Sitting of 4 July 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MIDLAND METRO BILL (By Order)
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 11 July.

  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 9 July at Seven o'clock.

  EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 11 July.
  Mr. Speaker: As the next two Bills have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them together.

  COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE BANK BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 11 July

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Television Licences
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to introduce a progressive method of charging for television licences.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): We have no proposals to change the present methods of charging for television licences.
    Mr. Skinner: The Government and the Prime Minister reckon to believe in a classless society—right? Yet some pensioners on one side of the street get free TV licences while some on the other side do not and some pensioners in warden accommodation get free licences while some in other warden accommodation do not. A rich pensioner living in The Savoy hotel gets a licence free, so I do not want the Minister to give me any of that crap about—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not an unparliamentary word, but it is distasteful.
    Mr. Skinner: So I do not want any of that crap coming from the Government. If the Minister says to me, "Where is the money to come from?" I say, "Tax the Queen."
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman makes his usual point, but in slightly different words. As he well knows, the Government believe that the right way to help pensioners is through the social security system, not by complicated and bureaucratic adjustments to the licence fee. That is why pensioner rates for those on income support were increased by an additional £200 million in 1989 and a further £80 million earlier this year, over and above the increase in inflation.
    Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend believe that we in the Conservative group of northern Members are getting good value for their television licences when they have been trying for months to get an appointment with the direct or general of the BBC, who finds himself too busy to meet us?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not believe that that point has any relevance to the question, unless it involves the collection of the concessionary licence fee. If so, that is entirely a matter for the BBC and I am sure that its management will see this exchange in Hansard.
    Mr. Battle: Does the Minister accept that the rules on concessionary television licences seem to be arbitrary and a shambles because pensioners in identical housing and income circumstances, living next door to each other, may find that one has a concessionary licence and the other does not? They find that an unfair rule. When will the Government sort out the shambles?
    Mr. Lloyd: The Government have sorted out the rules, which are crystal clear. If the hon. Gentleman read through them, he would find them easy to follow. The rules are that pensioners of more than 60 years of age in local

    423
    authority or housing association homes with their own secure border with a warden on the premises for more than 30 hours a week qualify.

    Juvenile Crime
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is currently taking to encourage greater respect for the law in young people and to reduce juvenile crime.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): In addition to the widely welcomed Criminal Justice Bill, we are funding projects to tackle offending by young people through the probation service and the safer cities progamme, as well as encouraging junior crime prevention panels.
    Mr. Coombs: I welcome those initiatives, but is my right hon. Friend aware of the overwhelming conclusions of the conference set up this week by the Institute of Economic Affairs and attended by Professor Halsey, one of my right hon. Friend's constituents, which links juvenile crime and delinquency with irresponsible parenting and the instability of families? Does he agree that the time is right for an initiative from Government for a code of parenting, which will not only point out to parents their rights and responsibilities, but give practical ideas on how to fulfil them?
    Mr. Patten: I am delighted to hear of the late conversion to common sense of my distinguished constituent, Professor Halsey, for long a socialist guru in these matters. What my hon. Friend has said deserves the closest attention. Our most important job is to attempt to steer young people away from the temptation of crime in the first place. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently met the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Health and for Education and Science to discuss exactly the sort of issue to which my hon. Friend referred. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary hopes to make an announcement about this quite soon.
    Sir Patrick Duffy: Does the Minister agree that for a depressingly increasing number of ever-younger people the first activity that puts them outside the law is under-age drinking?
    Mr. Patten: It is one of the activities that do. Thieving by those under the age of criminal consent—nine—is another. In the last year for which figures are available 8,000 such acts were committed by those under the age of criminal consent.
    I always listen with care to the hon. Gentleman. I would add to his analysis only the fact that the roots of the process of stopping young people turning to crime are to be found in two places: the family and schools.
    Mr. Shersby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective ways of preventing juvenile crime is for local authorities to provide adequate secure accommodation? Is he aware that one of the principal reasons why so many young people are able to re-offend is that they quickly abscond from their accommodation and then commit the same crimes again and again? Will he discuss these matters with the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Health?
    Mr. Patten: We are doing that at the moment. I agree that in some parts of the county local authorities are, unfortunately, not keen on providing secure accommodation and although I think that some social workers are too often and too freely criticised, some of them, alas, in some parts of the country, are refusing their duty to keep young people under close surveillance. That in turn sometimes contributes to their going out and offending and then ending up in a real prison—and that is a mistake.
    Mr. Winnick: Would not it encourage young people as well as others to respect the law if a notorous fascist agitator such as Le Pen was kept out of Britain? Why is that poisonous man being allowed in?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. He is not a juvenile, so the point does not seem to arise.

    Immigration
    Mr. Janman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to repeal the primary purpose rule; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I have no plans to repeal the primary purpose rule, which I regard as an important safeguard against abuse.
    Mr. Janman: My right hon. Friend will be aware that if the Labour party was elected to govern this country it would do exactly what he has said that he will not do. Does he agree that if the primary purpose rule were abolished that would result in a massive increase in secondary immgration to this country which the British people would abhor? Does he agree that that would be disastrous?
    Mr. Baker: The primary purpose test prevents abuse by those prepared to enter into marriage solely to settle in the United Kingdom. It continues to be our policy that genuine spouses should be allowed to join their partners in this country, but any objective person knows that marriage can be and sometimes is exploited as a route to settlement in the United Kingdom and that there must be some protective rules. We intend to retain them.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that genuine cases will still be considered. Does he accept that those who abuse the rules and who, by playing the system, are allowed to remain in this country damage the cause of people who have genuine reasons for coming and who do not know how to get in?
    Mr. Baker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Officers in my immigration service try to seek out those who abuse the rules who often, by so doing, keep others out. I remind the hon. Gentleman that about 27,000 spouses are allowed in each year, 7,000 of them from the Indian sub-continent, and that 2,500 are ejected. The rule by no means relates only to the Indian sub-continent. For example, it also applies to mail order brides from Thailand and the Philippines.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that any controls on immigration are bound to be resented by those who fall on the wrong side of them? None the less, strict controls are necessary so that the indigenous population is not subjected to massive new immigration. That is the precondition for good race relations.
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend has put it very well. The rule is an important safeguard against abuse by those who are prepared to consider marriage as a device for securing admittance. My hon. Friend may recall that when a Labour Government were elected in 1974 they abolished the restrictions on spouses, but three years later they were so concerned about the numbers coming in that they introduced the marriage of convenience test, which is the forerunner of the primary purpose rule. I am disappointed that Labour now wishes to repeal that rule.
    Mr. Darling: Does the Home Secretary accept that, while we must guard against abuses, it is absurd that a French citizen can enter this country with his non-EC spouse and their dependants under the age of 21 whereas a British citizen cannot marry a non-EC spouse without having to prove a negative under the primary purpose rule? Does not that absurdity merit some revision so that at least a British citizen and a French citizen are placed on an equal footing in this country?
    Mr. Baker: That example does not lead me to the position of the hon. Gentleman's party—that one should scrap the primary purpose rule. If that was done, I am sure that marriage would be exploited, not only by people from the Indian sub-continent but by people in other parts of the world. It is prudent to retain the rule.

    Prisons (Staffing)
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on staffing levels in prisons.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): At the beginning of June there were about 21,550 prison officers and just over 10,400 other staff in post in establishments. That represents 24 per cent. more prison officers and 22 per cent. more other staff than when "fresh start" was introduced in 1987.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware that Wakefield prison is still 23 officers short of the figure agreed under "fresh start"? Does she agree that it is worrying that the governor of that prison has said that next year could he the prison service's Armageddon because of staffing problems in prisons such as Wakefield? Do we have to wait for another Strangeways before we get proper staffing?
    Mrs. Rumbold: There are 4,200 more prison officers than there were before the introduction of "fresh start" in 1987. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to the facts rather than to his local prison officers. Wakefield prison has had a drop of about 13 per cent. in its inmate population and an increase of about 18 per cent. in its prison officer population.
    Mr. Moss: Following my right hon. Friend's recent announcement of her wish to see sports facilities at prisons made available for public use—a change of policy which I heartily welcome in connection with the new Whilemoor prison at March in my constituency—does she foresee any implications for changes in staffing levels to accommodate that new policy?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is referring to the custom of prisons allowing people from the community to
    426
    use their sports facilities. We welcome that and it is now common practice throughout the prison service. It has not necessitated more prison officers.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does not the Minister realise that the director general of prisons action in effectively freezing staffing levels in April has led to deteriorating regimes in some prisons? The position is serious and the Government's mishandling of "fresh start" means that there are fewer officers on duty than there were before 1987. The Minister knows that there are deteriorating regimes in many of the prisons that are most likely to cause problems. In the spirit of Woolf, should not something be done to make sure that those regimes are improved rather than letting them go downhill rapidly? If action is not taken, there will be another crisis in British prisons.
    Mrs. Rumbold: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as I said earlier, we have 4,200 more prison officers in the system. Prison officers work far fewer hours than hitherto because of the introduction of "fresh start". It is an excellent scheme which has greatly benefited both prison officers and the prisons.
    I remind the hon. Gentleman also that, in his report, Lord Justice Woolf suggested to the Prison Officers Association that it should work hard to implement his recommendations. That must include working with headquarters and management to ensure that the best possible regimes can be introduced in our prisons.
    Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there would be even more prison officers available for duty at no extra cost to the taxpayer if there was a significant reduction in sick leave? Will she look at that part of prisons department management and examine the causes of sick leave and the administration of it, for the obvious benefit of the service as well as that of the taxpayer?
    Mrs. Rumbold: It is true, as my hon. Friend said, that sick leave causes pressure in prisons. It is something which we are investigating with prison officers and governors to ascertain what can be done to minimise it.

