is at all possible we shall bring forward a government amendment at a later stage. On the understanding that we shall do all that we can to that end, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Ennals: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, as I am sure she will, perhaps I may point out that it is a long time since that statement was made. I do not have the exact date—I have the wording—but it must be over two months ago that the Minister gave that assurance. Knowing that the amendment was to come before the Committee, I should have thought that at the very least the statement would have been turned into a conclusion, either positive or negative. For the Government to take two months and still not be able to make up their mind on the issue which the Minister was
1590
prepared to recognise had some merit does not seem to be satisfactory or even courteous to this Chamber.
Lord Henley: I hope that we are not being discourteous to this Committee. As I said consideration is still in progress and we are giving the matter much thought.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I feel a glimmer of hope. As two stages of the Bill remain I hope that we shall be able to speed up the Government into doing something. I take this opportunity to say that disabled people come a long way down the list and they have to wait. One article from the Spastics Society written by a girl says, "I spend my life waiting". I hope that we do not have to wait too long. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. J15ZCA not moved.]
11.45 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 115ZCB:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
(".—For the avoidance of doubt, a disabled person within the meaning of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 includes, inter alia —

(a) a person who is now or was recently dependent upon alcohol or drugs;

(b) a person who has any HIV related disease;

(c) a person who has the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome; and

(d) a person who suffering from any mental disorder, or handicapped as a result of any previous mental disorder, and in particular any dementia, including Alzheimer's Disease.").

The noble Lord said: I shall brief. This is a probing amendment to seek an important elucidation of the Bill. The proposed new clause aims to clarify that people with drug or alcohol dependency, with HIV infection or AIDS, or people who are suffering from mental disorder or dementia, are entitled to community care services, and that services for people in these categories should be included in community care plans. Neither the White Paper nor the Bill is clear on that point. We are seeking assurance from the Minister that in the Government's view these categories of people are covered by the disabled persons Act 1986.
It seems that the Government's intention is that people with drug and alcohol problems should fall within the scope of the Bill. This is confirmed by paragraph 2.8 of Caring for People, which states:
"People with drug and alcohol related disorders … may also need community care at some time".
Also, because most residential alcohol projects are registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984, they fall within the change of funding structures set out in the White Paper. It is further clear that much of the work that is carried out by alcohol projects falls within the category of social care.
The Bill as framed makes references to previous Acts. It mentions specific groups, but nowhere among these references are alcohol or drugs included. In most areas alcohol projects receive little or no priority from social services departments, and this position will be unfairly reinforced unless the Bill