    Independent Television Franchises
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is planning any review of the new system of dealing with independent television franchise applications.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: No.
    Mr. Grocott: Has the Minister not been advised by his officials—he certainly should have been—that it is the near-unanimous view of everyone who cares about broadcasting that the franchise allocation system is a complete and utter farce? Is he aware that one of the most damaging aspects of the system has been the loss of about 2,000 jobs—especially in the regions—and the loss of production facilities and skills, largely to London and the south-east, but, taken as a whole, throughout the industry? Surely the Minister owes it to us to undertake a thorough review of the system, to stop listening to advertisers and the Treasury and to start listening to viewers and programme-makers.
    Mr. Lloyd: The proof of the tendering system for licences will be in the results of that process, which we have yet to see. I am encouraged that about 40 excellent

    427
    contestants have entered the ring. The hon. Gentleman's remarks about job losses in some independent television companies that are bidding should be set against the views of those who are responsible for the companies. If the hon. Gentleman spoke to them they would acknowledge that the time had come when it was necessary to run their operations more cost effectively. If the bidding system has helped to that end, that is one of its benefits.
    Mrs. Currie: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about time that we put all the television companies, including the BBC, on the same basis? Should not we consider in the next few years getting rid of the paraphernalia of the licensing system, detector vans and people being taken to court, along with all the other nonsenses that have been involved in raising finance for the BBC? Cannot the BBC stand on its own two feet along with all the other television companies?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is well ahead of herself. We shall examine the structure of the BBC when the charter comes up for renewal in 1996. I accept, of course, that the way in which the BBC will be financed is a matter of intense debate and interest. If we abolish the licence fee, I do not know what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will ask about during Home Office Questions.
    Mr. Corbett: Does not the Minister recognise the potential damage to the quality and diversity of programming that the loss of thousands of skilled staff jobs and production facilities in every region is likely to cause under the mad and blind auction system? In the run-up to the new Channel 3, will he respond to a plea from the television companies to reconsider the Treasury take, which, under the levy system, is being unfairly inflated because of a decline in advertising? There are dire warnings about the inflated take jeopardising the ability of the companies to deliver on their programme promises.
    Mr. Lloyd: On the contrary, the process of tendering ensures that each contestant company has to show that it has the resources, the management skills and the capacity to produce the programmes that it says will be produced so as to cross the quality threshold. The system underpins what the hon. Gentleman wishes to ensure.
    Mr. John Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is concern within ITV that some franchise applicants are still actively seeking financial backing for their bids and are now free to show the programme proposals of their competitors? Does not that undermine the integrity of the bidding process? Will he confirm again to the House this afternoon that the intention of the legislation was that applicants should have their programme proposals and business plans, soundly backed with finance, already in place when their applications were submitted?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Act requires bidders to show that they can carry out what they say they will do. Whether any additional piece of information is acceptable at a later date is entirely a matter for the Independent Television Commission, but I am sure that it will read what my hon. Friend has said about the matter and take note of it.

    Phone Tapping
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many telephone lines on the same number an interception can be made when he authorises a warrant under the Interception of Communications Act 1985.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: The scope of warrants issued under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 is governed by section 3 of that Act. It does not specify the number of lines on the same telephone number which may be the subject of a warrant.
    Mr. McFall: How many phone taps did the Home Secretary authorise last year? Does he agree that a court warrant should be obtained before each phone is tapped? Will he undertake to have a Select Committee consider the issue of phone tapping in general?
    Mr. Baker: The figures are announced in the annex to the 1990 report of the Interception Commissioner which was published earlier this year. Some 515 warrants were in force on 31 December 1990 or issued during the course of the year and 68 were issued on the authority of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Act requires that I issue a warrant only in particular well-defined circumstances and the use of that power is subject to review by the Interception Commissioner, who can look into the circumstances of each individual case. His report is published and is a public document, as this one was, and that is an appropriate and sensible method of regulation.

    Shops (Unauthorised Occupation)
    Mr. Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to give local authorities greater powers to deal with unauthorised occupation of high street properties.
    Mr. John Patten: The unauthorised occupation of any property is primarily a matter for the owner or lawful occupier of that property. I would be a bit cautious about giving local authorities greater power to deal with other people's property. But shop squatters who break the criminal law can be dealt with. I know that this is a matter of great concern to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the incidence of empty high street shops being occupied by unlawful traders is on the increase and that, as things stand, neither the local authority nor the police can evict them? It takes weeks and months to get hold of the absentee landlord in order to obtain a court action. Should not the Government do as they did with the hippy convoys some time ago and bring those squatters within the criminal law?
    Mr. Patten: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has recently issued guidance about section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 concerning hippy convoys and others, and that has been widely welcomed. Those who squat in shops, use electricity, trade falsely and perhaps sell without declaring their VAT returns can be prosecuted under the criminal law. I encourage local authorities and owners of vacant property to use the expedited process through the county court which should make it possible to have squatters removed within about seven or eight days.
    Dame Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just in the high streets where protection is needed from squatters? Does he recall the case of my constituent, Dr. Adam Fraise, who has had to spend some £4,000, including paying a large gas bill incurred by the squatters, to get his own home back? Does he agree that that is grossly unjust? My right hon. Friend told me that the Government were considering making unauthorised entry of a person's private home a criminal offence. When will he stop considering it and act?
    Mr. Patten: I always take very seriously any injunction from my hon. Friend to act, as she knows. I know also how seriously she and my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) view that issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is conducting a review, and he hopes to make an announcement as soon as possible.

    Naturalisation
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for naturalisation are currently being processed; and what is the average time taken.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: At 24 June 1991, there were 68,315 applications for citizenship outstanding. The average processing times for those certificates issued in May were 34 months for certificates of naturalisation, and 26 months for certificates of registration.
    Mr. Evennett: The delays that my hon. Friend's reply reveal are naturally a matter of considerable distress and disappointment to applicants. When does my hon. Friend expect the process to be speeded up and the backlog to be cleared?
    Mr. Lloyd: The process is speeding up, and the average waiting time has started to fall. In April, it was 36 weeks—
    Mr. Corbett: Thirty six months.
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is right—36 months. I expect the downward trend to continue—until, I hope, it is a matter of weeks. We are seeing the benefit of moving the nationality department to Liverpool, as the Government would like to create employment there. The staff have taken over the work quickly and effectively, and I believe that the waiting time will fall rapidly over the coming months—and weeks.
    Mr. Vaz: The Minister might think that it is an amusing problem, but it is disgraceful that the waiting time has escalated. The Minister will know that the Select Committee on Home Affairs published a report last year that described a delay of 27 months as indefensible. The Minister will know also that I have reported him to the parliamentary commissioner over the delays in his Department. Does not the Minister realise that if it was any other Department, he would have been sacked by now? When will the Minister make available the resources necessary to clear the backlog immediately?
    Mr. Lloyd: Of course I know that the hon. Gentleman has said those things, because he said them to me several times. I know also that the hon. Gentleman knows very well the reason for the backlog. In 1987, applications
    430
    equivalent to six years' work were received. More than half of them came from applicants who had been in this country since 1973, and who therefore could have registered in any of those 14 years. Although the waiting list is being rapidly reduced, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that those applying for citizenship are already resident in this country and that there is no doubt of their right to be here—so the inconvenience caused to most of them is small, if real.

    Policemen
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many policemen there were in post in 1979 and in 1990.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: On 31 December 1979, there were 113,309 police officers, which increased to 127,090 on 31 December 1990—a gain during those years of 13,781.
    Mr. Evans: Does not my right hon. Friend's reply show that ours is the party of law and order? Is that not in stark contrast to the lot opposite, who would not condemn brutality in the 1984 miners' strike or on the Wapping picket line, or those Labour Members who refuse to pay their community charge? Is it not a fact that the Leader of the Opposition, who once embroiled himself in a fight outside his house, will, after the next general election, land flat on his back—as he did then, in a prickly hedge?
    Mr. Baker: I am astonished at my hon. Friend's moderation in contemplating Labour's record. When we came to office in 1979, we found a police force that was undervalued, under strength, under-resourced, and underfunded. During the last 12 years, we have made it our first priority. There has been an increase in expenditure of 50 per cent., in real terms. As the shadow spokesman is not in his place today—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] It may be that he is bolstering up the Labour party in Liverpool. Whoever is in charge, perhaps he could get up and tell us how many more police officers Labour would recruit if, by any chance, Labour wins the next election.
    Mr. Rees: If the present Home Secretary is so pleased about law and order, will he consider the fact that in 1979 the Conservative manifesto promised that the crime rate would fall, and that it would go on falling, but that it has gone up and up since then?
    Mr. Baker: The crime rate would be even higher if we had not given high priority to law and order. Not only have we increased the size of the police force but we have increased the level of sentencing very substantially and we have brought in new crimes—[interruption.] Sorry, we have brought in new sentences. We have also brought in heavier sentences for very old crimes. For example, we introduced life sentences for people who are convicted of attempted rape. I can assure the House that if we had not supported the law and the courts in this way, the level of crime would be even higher.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in parallel with the very substantial and welcome increase in the number of police officers, there has been a very substantial increase in public confidence in those police officers and their professional ability? Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that the thin stretch of police

    431
    —and their apparent invisibility, sometimes, on the beat—is causing concern in both rural and town areas? Will he ask the chief constables to look carefully at their policies, especially with regard to civilianisation, so that we obtain the maximum possible profile of individual policemen in front of the citizens of this country?
    Mr. Baker: As well as increasing the number of uniformed officers by 13,000, we have increased the civilian force supporting the police by 15,000. We have civilianised many jobs, which means that more uniformed officers, both men and women, are available for policing on the beat and for policing in the community. That is another very important priority, but I am still waiting to hear from the Labour party what its increase would be.
    Mr. Sheerman: Apart from introducing new crimes, the Home Secretary has been a member of a Government who have seen astronomic increases in crime rates—up by another 17·6 per cent. this year, announced only last week. Can he estimate how many more duties have been imposed on the police since 1979? Is it not a fact that although there has been a net increase in the number of police, the number of police where the public want them—on the streets, on the beat—has declined? When will the Home Secretary start to back the police of this country and give them the resources that they deserve to fight crime?
    Mr. Baker: When we came into office, the police force that we inherited was under strength, under-resourced and undervalued. I was waiting to hear about the Labour party's priority. It has priority for all sorts of expenditure. The Leader of the Opposition is giving priority to education and to pensioners. What priority does he intend to give to the police? His spokesman has just refused to give a pledge to increase the number of police, so the Leader of the Opposition will have the chance to do so later. He may like to give it.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that however many police men there are in post, they need the admirable support of men and women who are working as special constables and volunteers? Can he announce today that he is planning further measures to support the excellent work that our special constables do?
    Mr. Baker: I can give that assurance. There are about 15,000 special constables in the United Kingdom. We are undertaking a recruitment campaign to increase that number to about 25,000. I am glad to say that that campaign is well under way. Many young people, both men and women, are coming forward to serve as specials. Many of them go on to become full-time police officers. They make a very valuable contribution to the policing of our country.
    Mr. Maclennan: Against the background of inexorably rising crime, does the Home Secretary really believe that his inane partisan bellowing enhances the reputation of the Government on law and order?
    Mr. Baker: The essential element in improving law and order in Britain is to support the forces of law and order: our courts and our police force. We have an impeccable record in that as we have increased expenditure by more than 50 per cent. in real terms and we are committed to increasing it again in the lifetime of the next Government.

    Prison Population
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison at the most recent count.
    Mrs. Rumbold: On 3 July there were 45,037 inmates in prison service establishments.
    Mr. Knox: I welcome the decline in the prison population over the past two years, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there are still too many people who are kept unnecessarily in prison? Has she any plans further to reduce the numbers?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that when the Criminal Justice Bill, which is currently going through the House of Commons and the other place, becomes an Act, it will effectively take measures to reduce the numbers of people coming into our prisons. I agree with him that that will be most welcome.
    Mr. Madden: Is the Minister aware that one of the people in prison today is Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal who has been in Bedford prison since last August? Is she further aware that 59 Members of this House have supported early-day motion 828 which calls for his immediate release? Will she urge the Home Secretary to allow that man, who has lived in this country since 1974, the right to an independent appeal against the refusal to grant him political asylum, as he has extremely well-founded fears of persecution if he is forced to return to India?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is extremely difficult at the Dispatch Box to answer a question on a personal matter. However, I will take the matter back to the Home Office and I will write to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

    Basildon Police
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chief constable of Essex to discuss police resources in Basildon.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has not met the chief constable of Essex for that purpose. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State intends to visit the Essex police on 27 November.
    Mr. Amess: Is my hon. Friend aware that a new police station in Laindon in Basildon will be opened next week? That means that we now have three police stations, instead of the one that we had in 1983. Will my hon. Friend accept the gratitude of my constituency for making money available for the three police stations? Does he also agree with the chief constable that it is not simply a matter of numbers of police men employed, but rather a matter of how scarce resources are deployed?
    Mr. Lloyd: It is always essential that resources are used sensibly. I am glad that the Essex police authority has used the resources with which it has been provided to such good, practical effect. It is to be congratulated.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend, in the knock-about on police resources, should be ashamed of himself? When he meets the chief constable of Essex, if the chief constable asks for additional resources

    433
    for police officers in Basildon and in Essex as a whole, he will, I hope, not turn him down on funding, like he did in Nottinghamshire.
    Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend always listens carefully to all representations made from whichever police force, but he takes the advice of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to give the ranking order to the bids that are put in.

    Crime Prevention
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures the Government are using to engage further public support for crime prevention schemes.
    Mr. John Patten: Encouraging the public to take an active part in helping to reduce crime is the main objective of the Government's crime prevention campaign, the most recent issue of which was crime prevention week. We shall be considering what further developments in the campaign are needed, but neighbourhood watch schemes are multiplying fast and numbers are now at record levels.
    The safer cities programme will soon be up to its full complement of 20 projects, and other local projects are also being developed by Crime Concern, which receives a grant in aid from the Home Office.
    Mr. Knapman: My right hon. Friend deserves the congratulations of the whole House on that excellent record. Is there any merit in handing over those excellent schemes to local authorities, and, in particular, will the schemes receive adequate support in areas still controlled by loony Labour councils?
    Mr. Patten: I think that there is no merit at all in handing the schemes over to local authorities. Try telling the people of Lambeth or the people of Liverpool that there is. It is the same sort of ill-thought-out Labour idea that would put police forces under the control of regionally elected police authorities with complete political control. Such ill-thought-out ideas are the brainchildren of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who described his attitude to politics in the arts pages of The Sunday Telegraph last Sunday:
    "I find the business of politics infinitely tedious."
    Perhaps that is why the right hon. Gentleman has not bothered to turn up this afternoon.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): 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. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is good news that strikes are now at a 30-year low and that, except for a few wretchedly greedy people in privatised monopolies, most people are now accepting wage restraint? Would not all that be upset by a minimum wage policy, which the trade unions and the next Labour
    434
    Trade Minister have set and which would add two points to inflation and at least 600,000 to the unemployed? How can that be good for Britain?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The recently announced record on strikes is excellent news, the figure having fallen to a very low level indeed. It is also extremely good news, particularly for those without jobs, that wage settlements are falling to a level that the economy is more able to bear. The economy could certainly not bear a minimum wage—not least in the west midlands, where, as the Reward Group pointed out just overnight, it would cost very many jobs right in my hon. Friend's own backyard.
    Mr. Kinnock: When the Prime Minister supported the establishment of private water monopolies, did he realise that he was agreeing to the establishment of private monopolies that would turn out to be machines for printing money for their chairmen?
    The Prime Minister: The share options to which I assume the right hon. Gentleman is referring—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. If the right hon. Gentleman is really referring to salaries, I remind him that we have discussed that matter on more than one occasion and he knows very well that I disapprove of those salary increases, but it is not the policy of this Government to act to legislate upon everything with which we disagree, as would the Labour Government. That is the way to give maximum centralist control and that is why socialism is such an outdated philosophy.
    Mr. Kinnock: Since privatisation, customers' bills have increased by an average of 30 per cent. and chairmen's salaries have gone up by 50, 70 and even 119 per cent. Against that background, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the conduct of the private monopolies amounts to a public scandal?
    The Prime Minister: I am very happy to join debate with the right hon. Gentleman on utility prices. It was, after all, the last Labour Government who put up electricity prices by 2 per cent. every six weeks. Under this Government, electricity, gas and telecommunications prices have fallen.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister says that he condemns the huge salary increases. He does that in words, but, in practice, he actually condones them. If he says that he does not have the power to put right that which he says is wrong, why does not he get the power?
    The Prime Minister: The difference between those of us who believe in a market economy and those who do not is that we recognise that it means giving people responsibility for their actions even if they exercise it in ways of which we do not approve. The right hon. Gentleman makes it clear once again that any prospect of a Labour Government means that they would seek to control the whole of the private sector centrally. We saw what happened when he did that last time and we know with his minimum wage policy what would happen again.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to re-emphasise the importance of compulsory competitive tendering for the provision of local services? Would not that be the best way of delivering that provision in Liverpool?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree. I think that compulsory competitive tendering in Liverpool, Lambeth and elsewhere would be very much in the interests of the people in those areas. The difficulty with the Opposition is that they do not know whether they support competition or not. In a recent interview, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said first: "I am against privatisation." Then, when he was asked why it was necessary in Liverpool, he said:
    "Because the Liverpool people deserve a proper service."
    If it is right in Liverpool, it is right everywhere.
    Mr. Patchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Patchett: After 12 years of this Government, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports today that Britain is at the bottom of the league for growth, employment and investment. Does the Prime Minister agree that if Britain were a football team, the manager would be sacked?
    The Prime Minister: Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, even the legendary Bill Shankly would be proud of a record that had us top of the European growth league through the 1980s and that is where we will be in the 1990s.
    Mr. Pawsey: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent education speech yesterday? It underlines the difference between the achievements and intentions of this Government and the failures of the Opposition.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are very concerned about choice, diversity and standards. We have the policies to ensure that they improve.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Prime Minister recall that when the Labour Government introduced equal pay legislation in 1974 there were a large number of Jeremiahs in the Tory party who predicted that equal pay would decimate the catering and retail industries and cost about 1 million jobs? Will the Prime Minister confirm that that did not happen? On the basis of that evidence, and following his criticisms, why will the minimum wage produce the same problems? Might it not, like equal pay, simply produce social justice in this country?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may be unwilling to take my views on a minimum wage, but he might consider the views of many external commentators, including yet another overnight—Phillips and Drew—which show that the first stage of Labour's policy would add 1 per cent. to the rate of inflation and destroy 400,000 jobs and that the second stage would add 2·5 per cent. to the rate of inflation and destroy 1·25 million jobs. Those are not my views, they are Phillips and Drew's. The hon. Gentleman might also ask the long list of Labour trade union leaders who also attacked the minimum wage policy.
    Mr. Butcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the German secondary school system is still predominantly based on selection and that pupils are allocated, according to their ability, to technical schools, grammar schools or to high schools? At the heart of the system is the realschule or technical school. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in due course we, too, should have in every town in this country a state-funded technical school?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly wish to see a very dramatic growth in the number of state-funded technical schools. There is no doubt—and it is most clearly illustrated by the demand from parents for places in them—that the city technology colleges have been an enormous success and will be a greater success in future. It is interesting that the Opposition deride a policy for which the parents vote with their feet.
    Q4. Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Michie: When will the Prime Minister wake up to the reality that, without a strong manufacturing base, there is no way in which we can compete with our competitors abroad, which means that the economic decline will continue, bringing poverty, homelessness, joblessness and hopelessness? Will he accept that he has no idea about how to stop the rot, and will he go to the country while we still have a nation and stop us being a sitting duck for overseas predators?
    The Prime Minister: Everyone seeks to improve the position of manufacturing industry. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman when manufacturing was in decline—it was when the Labour Government lost control of inflation.
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Squire: Will my right hon. Friend consider tightening the law to protect those hon. Members who might otherwise be intimidated by the press? I refer to the Liverpool Echo, which has tried to force the hon. Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) to state which Labour party they are supporting in today's by-election in Walton.
    The Prime Minister: That is certainly an ingenious proposition. I have been following the by-election in Liverpool with some interest. I was also interested in the answer given by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) when he was asked for whom he would vote. He replied
    "I am not prepared to answer … a ballot is a secret thing."
    And so it is. If the Leader of the Opposition is serious about Militant, he should start by withdrawing the Whip from the Militant members on his own Back Benches.
    Mr. Loyden: The Prime Minister may be aware—he should be aware—that the problems facing Liverpool are deeply rooted in the policies that have been pursued by the Tory Government for the past 11 years. Does he agree that it is a pity that the Tory party did not pay the same

    437
    attention to Liverpool that it has paid it during the past week or two when it took £62 million out of the coffers of the city of Liverpool, thus causing the problems that exist there today?
    The Prime Minister: The problems of Liverpool over the past 11 years are certainly deeply rooted, but which party—perhaps I should say parties—have been in control of Liverpool for the past 11 years? Why is Liverpool such a unique shambles? It is because the Labour party, whether under Militant control or, as it now likes to claim, under moderate control, has made a complete shambles of the lives of the people who live in Liverpool.
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nicholson: Given the tragic evidence this week of instability and uncertainty in eastern Europe and the continuing power of tyrants outside Europe, which is why Royal Marines from my constituency still remain in northern Iraq, will my right hon. Friend pledge that during the current reviews the Government will do all that they can to maintain the effectiveness and the morale of our armed services, which will ensure that the Conservative party can show strength on this issue, compared to the weakness of the Opposition parties?
    The Prime Minister: I am entirely happy to give my hon. Friend that copper-bottomed assurance—and that applies both to conventional forces and conventional weapons, and to nuclear weapons. That is in sharp contrast to the Labour party with its policy of placing all Britain's nuclear capability into disarmament negotiations with the intention of eliminating it in concert with action taken by the super powers—in other words, Labour Members remain unilateral disarmers.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: I wish that were true.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is the Prime Minister concerned that even after a period of recovery—whenever that might come—unemployment is predicted to rise to 2·8 million, and stay there? Does he intend to do anything about that, or will he simply abandon the unemployed to pay with their jobs for his failure?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) spoke more effectively about Labour's defence policy than his Front Bench does.
    The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) well knows our concern about unemployment. He is aware of the mitigating measures that we have introduced, and he should be aware that the greatest single destroyer of jobs is inflation. We are getting on top of inflation and bringing it down, and I am not prepared to take short-term action that would cost jobs tomorrow. Our policy is to get inflation down to ensure that there is growth and also secure, sustainable, permanent jobs tomorrow in every sector of industry.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 JULY—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Road Traffic Bill.
Debate on the fourth report from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) on computer services for Members on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 9 JULY—Opposition day (17th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition Motion entitled "Low Income and The Quality of Life".
Proceedings on the Arms Controls and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [Lords].
Motion to establish a Select Committee on sittings of the House.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 10 JULY—Motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Regulations.
Followed by motion on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
THURSDAY 11 JuLY—Proceedings on the British Railways Board (Finance) Bill.
FRIDAY 12 JULY—Debate on the United Kingdom environment on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 15 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 10 July at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows:

Committee A—Document No. 4717/91 relating to environmental labelling scheme.

Committee B—Document No. 9791/90 relating to energy efficiency requirements for hot water boilers.