1591
clearly demonstrates the inclusion of alcohol within the scope of its provisions. The duties of local authorities to assess need and provide services for people who are vulnerable and in need of community care services, but who are not considered to be disabled within the meaning of the disabled persons Act 1986, are less clear and seem to rest much more on local authority discretion.
We can all agree, I think, that community care services are required for individuals in all the categories I have mentioned, and for their carers. There is concern that in the context of limited resources and the stigma frequently attached to people with drug or alcohol dependency, HIV, AIDS, or mental disorder, they may be given a lower priority and may not receive the community care services that they need. We are asking for clarification to ensure that these conditions are included in the community care plans. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: We touched on these arguments when discussing Amendment No. 113AP earlier and indeed Amendment No. 108AF last Tuesday. The essential thing to remember is that if people are sufficiently affected by their illness or dependency, whatever that may be, and certainly not confined to those mentioned in this amendment, then they will come within the existing definition in any event. I am talking of course about the definition provided by Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948, which specifically refers to people who are substantially and permanently handicapped through illness and injury or for other reasons.
The definition is deliberately cast in broad terms with the aim of being as inclusive as possible and related to a degree of severity rather than to a particular condition. This should ensure that people suffering from a comparable level of disability are treated as disabled people, with all that that entails in terms of the legal rights that they enjoy, regardless of the condition, or conditions, from which they suffer. In short, it is not so much a question of what the person is suffering from but the degree of disability that results which is covered by this provision. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.
Lord Carter: The problem with drug and alcohol dependency is that people seem to be cured and then they relapse. A substantial and permanent disablement is the question at issue. I shall read what the Minister has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 [Duty of local authority to make assessment of needs]:
[Amendments Nos. 115ZD and 115ZE not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 115A.
Page 55, line 37, at end insert ("shall consider representations by the person concerned or his representatives; and").
The noble Lord said: We have reached the end of the work for this evening. I intend to be extremely
1592
brief in dealing with the last three amendments. Amendment No. 115A has been referred to in other contexts outwith the Scottish section. I am concerned to hear a reply from the Minister so that we can pursue the matter at a later date.
It is self-evident that in regard to anyone who is going to be assessed, consideration should be given to representations that they make or that are made on their behalf. It is a question of natural justice. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I share the noble Lord's concern that proper regard should be paid to the wishes of individuals being assessed and their carers. One of the underlying reasons for the reform of the community care services which the Government have set in hand is to secure increased choice and more appropriate forms of care. In seeking to achieve that position, there should be no doubt that local authorities will need to listen carefully to the views of the people being assessed. That requirement is stated specifically in Chapter 10.5 of the White Paper.
We do not believe, however, that it is necessary or appropriate to write that kind of provision on to the face of the Bill. It is one of the range of matters which we believe should be subject to guidance—I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is not in his place; he will not be disappointed—from the Secretary of State which local authorities are required to follow under the existing legislative provisions on such matters.
The Secretary of State will have reserve powers of direction which he can use, if necessary, to ensure that local authorities have discharged their functions in the manner required of them under central guidance. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is currently drawing up a draft guidance on assessment. We propose to carry out full consultation with all interested parties, including representatives of users and carers.
I can assure the noble Lord that this guidance will make clear reference to the position of persons being assessed and their carers. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to ask one question. What happens if local authorities do not take notice of the guidance given in the guidance lines?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The Secretary of State for Scotland has reserve powers to require them to do so.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I should like to thank the Minister for his very helpful reply. He has met all of the points except that raised by the noble Baroness just now. We always wonder what the powers are and how the ordinary citizen is able to stir up those reserve powers. I shall study the reply. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 115AA and 115AB not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 115B:
Page 55, line 41, at end insert ("and
(c) shall notify the person or his representatives of the result of the assessment, and shall consider representations aga nst the decision, made within 28 days of its date of issue.").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak at the same time to Amendment No. 115CA. It is a matter of natural justice that the person who has been assessed should be notif ed of the results but there should be some method by which the assessing body can hear any appeal, complaint or representation from the person being assessed. That is the intention behind Amendment No. 115B.
I now turn to Amendment No. 115CA, which seeks to ensure that the person being assessed shall have an opportunity to make representations and that there shall be a procedure by which he can make representations. It will then be clear to everyone that the 28-day period suggested in the amendment shall not be eroded by the wrong procedure being adopted by the applicant. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I thank the noble Lord for proposing the amendments. I shall be slightly longer in my reply because it is an area which requires a little explanation.
Amendment No. 115B seeks to impose in the Bill detailed requirements about matters which we believe would be better covered in guidance or, where necessary, by directions from the Secretary of State. In the case of representations about an assessment, it covers some of the same ground as government Amendment No. 113BDA about complaints which was passed earlier today.
The Bill would become long and complex if we included what are essentially administrative or good practice matters relating to the exchanges between the local authority and people whose needs it is assessing. But, more serious than that, it would establish a rigid structure for assessments and other aspects of community care which would inhibit the development of good practice and flexibility in the light of local circumstances. We believe that many detailed matters of this kind should be sorted out at local level in the light of general guidance.
There may be a place for time limits in the response which the local authority has to make in the light of representations about services. This will be considered as one of the issues to be covered in our forthcoming consultation paper on the complaints procedure. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government accept the need for guidance and safeguards in the assessment procedure and in the provision of services but we remain of the view that these matters are better kept out of the legislation. I hope that I have said enough on the first amendment to convince the noble Lord of the Government's sincerity in dealing with this part of his concern.
For reasons I shall explain, Amendment No. 115CA could well create an unnecessary complication in the local authority's assessment arrangements. The first half of it allows people to
1594
make representations about every assessment, even before they know what services might be made available. The second half of it creates an absolute right for individuals or their representatives to require reviews, apparently without limit of number or frequency. I shall take each in turn, because different arguments apply to each.
First, we agree that assessments should take account of the views of the individuals who are being assessed. I can give a firm assurance that this will be addressed in the guidance to local authorities which we are currently preparing.
Turning to the second part of Amendment No. 115CA, I agree too that the local authorities will need to review the needs of people receiving care. My difficulty is with the question of frequency. Sometimes these reviews will require to be frequent, other times less so, depending on the needs of the individual. The question of frequency is not something for legislation but for good practice backed by general guidance on the question of maximum intervals between assessments. I fear that the requirement for a review under this well-intentioned amendment could be used mischievously to overload local authorities with unnecessary reviews.
But I believe that the Government's new complaints procedure which we discussed earlier meets the noble Lord's point. It allows a person to complain or make representations; and as a safeguard for the complainer's position it creates a local authority duty to listen and respond. A right to claim a review would cut across our new complaints procedures by requiring the local authority to carry out such a review even if it has done exactly that only a very short time before.
I cannot agree to accept that Amendment No. 115CA should be written on to the face of the Bill. However, I shall consider whether the guidance which we propose to issue to local authorities should be backed up by directions under Clause 48 as a long stop. We shall have to consult the bodies involved about that proposition. But if following the consultation we conclude that a direction would be helpful we shall certainly act upon that conclusion. In the light of that assurance I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendments.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for that very full reply. However, I am sure he will realise that I, and others, will need to study it with care. It is always interesting when what one assumes to be a fairly simple and straightforward amendment, which will be of benefit to everyone, turns out to be a matter of great puzzlement. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 115C had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 115CA and 115CB not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 115CBA:
Page 55, line 45, at end insert:
("(2A) If, while they are carrying out their duty under subsection (1) of this section, it appears to a local authority that there may be a need for the provision to any person whom that subsection applies —

(a) of any services under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 by the Health Board —

(i) in whose area he is ordinarily resident; or

(ii) in whose area the services to be supplied by the local authority are, or are likely, to be provided; or

(b) of any services which fall within the functions of a housing authority (within the meaning of the section 130 (housing) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973) which is not the local authority carrying out the assessment,

the local authority shall so notify that Health Board or housing authority, and shall request information from them as to what services are likely to be made available to that person by that Health Board or housing authority; and, thereafter, in carrying out their said duty, the local authority shall take into account any information received by them in response to that request.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 115D to 115DB not moved.]
[Amendment No. 115DC had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Blatch: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee; a Special Report was made and ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at two minutes past midnight.

  COAL BOARD PENSION FUND
  COAL BOARD PENSION FUND
  COAL INDUSTRY: PRIVATISATION PLAN
  COAL INDUSTRY: PRIVATISATION PLAN
  NORTH SEA POLLUTION CONTROL
  NORTH SEA POLLUTION CONTROL
  WOOL PRICE
  WOOL PRICE
  CIVIL DEFENCE REGULATIONS: IMPLEMENTATION
  CIVIL DEFENCE REGULATIONS: IMPLEMENTATION
  PRISON VIOLENCE INQUIRY
  PRISON VIOLENCE INQUIRY