[Wednesday 10 July
European Standing Committee A
Relevant European Community Document
4717/91 Ecological Labelling
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee HC 29-xv (1990–91) and HC 29-xxv (1990–91)
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Document 9791/90 Efficiency of Hot-Water Boilers
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee HC 29-xiii (1990–91) and HC 29-xxvi (1990–91).]
Dr. Cunningham: Since summer has apparently belatedly arrived, can the Leader of the House at least give us one popular answer today and tell us whether he has decided when the House will rise for the summer recess? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have instant popularity.
Can the Leader of the House confirm that, as a matter of policy, the Government have decided to stop publishing hospital waiting lists? Is not it strange that people can
440
obtain all the information that they want about how hospitals can opt out of the national health service, but apparently they are to be denied information about the length of the waiting lists that they and their families will have to endure before they can obtain what is often quite urgent treatment? Is not that simply another device to hide the embarrassment of Ministers about ever-lengthening waiting lists for treatment under the NHS? May we have a statement on that from the Secretary of State for Health?
Can the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report that was published today? Is not it sad for our country that that report shows Britain at the bottom of the league for growth, investment and job creation? In addition, and even worse, it shows Britain to be the only country in the European Community in the grip of such a bitter and damaging recession. Is not that an awful indictment of 12 years of the Government's failure in economic and industrial policy? Is it not incumbent on the Government to arrange for the House to debate those issues before we rise for the summer recess?
When they created large private water monopolies—some of which are providing captive consumers with a declining quality of service—did Ministers intend the chairmen and chief executives of those private monopolies not only to enhance their salaries hugely at public expense, but, effectively, to plan to make themselves millionaires within four or five years by giving themselves grotesque share options for which consumers will have to pay? May we have a clear statement from the Government—rather than the prevarications that we have had from the Prime Minister—about whether that was indeed their intention and whether they intend to allow such a state of affairs to continue?
Mr. MacGregor: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I cannot tell hon. Members today when the House will rise for the summer recess, much as I would like to. We still have a great deal of business to complete; we must also see how many amendments to Bills with which we have already dealt are introduced from the other place. I hope, however, to be able to give some indication of the date in next week's business statement.
As for hospital waiting lists, the hon. Gentleman will know that we are to hold a debate on that very subject later today. Given that it is being discussed today—earlier even than next week—it would surely be appropriate for hon. Members to make their points at that stage. The hon. Gentleman will also know, however, that in the past 10 years the number of both in-patients and out-patients treated in our hospitals has risen substantially.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the OECD report. A number of the matters to which he referred could have been raised yesterday evening, when the House debated employment.
Dr. Cunningham: We want a debate in Government time, not Opposition time.
Mr. MacGregor: Yesterday's debate was in estimates day time. The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again.
I suspect that it will also be possible to raise a number of those matters when we debate some parts—certainly Third Reading—of the Finance Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a moment ago, the 1980s record shows that in many of those years this country was at the top of the European Community

441
growth league. Industrial investment has grown substantially in recent years. I am confident that, as our policies on inflation work through, we shall be able to achieve the same record in the 1990s.
As for the hon. Gentleman's last point, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with it very effectively just now. It is interesting to note, in this regard as in many others, the way in which the Opposition react the moment anything happens that they do not like. They have produced the same answer yet again: they want to introduce legislation to control, interfere and direct.
Dr. Cunningham: That is what Government legislation does.
Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Gentleman is not talking about some form of interference, I do not understand the questions that he has been asking. The plain fact is that the Opposition's gut reaction is always to control, direct and interfere in industries that they do not really understand.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House faces the same difficulty as was experienced yesterday. Business questions are to be followed by an important statement, which will put considerable pressure on the debates on the steel industry and hospital waiting lists. I must therefore limit business questions; at 4.10, we shall move on to the statement on Hong Kong. I hope that we shall be able to spend half an hour on that before reaching the main debates. May I ask hon. Members who are not bursting to ask a business question to delay their questions until next week?
Sir Bernard Braine: In view of the current tragic events in Yugoslavia—the position may worsen, although we all hope that it will not—and the disturbing developments in the Soviet Union, notably the tragedy of the Baltic states, is not there a strong case for a debate on foreign affairs to be held before the House rises for the summer recess? Will my right hon. Friend consider that request?
Mr. MacGregor: I entirely understand my right hon. Friend's point, especially in view of the seriousness of the situation in Yugoslavia.
In view of the extreme pressures on our timetable, and the clear wish of hon. Members for the House to rise at a reasonable time so that they can be with their families, I do not think that a full day's debate will be possible. I can, however, give my right hon. Friend a clear undertaking. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made a statement on Yugoslavia in the House yesterday. I am sure that he will want to ensure that the House is kept fully informed of developments, as appropriate.
Mr. James Wallace: As a former Minister of Agriculture, the Leader of the House will be well aware of the profound implications for British agriculture of the recent proposals of Commissioner MacSharry for reform of the common agricultural policy. Is there any way in which Members of the House could have details of those, and is there a proposal for a statement or debate on them before the recess?
Picking up on the point that the Leader of the House made on last night's debate on employment, the Official Report shows that the official Opposition spokesman, the
442
hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), said that he would have liked to have told the House about the Labour party's policy but did not have time. Will the Leader of the House make time available? It would not take long.
Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's second point. It is significant that, on that issue and others, Labour Front-Bench Members somehow manage to run out of time when they reach the point of detailing some aspects of Labour's policies. There has been endless probing on one particular unemployment policy and that is the national minimum wage. There is clear concern in the House and the country about the damaging effects of that policy and we simply have not had answers about it.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point in relation to new proposals to reform the CAP, I have not yet seen details. There have been a number of leaks about what the proposals are likely to amount to. I shall certainly try to ensure that the House is informed of them when they are available. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there will be prolonged and detailed negotiations on the proposals and we need to consider when would be the most appropriate point for the House to express its views. The House should be in no doubt about the Government's view. Those aspects that we believe are not in the interests of the long-term competitiveness and viability of agriculture, and certainly not in the interests of British agriculture, will be strongly opposed by my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the defence White Paper is due to be published tomorrow. Although I understand that there cannot be a debate in the House next week or before the House rises, in view of the imminent butchery of the British Army, will he assure the House that when the matter is debated—after the recess—we shall be allowed a full two days' debate so that the whole House can let the Government know of its extreme reluctance to let those measures go through?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that the White Paper will be published tomorrow. However, in the light of all the changes that have taken place in the past year, the Army authorities are currently considering the proposals. My right hon. Friend will make a decision and, if appropriate, a statement on that matter before the House rises. As for the debate, we shall have to see what the overall timetable and programme look like.
Mr. David Winnick: Would it be possible for the Home Secretary to come to the House and make a statement as soon as possible on why it was decided to allow a meeting to take place today in London of right-wing extremists promoting racial hatred in defiance of existing legislation in Britain? Bearing in mind this island's position in the war against Nazism from 1939–45, why should a notorious fascist agitator like Le Pen, with all his poison, be allowed in?
Mr. MacGregor: If the published views of the person concerned are correct, our views and those of most people in this country are clear: we totally reject the views of Mr. Le Pen. However, to ban his entry would be an extreme step, given his position as an elected member of the European Parliament and the French National Assembly. There seems to be no evidence to justify exercising the powers to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Rev. Ian Paisley: May I once again draw the attention of the Leader of the House to two early-day motions, Nos. 518 and 556—
Mr. Speaker: Only one, please.
Rev. Ian Paisley: No. 518 is signed by over 200 hon. Members and concerns the imprisonment of four former members of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
[That this House views with concern the recent Newsnight exposè of serious flaws in the evidence which led to the conviction of four members of the Ulster Defence Regiment; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to have the case referred to the Court of Appeal.]
Is he aware that new evidence has come to light, that the Secretary of State has had it presented to him, and that the police have now announced that they have referred the matter of police inquiries at the original trial to the Director of Public Prosecutions? Will he arrange for a statement or a debate on the issue in the House before the House rises, or are the four young men to languish in prison during the recess without having their cases reheard?
Mr. MacGregor: As I understand the position, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has been asked to conduct further inquiries into a number of matters in relation to that case—the process will inevitably take some time. I do not know whether it would be appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make a statement at present. I am not sure what stage has been reached, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I should like to check, but it may be appropriate to raise the matter in the second of the debates on Wednesday.
Mr. Jim Sillars: How is it possible to justify setting up a Select Committee on sittings of the House for the convenience of 650 people down here, but not setting up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which is a necessity for 5 million people north of the border? Is the Leader of the House aware that we would like a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs so that we could bring the Prime Minister before it to be examined on a letter that he wrote on 4 June to the Dalzell shop stewards giving them support for investment, while simultaneously the Secretary of State for Scotland was sitting in Bob Scholey's office being told that Dalzell was to close? Was that duplicity or incompetence? Is not that precisely the sort of thing that we should examine?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows well the position on a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and why it has not been possible to make progress in this Parliament. He also knows that the Scottish Grand Committee has met a number of times recently to consider many Scottish measures, and that steel issues are the subject of a debate this afternoon, so there are plenty of opportunities to debate those matters.
The hon. Gentleman referred to 650 Members here, including himself and colleagues from Scotland. I think that there is a strong desire in all parts of the House for a Select Committee to be established, start operating and have its first meeting before we rise for the summer recess so that much of the preparatory work can be done. That is why I propose that we should deal with that issue next week.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I wonder whether the Leader of the House, as a Scotsman, will arrange for a debate on employment—not unemployment —in Scotland so that we can rejoice in the fact that there are tens of thousands more Scots employed in Scotland than there were when we came to office. They are doing a good job and making it a prosperous country—no thanks to the Labour party.
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. What we have seen in Scotland is a successful illustration of the restructuring of an economy from old industries to new ones, with a substantial emphasis on new industries of the future. As for my hon. and learned Friend's concluding remarks, in Scotland as elsewhere policies such as the national minimum wage would undoubtedly retard that programme.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is absolutely no reason for rejecting compensation for non-haemophiliacs who have been infected with HIV as a result of contaminated blood transfusions because they face exactly the same critical, fateful illness and suffer the same appalling consequences? As they are dying regularly, may we have an urgent debate on the matter next week?
Mr. MacGregor: No, I do not think that it will be possible to have a debate on that next week, but before long I shall arrange a debate in which many matters may be raised on the Floor of the House.
Mr. James Hill: Would my right hon. Friend kindly answer one question on Monday evening's business, the Road Traffic Bill? I understand that in the House of Lords a new clause has been introduced to the Bill which we shall be discussing on Monday evening. As my right hon. Friend will know, 192 Members of this House signed early-day motion 667, which called for the convictions of applicants for taxi drivers' licences to be examined beforehand.
[That this House notes with grave concern the findings of a survey by the National Association of Taxi and Private Hire Licensing and Enforcement Officers which revealed that in the 136 councils that replied 486 criminal records had actually been discovered in an 18 month period, none of which had initially been declared during the interviews which took place under the provisions of the Local Government ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 which required a district council not to grant a licence unless they are satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a taxi driver's licence; calls upon the Home Office, the Department of Transport and the Association of Chief Police Officers to co-operate in the release of past criminal records of all new applicants to the chairmen of district licensing committees in a confidential file, so as to prevent any recurrence of what occurred in Southampton where a licence was given to a convicted rapist; and calls for a similar system to be introduced as that practised in London where the Metropolitan Police have access to criminal records when determining applicants for Hackney carriage driver's licences to be expanded to all district councils in the United Kingdom.]
I congratulate the Government on that. I certainly look forward to Monday evening's debate in which, if I catch

445
Mr. Speaker's eye, I shall be delighted to take part. But is my right hon. Friend allowing enough time to discuss this praiseworthy Government move?
Mr. MacGregor: I hope that there will be time on Monday, because we shall take all the amendments then. As a result of the consultation promised when the Road Traffic Bill was considered in another place we shall introduce on Monday a new clause meeting the anxieties expressed in the early-day motion to which my hon. Friend referred. In doing so we are responding to pressure from colleagues in the House who have been making good points about the matter—not least my hon. Friend, who has raised it on many occasions on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Would the Leader of the House agree that, at a time of increasing recession and of small businesses going into bankruptcy, and at a time when, despite interest rates falling, bank rates charged to customers have not fallen, there should be a debate before the House rises for the summer on the actions of the four clearing banks as they affect small businesses and personal accounts? Is it not a disgrace that the banks seem to be increasing their profits while other people are being sent into bankruptcy and ruin?
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has discussed these matters with the chairmen of the clearing banks and will no doubt come to a conclusion on those discussions. I do not know whether it would be appropriate to discuss this matter at length in the House given that we have a large number of other issues to deal with, but I think that there may be one or two occasions in the near future when it will be possible to raise these matters. The Government's interest and involvement in them is well known.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Could my right hon. Friend expand on the answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames)? When the White Paper is published, many Conservative Members will want crtically to examine these drastic proposals in considerable detail. Will my right hon. Friend consider—unusually—allowing three days for this important debate, preferably before the House rises at the end of this month? Will he confirm that no administrative decisions will be taken in the Ministry of Defence that will pre-empt the decision of the House on that White Paper?
Mr. MacGregor: There is a distinction between the White Paper, which is the usual document on defence, and the points to which my hon. Friend refers, which concern the reorganisation of the Army and the reduction in its numbers as a result of the very different situation in Europe. That change is also reflected in the considerable reductions in numbers in the armed forces of all the other NATO countries.
In due course we shall have the usual debate on the White Paper. I have noted my hon. Friend's point on what is a separate issue, but I cannot promise him a debate before the House rises, although I shall consider that. The timetable is extremely crowded already if we are to rise at a reasonable date before we get well into the holiday period.
Mr. Greville Janner: Should not there be an early debate on the criteria applied by the Home Office when deciding whether to permit the entry into this
446
country of people with criminal records—[Interruption.] The former Home Secretary should not groan: this is a real problem. Does the Leader of the House know that Mr. Le Pen was recently convicted of incitement to racial violence and fined the equivalent of £90,000 for that? I know that he will agree that this man's views are odious, but why will he not also agree—if Le Pen is not to be thrown out of this country, as he should be, and forcibly returned to France, whence he should never have come—that the sooner this man returns to France the sooner we can all rejoice—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This should be a question to the Leader of the House—
Mr. Janner: I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he agreed with me that this man should be slung out—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a point for business questions.
Mr. MacGregor: I think that I have already dealt with the matter.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Did the Leader of the House note that in the excellent debate on Europe in Government time last week 49 hon. Members put their names down to speak and only a handful of non-Privy Councillors were called? Given the considerable importance of the subject and the huge majority of 154 with which the House sent the Prime Minister to Luxembourg, which must have helped him in his negotiations, will the Leader of the House take soundings to see whether we can have more time, preferably a couple of days, so that the foot soldiers may have their say? That would help, as did last week's debate, to emphasise the emptiness of Labour's policies on Europe.
Mr. MacGregor: I wish that I could exercise what used to be my magical skills in fitting the enormous amount of business into the time available while at the same time taking account of the feelings of many hon. Members about House rising times. That was one of the problems that we faced in last week's debate on Europe in which many hon. Members wished to speak. The Select Committee on Procedure is currently considering whether the 10-minute limit on speeches could be extended. That would be one way of allowing more hon. Members to speak in debates. I gave evidence to the Committee yesterday and look forward to its report, which I hope will be published shortly. It is always difficult to judge how many days should be allowed for a debate. Sometimes a long period is allocated and there are not enough speakers to fill it. My hon. Friend was right to say that last week's debate showed the overwhelming support for the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for the way in which they were conducting negotiations. A significant contribution to that debate was the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week by the Secretary of State for Health on the proposed closure of the baby unit at St. Luke's hospital in Bradford and on the £5,000 performance bonus to the manager of Bradford national health service trust for his performance in closing such facilities, cutting other services and sacking 300 people? Is it not outrageous and wrong that such an important facility as the baby unit, which serves a large

447
part of Bradford, South, should be in jeopardy as a result of the Government's policies being carried out by puppets on Bradford NHS trust?
Mr. MacGregor: Clearly, I am not in a position to comment on the hon. Gentleman's allegations, but I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: In respect of the package of measures to facilitate our work in the context of the European Community, will the Leader of the House explain what has happened to the one portion to complete the package—the envelopes that we are supposed to use to write to designated institutions? They seem to have been delayed and I think that they were promised in early June.
Mr. MacGregor: There does seem to be some hold-up on that. I do not have an up-to-date report, but I shall look into the matter. What we have agreed to do is clear.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement before the recess on the progress of the GATT talks? Is he aware that the scars of recession are clearly seen in the textile industry? There has been a 14 per cent. reduction in employment in the wool textile sector and massive redundancies and short-time working in many areas, including Bradford. Employers, trade unions and the whole industry want a clear commitment that the multi-fibre arrangement will be extended to the end of next year. Will the Leader of the House arrange for that assurance to be given as soon as possible?
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have discussed progress on GATT on many occasions. It is clearly our desire to seek a successful outcome to the current talks. We are well aware of the textile industry's wish to minimise uncertainty and of the need to agree arrangements about the future of international trade in textiles before the current M FA expires this year. The hon. Gentleman will know, because he has spoken about it before, that the European Community has proposed an interim extension of the current multi-fibre arrangement to the end of 1992, which is what the hon. Gentleman seeks. 1 am sure he will agree that in the longer term a successful GATT settlement encompassing strengthened rules and disciplines will best serve the textile industry's interests. I am not sure whether it would be appropriate to go beyond that and arrange for a further statement before the House rises. I hope that the proposal for an interim extension reassures the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Conal Gregory: May we have a statement next week about the aims of the Government's citizens charter so that the House may clearly understand that the Government wish to restore responsibility to individuals? We may then compare that fact with the Labour spectacle of a comrades charter which would effectively return responsibility to the union barons.
Mr. MacGregor: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. When we announce the full charter, I think that the contrast will be clear. I cannot say now exactly when a statement will be made.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The current issue of "Population Trends" of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys shows that there are 1 million people missing from the electoral register in England, Scotland and Wales. Many of the missing people are 18-year-olds. It would be a disgrace to go into a general election without there being a full discussion about the democratic and constitutional implications of the loss of so many people from the electoral register. Numbers have fallen during the operation of the poll tax. I have asked the question for the past two weeks and I hope that the Leader of the House will not tell me to find other methods of raising the issue. Indeed, I have raised it incessantly over the past three years. It is time that the Government faced the issue.
Mr. MacGregor: I have nothing to add to what I said last week. I repeat that it is open to the hon. Gentleman to use the many opportunities that present themselves in this place outside Government time that enable hon. Members to raise issues that concern them. I think that he might look in that direction rather than to raise the matter again next week during business questions. If the hon. Gentleman raises the matter with me next week, I assure him that I shall give him the same reply.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: In view of the Irish triumph thus far announced in relation to the talks yesterday, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that there will be a statement about the better government of Northern Ireland soon, as Northern Ireland is a constitutional slum? At the very least, let us have a statement that the truly scandalous procedure of, for instance, reforming the criminal law in Northern Ireland by the procedure of Order in Council will be stopped and that the proper rights of the minorities in Northern Ireland are dealt with by using the procedures of this place in a proper and orderly way.
Mr. MacGregor: There are a number of occasions when Northern Ireland matters can be raised. Indeed, there will be opportunities to raise them next week. I shall discuss the matter that my hon. Friend has raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made next week about the need for a public inquiry into the level of dioxin in milk in north Derbyshire and the Bolsover area? He promised last week to call upon the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement, but none has been forthcoming. I called for compensation for the farmers involved, who have suffered loss of livelihood, but the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has refused to allow it to be paid. Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend again to make a statement? Many in north Derbyshire are alarmed that two farms were involved and that 27 others were monitored, many of which had high dioxin levels as well.
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I gave a fairly full reply to his question last week. I shall take up the matter again with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Sir Robert McCrindle: In view of the immense irritation of my constituents on being requested to pay an additional community charge for no

449
better reason than that some of their fellow community charge payers evaded paying the charge last year, will my right hon. Friend ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment at least makes a statement in the near future to reassure us that local authorities are not taking the easy way out and surcharging law-abiding citizens while failing to exercise all the freedoms that are open to them to take non-payers to court?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that it is necessary for my right hon. Friend to make a separate statement on that point because we agree with the point that my hon. Friend has made. All charge payers are under a legal duty to pay the community charge and local authorities have strong powers to enforce payment. It is for local authorities to make full use of those powers. We have on many occasions in the House condemned those who do not pay their community charge.
Sir Russell Johnston rose—
Mr. Speaker: Was the hon. Gentleman present for the business statement?
Sir Russell Johnston: No, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: In that case, in fairness, because of the limit that I have imposed, I cannot call the hon. Gentleman.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: As we can find time next week to discuss such an esoteric yet mundane subject as boiler regulations from Europe, can we find a little time before the recess to talk about the domestic arrangements in this place, particularly the allocation of the new rooms which are coming on stream? If that is done in the usual way through the back door, by the old boy network or by Buggins' turn, a lot of boilers will be boiling over among my colleagues on the Conservative Benches.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has made her heated views on the matter known. The boiler regulations are being debated not on the Floor of the House but in Committee and I suspect that it might be better if the issue that she raises was pursued in other ways than in a debate on the Floor of the House. However, I am sure that her point will have been noted.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will ensure that those hon. Members who have not been called this week will be called reasonably early at business questions next week.

Hong Kong
4.5 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Hong Kong.
The British and Chinese Governments this morning issued a joint statement about the result of intensive discussions over the last few months on a new airport for Hong Kong. Sir Percy Cradock, the Prime Minister's personal adviser on foreign policy, visited Peking from 27 to 30 June for meetings with Chinese leaders and officials. Agreement was reached on the Hong Kong airport project, and the two sides initialled a Memorandum of Understanding. This will provide a firm basis for building a modern airport to serve the expanding needs of Hong Kong and the future special administrative region. The Chinese and British Governments confirm their wish to deepen their co-operation over Hong Kong within the framework of the joint declaration and their confidence in the future of the territory as an international economic, financial, and trading centre.
The statement was released this morning, because of the time difference with Hong Kong.
The text of the "Memorandum of Understanding concerning the Construction of the New Airport in Hong Kong and related Questions" has been placed in the Library of the House. The Chinese Government have invited the Prime Minister to visit China, and he looks forward to doing so soon, and to signing the understanding on that occasion. It will come into effect on signature. In the meantime, the Chinese Government have assured us that they will raise no objection to the Hong Kong Government proceeding with the most urgent work relating to the airport.
Much work remains to be done if we are to ensure a smooth transition in 1997 and to give the Hong Kong special administrative region the best possible basis for success after that. The Chinese Foreign Minister has agreed to the proposal which I made in April, that in future we should meet twice yearly to discuss Hong Kong and other questions. The meetings between the Governor and the senior Chinese official dealing with Hong Kong in Peking are also being put on a regular basis.
The conclusion of this understanding ends months of uncertainty about Hong Kong's airport project and settles an undoubtedly difficult problem in our relations with China. The Chinese Government have expressed in the clearest possible terms their support for the airport project and have undertaken to provide clear assurances to investors.
I am grateful for the invaluable advice which the Governor of Hong Kong and his advisers in the Executive Council have provided throughout the discussions. The Government believe that the outcome will be generally welcomed in the House, in Hong Kong and more widely. It should provide a fresh impetus to international confidence in the continuing success of Hong Kong.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The officials concerned deserve credit for negotiating a useful agreement which removes doubt over a project which is of great importance to the future of Hong Kong. It is also right that there should be proper consultation on other

451
issues which genuinely straddle the remaining period of British sovereignty over Hong Kong and the period beyond transfer of sovereignty to China.
It is, however, important that the concept of straddling should not be stretched to cover all other issues relevant to, Hong Kong over the next six years. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the agreement is the only one of its kind that has been made, or is under discussion, and that if other agreements are to be discussed, the House will be informed of them in advance?
Can the right hon. Gentleman also give an assurance that the appointment of judges to the Court of Appeal remains the sole prerogative of the United Kingdom Administration in Hong Kong? Will he further assure the House that a decision on the Bill of Rights and progress on democracy in Hong Kong will rest solely with the United Kingdom Government and the colonial administration?
It is right and sensible that the maximum possible cordial and constructive consultation should take place over Hong Kong with the Government of the People's Republic of China, but it is important to reassert—as the Government have constantly asserted—that until midnight on 30 June 1997 the sovereign power responsible for Hong Kong and its people will remain the United Kingdom Government, responsible to this Parliament.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's general tone. The Memorandum of Understanding, which is in the Library, sets out the total extent of our understanding with the Chinese Government in respect of the airport project. There are no secret annexes, papers, or agreements arising out of the airport negotiations.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the joint declaration provides for a Joint Liaison Group, which exists to thrash out practical problems that arise from time to time. There will be continuing discussion in that group on the various matters, such as questions of land sales, that regularly come before it.
In April, I was trying—and I hope that this can be achieved—to push forward the impetus of that work, so that a backlog of unresolved matters does not pile up in the way that occurred recently.
As for judges, no changes are envisaged to previous practice, which will be maintained as in the joint declaration.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise to the House for making a miscalculation over business questions, and ending them five minutes earlier than I stated that I would do. I will therefore give a free kick to those hon. Members who were not called during business questions, without any prejudice against them next Thursday.
Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State aware that those who are concerned with the welfare of the people of Hong Kong will wholeheartedly welcome the ability of my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to negotiate a satisfactory agreement?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that projects that cross 1977 are clearly covered in the 1984 agreement, but that we would be well advised to ensure, in everyone's interests,
452
that where such projects are initiated there is the fullest consultation not only in Hong Kong but with the Chinese Government as well?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best interests of the people of Hong Kong are served when there are good relations between the British Government and the Chinese Government? In that regard, will my right hon. Friend accept my assurance that those who are concerned about that aspect will wholly welcome the news that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to visit China, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have twice-yearly meetings with his counterpart?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that we are back on course, in co-operation with China, in carrying out the joint declaration. It states that, in the second half of the period up to 1997, there will be a need for closer co-operation, which will be intensified during that period. At the same time, the joint declaration recognises—as the Chinese Government have publicly reaffirmed—that, until then, the Hong Kong Government retain the authority to administer Hong Kong effectively. Those are the two principles, and if right hon. and hon. Members study the Memorandum of Understanding, they will see that they are thoroughly carried through in what has been agreed.
Sir Russell Johnston: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that it is a pleasure to be in a position to congratulate the Government on the outcome of the negotiations, and also Sir Percy Cradock, who played an important part in those negotiations? Will he convey to the Prime Minister the fact that many people feel that, when he goes to China, it would be desirable that he should tell the Chinese Government that there is considerable unease in Hong Kong about the future of free expression post-1997 and that the remarkable "two systems in one country" experiment will not work unless it is genuinely applied?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. When my right hon. Friend goes to the far east, he will discuss a whole range of matters, including many international matters, that arise because China is a permanent member of the Security Council, as well as a main player in the Pacific and in Asia. It will be a wide-ranging set of discussions. The Prime Minister and the Chinese leaders will undoubtedly range over the whole question of Hong Kong and the crucial importance of maintaining in practice as well as in words the principle of "two systems in one country."
Sir Peter Blaker: When our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visits China, may I express the hope that he will also visit Hong Kong? Such a visit would be extremely popular. My right hon. Friend and all the others concerned on the British side, including Sir Percy Cradock, deserve the greatest credit for their success in producing what appears to be a satisfactory outcome to this long-running problem. Is not the lesson of this story that patience and persistence are particularly important in discussions with the Government of China?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister certainly intends to visit Hong Kong when he visits the far east and Peking. I am grateful for the way in which the House has reacted so far to my announcement. There has been a bit of a

453
knee-jerk tendency—not in this House but elsewhere—to treat any kind of understanding and co-operation with China about Hong Kong as some form of surrender. No one who has followed these negotiations could say that that is the course which has been followed this time. We came quite near to the point when everybody knew that the airport project might have to be postponed. That was a statement of reality, but it seemed sensible—obviously to both sides—before that stage was reached to make a final effort to resolve the difficulties that had persisted. I am very glad that that has been done.
Dr. John Marek: Will the Foreign Secretary reflect on the fact that, although the announcement about the building of the airport is very welcome, it may have been bought at too high a price, in that the Chinese Government have not negotiated with or consulted the Government and, more importantly, the Legislative Council of Hong Kong? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, if the joint declaration is to mean anything—that Hong Kong will have a large measure of autonomy—the Legislative Council of Hong Kong must be involved in these important negotiations? If he does, will he refer the matter to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister so that, when he goes to China, he finds out whether consultation can take place between the special administrative region-to-be and the Poeple's Republic of China? That is the proper way to go forward.
Mr. Hurd: As regards the immediate agreement, I am glad to say that the members of the ExCo were fully consulted and fully agreed. The first reports coming in today of the public comments of the unofficial members of LegCo are overwhelmingly favourable, as are the comments from the business community. So far, so good. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the autumn of this year Hong Kong will take a step forward, in the sense that 18 members of the Legislative Council will be directly elected by universal suffrage.
That arrangement had some critics. However, it will become increasingly realised, as it is understood, that renewal of whatever the right figures are for 1995 will go through in 1997 and will be respected by the Chinese Government and carried through, therefore, into the special administrative region government. Although that does not go as far as the hon. Gentleman would like, it will be a considerable change and one that looks a good deal more solid than it would have been if we had gone for a higher figure this year, which would probably have been swept away in the middle of the decade.
Sir John Farr rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Sir John Farr: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his successful efforts with the Chinese Government and may I especially direct my congratulations not only to him, but to all his staff who obviously worked so hard in such a persevering way with such a very difficult problem? Having said that, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will be a realist and realise that there is still a chance that the Chinese Government may see matters in another way? At this time, after my right hon. Friend's successful negotiations so far, would it not be advisable, before the hand-over date, to bring in the United Nations to underwrite any agreement that has been reached?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is a great pleasure to see him back in the House and looking so well. We have conducted this matter in a thoroughly realistic spirit, and the negotiations have been long—perhaps for that reason. However, I am very satisfied with the ultimate result. I do not pretend to my hon. Friend—or to anyone else—that the agreement will ensure that there will be no more problems and anxieties between now and 1997, because the effort that has to be made to bring about two systems in one country is extraordinarily difficult. I am not sure that the formal involvement of the United Nations would be helpful, but everyone knows that the success of Hong Kong is due to its international character. Many people are keeping a close and helpful eye on how the arrangements fare.
Mr. Max Madden: Can the Foreign Secretary say when the new airport is expected to become operational'? Is he confident that British firms will gain a reasonable share of contracts for that giant project? Is he aware that the BBC has reported that there has been an agreement that a minimum level of reserves will be left in Hong Kong in 1997 under the agreement? Has there been any clarification of a recent report that a senior Chinese Government official said that the Chinese Government were not bound in any way by any agreements that have been made, including the Bill of Rights, and that, as far as the Chinese Government are concerned, 1997 is a clean slate? Has there been any urgent clarification of that worrying statement?
Mr. Hurd: Those were three very relevant questions. First, the Hong Kong Government can now go ahead with the first work on the airport. The full agreement comes into effect when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister signs it. The Hong Kong Government can go ahead with the immediately necessary work. I do not know exactly when the first runway will be operational. The original hope was that it would be operational before the transfer of power. That may still be so. However, those are now matters for the Hong Kong Government, and not for Her Majesty's Government. It is a fine project which has been carefully worked through, and it will be extremely impressive.
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Memorandum of Understanding, he will see the undertaking:
"On the basis of the above understandings the Hong Kong Government will plan its finances with the firm objective that the fiscal reserves on 30 June 1997 to be left for the use of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government will not be less than HK$25 billion. The present reserves are 72 billion Hong Kong dollars. It was thought by those who advised us that that was a reasonable undertaking."
The Chinese are, of course, bound by the joint declaration, and they have frequently emphasised that fact. In the future, they will be bound by the Basic Law. As regards human rights, they are bound by the undertakings that both those documents contain.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I will endeavour to call the hon. Members who are rising, provided that they ask brief questions. I should like to start the next debate at 4.45 pm at the latest, because there is great pressure to speak in it.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I call Mister—what does he call himself? Mr. Morris. I mean Mr. Norris.
Mr. Steve Norris: Not for the first time, Mr. Speaker, but never mind.
I add my congratulations to those which my right hon. Friend has already received, and congratulate his team, too. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, especially for the business community, the airport project has long been the litmus test of the warmth of the relationship with the People's Republic of China in general, and especially after 1997, and that the agreement therefore bodes well for business confidence not only in the colony but here, because if British firms are up to the mettle, they may be able to participate closely in the airport and other projects?
Mr. Hurd: The point has been raised before, and I did not answer it when the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) raised it. It is important that there should be a level playing field and that those responsible for letting the contracts, who do not of course include Her Majesty's Government, should give a fair wind and equitable treatment to the bids put in by British contractors. I very much hope that British contractors and consultants will bestir themselves. They cannot expect business to be handed to them on a plate, and I hope that all those with influence in the matter will make sure that they are awake to the opportunities for British industry that this huge project affords.
What my hon. Friend said about the feelings of business men has been made clear to me many times over the months. They wanted an agreement, not just because of the importance of the airport but because, as my hon. Friend said, they saw it as a sign of whether or not there was good co-operation. But it did not seem to us that that feeling among the business community, which is entirely understandable, should make us short-circuit the negotiations or produce a result that would in some way weaken or reduce the authority of the Government of Hong Kong between now and the middle of 1997. That would have created new difficulties and anxieties in other parts of Hong Kong. We had to reconcile the two aims, and I think that we have now done so.
Mr. Roger Sims: My right hon. Friend will know that both Hong Kong and China have many friend on both sides of the House who will have been given great pleasure by his announcement. Does the agreement to which he referred also cover proposals for substantial increases in port facilities, which were an integral part of the original port and airport development strategy proposals? That is particularly important because Hong Kong is the gateway to south China and south China would benefit greatly from increased harbour facilities.
Does my right hon. Friend also agree—
Mr. Speaker: Order: I think that one question is enough on a day as busy as this.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend will see an annexe to the memorandum which sets out the core programme projects —the projects that are already agreed without the need for further consultation. Other projects that straddle 1997 will be subject to the kind of consultation mentioned in the memorandum but will then be for decision as the joint declaration provides.
Sir Richard Luce: I welcome most warmly the progress on the airport. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and, through him, the Governor of Hong Kong, Sir David Wilson, on their robust leadership for the
456
people of Hong Kong? Does he agree that the most important way in which to secure the long-term future of Hong Kong is the proper, full and effective implementation of the 1984 joint declaration, which provides for the full preservation of the freedoms of the people of Hong Kong?
Mr. Hurd: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. I am very conscious of the fact that the Governor and his advisers, rather than the Government here, have been in the hot spot. It was very difficult to handle these matters successfully—with a free press, free communications and free debate in Hong Kong—but they have done so through difficult negotiations and I congratulate them.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that in the current world recession, with civil aviation doing particularly badly, the one area of growth is still the far east, where Hong Kong provides a vital civil aviation hub, and that, in terms of business confidence for the future, the go-ahead for the airport was vital?
On the question of British contractors getting work, does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there has been no shortage of British initiative in securing contracts to build the airport at Macau? I very much hope that British firms will be equally adventurous when it comes to securing contracts for the future building of Hong Kong's airport.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend puts it very well, and I entirely endorse what he says.
Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this very welcome settlement of the question of the new Hong Kong airport removes some significant obstacles to the development of our wider interests in the far east? As British Airways is keen to extend its service to Hong Kong and to Taiwan twice a week to compete with Cathay Pacific, KLM and with a subsidiary of Japanese Air Lines which already operate there, and as there is already contact between the Taiwanese and the Chinese, will my right hon. Friend facilitate our national flag carrier's application to operate there?
Mr. Hurd: I detect a difficulty in that question. I think that I had better not answer it off the cuff. Either I or my right hon. Friend will write to my hon. Friend.
Sir Giles Shaw: May I add to the congratulations on my right hon. Friend's achievement from patient diplomacy. Has there been a genuine change that leads him to believe that patience and diplomacy are now recognised by the other side as the proper way to proceed?
Mr. Hurd: This is an example of how patience overcomes obstacles. We can all draw lessons from the exchanges and difficulties and the way in which we have solved them.
Mr. Ian Taylor: As a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs when it reported on Hong Kong, I know exactly how important the project was, both politically and economically. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary deserves credit for the perseverance shown in ensuring that the deal is the right one. Will he also note that it was clearly shown in the joint declaration

457
—which I understand has the status of a treaty in the United Nations—that Britain has a responsibility to ensure that Hong Kong has economic prosperity and social stability by 1997, and that that means working in close co-operation with the Government of China to ensure that end? Is that now recognised by the Government of China, and do they recognise also their responsibilities to ensure that there is a stable economic system through 1997?
Mr. Hurd: I believe that those points are understood. We must now develop ways to intensify the co-operation. I believe that we now have a much better chance cif doing that without people feeling that in some way the authority of the Hong Kong Government between now and 1997 is being undermined.
Mr. George Walden: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not take it amiss if I say that, although I congratulate him on the achievement of this solution, one must say frankly that it is a deal that we would have preferred not to have been obliged to conclude. I believe that my right hon. Friend will agree that the House will inevitably face a conflict between Chinese power and British responsibility as 1997 approaches. I hope that he also agrees that the Chinese should not draw the conclusion from the agreement that they should seek to interfere further because that would damage the interests of Hong Kong and of mainland China.
Mr. Hurd: I do not think that they will draw that conclusion from the way the negotiations have progressed. We are faced with a huge project that required perhaps one quarter of its finance from private investment. It was simply a fact—we have to deal in facts—that that investment would not have been forthcoming unless there had been some Chinese acquiescence in the project. That is a fact. We have got more than some reluctant acquiescence: I would say that we have full-hearted approval of the project. Although it is certainly a deal, like most of these practical arrangements, it is a deal that is overwhelmingly in the interests of Hong Kong.
Sir John Wheeler: Will my right hon. Friend add my warm congratulations to the roll call of approval this afternoon? Does he accept that the agreement will do much to sustain the confidence of the people in the long-term future of Hong Kong, thus rooting them in their country and giving them the expectation of a reliable future?
Mr. Hurd: There will be prickly problems ahead, as my hon. Friend suggests. However, we can tackle them through the machinery now in place, which has been strengthened as a result of the Memorandum of Understanding. We can tackle them with a better chance than we had before of finding the right kind of answer.
Mr. Bowen Wells: I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on this understanding. What kind of an airport have we agreed to? Is it a much smaller airport? Does it have the port facilities, factory sites and highways that were originally envisaged? Did my right hon. Friend or anyone else consult the two legislative assemblies—the Executive Council and LegCo—on the issue before the understanding was reached?
Mr. Hurd: If my hon. Friend looks at the annexe to the Memorandum of Understanding, he will see the main projects of the core of the airport and that it is basically the project that was originally designed. It is a major airport and a major project, but the details and the decisions are not for the British Government; they are for the Hong Kong Government.
On my hon. Friend's second question, ExCo was fully consulted and unanimously approved. One cannot consult LegCo on confidential negotiations but, as I have said, it appeared from the tapes this morning that the initial reaction of Unofficial Members is favourable.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: In recognising the crucial importance of this agreement for confidence in Hong Kong and for the future economic growth of that area, does my right hon. Friend see that as further evidence of a greater identity of view and sense of co-operation between the permanent members of the Security Council —an identity of view that could be used to great effect in other parts of the world where there are regional problems, such as the middle east, the Horn of Africa and Cyprus?
Mr. Hurd: Like others, we have found that it is now much easier to discuss wider international matters with the Chinese Government than it used to be. There is plenty of scope for that—for example, the issue of arms control and the criteria for exports of weaponry are important subjects in which the Chinese have an important role to play.
Mr. John Browne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that, in keeping with the fine traditions of this House, under which you have a tricorn hat, wig and gown, it is in order for me to wear a hat, provided that I remove it when addressing you? Will you also confirm that my wearing it will not in any way curtail the democratic voice in the House of the people of Winchester?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, that is the democratic right of the hon. Gentleman. It is a long tradition. In centuries past, hon. Members frequently wore hats. The trouble is that if an hon. Member wears a hat, it is difficult for me to recognise him [Laughter]. That is the problem.

BILL PRESENTED
  BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD (FINANCE)
  Mr. Secretary Rifkind, supported by Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lilley, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. David Mellor and Mr. Roger Freeman, presented a Bill to alter the limits under section 42(6) of the Transport Act 1968 relating to the indebtedness of the British Railways Board and the limits on the amount of compensation payable in respect of certain public service obligations of the Board: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 207.]
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

COMPANIES HOUSE TRADING FUND
That the draft Companies House Trading Fund Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnicki.]
Question agreed to.

Estimates Day
[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
Estimates Day
  ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1991–92
    Class IV, Vote 1
    [Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Trade and Industry Committee of Session 1990–91 on British Steel—Ravenscraig and Clydesdale ( House of Commons Paper No. 63), and the Government Reply contained in the Second Special Report from the Trade and Industry Committee of Session 1990–91 (House of Commons Paper No. 473 ).]

  Steel Industry
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £81,404,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry on regional developments grants, regional selective assistance, selective assistance to individual industries and firms, UK contributions arising from its commitments under the International Natural Rubber Agreement, a strategic mineral stockpile, support for the film, aerospace and shipbuilding industries, assistance to redundant steel workers, and other payments.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to discuss the second estimate on the Order Paper—class XV, vote 3—
  That a further sum, not exceeding £421,137,000, and including a Supplementary Sum of £161,194,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Scottish Office Industry Department on Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise; on regional enterprise grants; on technical and vocational education; on the promotion of tourism; on financial assistance to the electricity industry and local enterprise companies; on residual expenditure for the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board; on roads and certain associated services, including the acquisition of land, lighting, road safety and related services; on assistance to local transport; on support for transport services in the highlands and islands; on piers and harbours, and on certain other transport services and grants; and on other sundry services in connection with trade and industry, etc.
  Mr. Jim Sillars: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell us whether the Secretary of State for Scotland will be present for the debate? The right hon. Gentleman has figured prominently north of the border on the steel debate in Scotland, not only in the Scottish press but also on Scottish television, which, unfortunately, is not beamed into your office. He has been at the centre of Government activity. Can you tell us whether he is at a garden party at Holyrood house this afternoon, or is likely to be able to attend the debate in which it is extremely important that he participates?
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, from my intervention during business questions, we do not have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which means that Scottish Members have only a limited ability rigorously to pursue and examine the Scottish Office and its performance. It would be a disgrace and an insult to the Scottish people if

  461
  the Secretary of State for Scotland was not present this afternoon to participate in the debate and to answer the highly pertinent questions that we want to put to him.
  Mr. Speaker: I have responsibility for what happens in the Chamber, but it would be placing a heavy responsibility upon the Speaker if he had to know what right hon. and hon. Members do when they are outside the House. I have no idea where the Secretary of State is.
  Sir Hector Monro: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not wrong for a party that operates by leaks and smears to criticise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland who is carrying out the full responsibilities of that position by attending Her Majesty the Queen at Holyrood palace?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not want to be drawn into that argument, but some functions are not by invitation, but by command.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing more that I can say about the matter.
  Dr. Bray: It was the responsibility of the Government to arrange the business for today, and they did so in the full knowledge that the Secretary of State for Scotland would not be present. Was it a ruse to excuse him from the debate?
  Mr. Speaker: How on earth would I know something like that?
  4.40 pm
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I am sure that the whole House hoped that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry—my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren)—could have been here today, as he chaired the Committee during its inquiry into the closure of the hot wide strip mill at Ravenscraig. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend has not been able to attend the House for a month because of ill health, although we hope that he will be back shortly. The members of the Committee called me to the Chair as acting Chairman in my hon. Friend's absence, and it is in that capacity that I sought to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
  The history of the Select Committee's interest in the steel industry goes back to the original Nationalised Industries Committee, which used to take a great interest, on behalf of the House, in many factors—both internal as well as external—affecting the health of the steel industry in the United Kingdom. When the departmentally-related Select Committees were established in 1980 in their present form, the then nationalised British Steel fell within the remit of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
  The industry does not function in unfettered competition; it is subject to the articles and supervision of the European Coal and Steel Community, which has its own competition regulations. Technically, therefore, the Directorate-General of the European Commission does not have formal jurisdiction over the steel industry within the EEC. It was necessary to mention that because I shall shortly be referring to a document that has emanated from the Directorate-General for Competition in the EEC.
  With the worldwide collapse—not just in Europe and the United Kingdom—in demand for steel products of
  462
  every sort, the European Coal and Steel Community has made many provisions that differ from the strict competition requirements of the EEC, and require us to avoid gross over-capacity and to attempt to have, within the countries of the EEC, orderly industries rather than industries in competitive chaos.
  On 16 May 1990, British Steel announced the planned closure of the hot wide strip mill at Ravenscraig, with the loss of 770 jobs. There was a further announcement on 8 November 1990 of plans to close the steel works and tube mill at Clydesdale early in 1991, with the loss of a further 1,200 jobs. It was in that context, rather than just as an inquiry that was not especially timely, that the Select Committee focused its attention not only on the internal position within British Steel—now, of course, in the private sector—as a whole, but on certain concentrated aspects.
  The first was the effect on the local and more widespread economy of Scotland, in which the plant is located. For the very reason that was mentioned earlier—that there is no Select Committee considering Scottish affairs—the Trade and Industry Select Committee felt obliged to mount an inquiry into the consequences of the projected closure on the local and more widespread economy of Scotland—which, of course, is outside the fiduciary duties of the directors of British Steel, but is wholly within the remit of the Select Committee.
  Secondly, we were concerned about the employment implications for those who had previously been employed in Ravenscraig and Clydesdale. That matter can fall within the fiduciary responsibilities of the directors of a public company. It is not a requirement, but modern company law enables it to do so. Therefore, it is not an irrelevant consideration either for the directors of British Steel or for the Select Committee.
  We needed to examine the reasons why British Steel took that management decision and what alternative arrangements could have been made, given the market—as British Steel saw it—for the products produced both in Ravenscraig and Clydesdale and also in British Steel plants elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We were also concerned whether reduction in capacity at those plants in Scotland would produce a restriction in effective competition, which would enable British Steel to increase its prices in a way that it would not otherwise have been able to do. That is a fair statement of the framework in which the Committee conducted its investigations, which were not wholly located in Committee Room 15 at the Palace of Westminster.
  The Committee visited not only Ravenscraig, but the British Steel site in south Wales which, in the plan given in evidence to the Committee by British Steel, was where it intended to concentrate production after the closure of Ravenscraig. We visited both sites, rather than simply taking verbal and written evidence at the House of Commons. Of course, it is often the case that the taking of evidence itself is an important service to the House of Commons, and the Select Committee on Procedure has often emphasised that. Sometimes, it is not the actual production of the report that is crucial, but the illumination of relevant factors through the taking of evidence in public—[Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) have a problem?
  Mr. Michael Brown: I apologise to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The collecting of written evidence, which is released both to the House and in the public sphere, is of great service to the House. I mention that because the hot wide strip mill at Ravenscraig was closed on 12 February 1991, whereas the Committee did not conclude its report until a week later, on 20 February. That was not due to any lassitude by the Committee, but because there was an exchange of correspondence with the EEC. We were awaiting evidence from that source, as well as taking evidence in the United Kingdom. We were not masters of our timetable.
  The production of the report, although it came nine days after the actual closure, did not mean that the inquiry and the production of the report were a waste of time. They illuminated issues that were and are of great importance. I shall not attempt to summarise the entire report; I trust that hon. Members who are interested in the subject will have read it for themselves. I am glad to see that many hon. Members are present for this debate who were not members of the Select Committee.
  The Procedure Committee, in its recent report on our Select Committees, emphasised that debates on Select Committee reports were not just events produced for the benefit of the members of the Select Committees concerned. The Committee reports to the House, and it is to enable the House to debate the issue constructively that is the prime service of the Select Committee.
  Let me turn to the conclusions on page xvii—
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Before he does so, will the hon. Gentleman note the comment in paragraph 20, on page ix—
  "The Clydesdale and Imperial Works have been losing money for the last six years"?
  Special factors apply to Clydesdale; I am sure that my hon. Friends will mention them. It is not true, however, that Imperial—which is quite separate—was losing money. Is it not rather a pity that the report did not give the details?
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That may well be a point that the hon. Gentleman will wish to develop if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I suspect that, in the time allocated for this debate—and there are two debates this afternoon—the House would not wish me to monopolise more than a comparatively limited part of it.
  I want in particular to refer to No. 2 in our summary of recommendations, which states:
  "We recommend that the competition case on the closure of Ravenscraig should be further examined by the relevant authorities in the European Community."
  We said that for a number of reasons, to some of which I have already alluded, because of the general supervision of the Competition Commission over the whole of productive industry. There are many other parts of productive industry in this country potentially affected by changes in the supply of steel which do not themselves come under the competition provisions of the European Coal and Steel Community. That is why we were interested in learning the views of the Competition Commission as well as those of the European Coal and Steel Community.
  So was the Scottish Steel Campaign Trust, which wrote to the competition directorate of the European Commission. The Committee was sent a copy of the official reply from the Community, and it is to that that I now wish to refer. Before this debate, I sent the Clerk of
  464
  the House, for laying on the Table, copies of this correspondence, because it is never fair to the House just to quote selected portions of a document unless other hon. Members can have the opportunity of reading the whole of it for themselves.
  The Competition Commission's initial paragraph makes clear its lack of actual jurisdiction. It says:
  "You will, of course, be aware that the Commission is under no legal obligation under the ECSC competition rules to state its position or to examine complaints such as the one you have made. Nevertheless in view of your members' responsibilities as public authorities and as representatives of the workers, the Commission is willing, as a matter of courtesy, to indicate how it sees the case. This letter deals with your complaint dated 26 October 1990 concerning the closure of the hot wide strip mill at British Steel's Ravenscraig works."
  When we now come on to what was actually said in the letter—which extends to 59 paragraphs—there are, I think, five which draw together the strands of its conclusions. I start with paragraph 48, which states:
  "The complainant has alleged that the failure to make the mill available to competitors, or to mothball it until such time as the steelworks is closed and then to offer the entire package to a competitor, is an abuse of a dominant position. This could be true only in very exceptional circumstances if this was the only practicable way that a competitor could enter the market."
  According to paragraph 49,
  "This is not so. Many competitors are already present in the United Kingdom either as direct sellers or as stockholders. These competitors can easily increase production or sales at any time. As they are already present on the market they face no barriers to entry."
  That was the focus of the response from the Competition Commission on the question of whether British Steel should have offered the plant, which was redundant for its purposes, for sale to other competitors, and whether it was, in a sense, put in a position to manipulate market prices by its reduction in local capacity.
  Paragraph 52 states:
  "The refusal by BS to offer the Ravenscraig mill for sale or to mothball it pending an offer to sell it with the steelworks is not therefore an abuse of dominant position."
  Let me turn now to paragraph 59, the last paragraph before the conclusion, which says:
  "The complainants claim that the closure of the hot wide strip mill will inevitably lead to the closure of the remainder of the Ravenscraig complex and of the Dalzell plate mill. The Commission takes no view on this contention, but considers that even if this total closure comes about it is unlikely that there would be an infringement of the ECSC competition rules, and in particular of Article 66(7) ECSC, as BS is not dominant in the relevant market."
  Lastly, the conclusion—paragraph 60—states:
  "The Commission regrets to inform you that it can see no grounds on which to sustain your complaint."
  I read that out for two reasons: first, because that response was not in the possession of the Committee when we finalised our report, and secondly because it is clearly relevant to the conclusions that the Committee drew in the absence of that information.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman's views on the further reference to the European authorities is well known following the vote that took place in the Committee. Does he not recall, however, that, in his evidence to the Committee, Sir Robert Scholey, British Steel's chairman, claimed that the European

  465
  Commission would exert some blocking power on the sale of the Scottish steel industry? He said, in fact, that "it would have them jumping out of their skins".
  Is it not the case that both the letter from the Commission and the Committee's own further investigations proved that that was not true, and that, whether knowingly or unknowingly, the chairman of British Steel had attempted to mislead the Select Committee?
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The words with which I started my quotation give the Commission's own views on that. Those words can speak for themselves; they do not need me to speak for them. I am not authorised to speak on behalf of the European Commission. Nor am I authorised to speak on behalf of British Steel. But I do think that this letter makes an additional contribution to our debate today.
  The other paper which is relevant to today's debate is, of course, the Government's response to our recommendations, which was published on 22 May by this Committee. We published reports and observations by the Government on the second report of the Trade and Industry Committee. So I think that that completes the papers which the House needs to consider in order to form an important judgment on this now irreversible series of events.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Before I call another hon. Member, I should say that Mr. Speaker has asked me to make a strong plea for short speeches. This debate must finish at 7.36 pm and a tremendous number of hon. Members wish to speak.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: May I start by congratulating and thanking the Select Committee for its efforts and careful consideration of the issues. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) spoke with a certain precision and scholarly niceness, but that is far removed from the passion and red blood of the arguments in Scotland, where the steel industry's fate has caused great anxiety and understandable and justified bitterness.
  I admire those who have conducted and maintained the campaign tirelessly, with impletion and dignity over a period of literally years. The work force and the stewards who represent them in Clydesdale, Ravenscraig and Dalzell have never flinched and have maintained their position with immense courage, determination and effectiveness.
  I greatly regret that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not in the House today. It is now well known—almost notoriously well known—that he is in Edinburgh at a royal garden party. I recognise that he would normally be expected to keep such an engagement. However, the circumstances are exceptional and he should be here, accounting to hon. Members and the people of Scotland for his actions or lack of them.
  Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that the question of the whereabouts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was drawn to Mr. Speaker's attention at the beginning of this debate. Mr. Speaker said that if the Secretary of State was attending an engagement at the Palace or Holyrood house, it was a command from the sovereign.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is wasting precious time with these points of order. That is a debating point and has nothing whatever to do with the Chair.
  Mr. Dewar: On Monday this week, Lanarkshire and Scotland suffered a severe blow as a result of the Dalzell announcement. There are questions about the extent: to which the Secretary of State was privy to British Steel's decision. There are severe doubts about the Government's commitment to rebuilding Lanarkshire's economy and whether promises of additional funding have been made in good faith. In his own interests, the Secretary of State should have been here to answer the charges that are being widely made about his competence and integrity.
  On 26 June, the Secretary of State wrote to me refusing a meeting to discuss the steel industry and saying that there would be an opportunity, during the proposed estimates debate on steel, for Members to express their views on the Government's position in relation to the Scottish steel industry. I shall certainly make use of that opportunity, but, in the light of that letter, the Secretary of State's absence is extraordinary. He might have thought that he had a duty to listen and to learn. His behaviour can only reinforce fears about his ability to grasp the scale of Scotland's present problems.
  It is a disease that has afflicted not only the Scottish Office. Although it is sad that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not present, it is compounded by the fact that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is not here either. After all, he is the Minister with direct responsibility for steel and his Department is very much involved in the estimates that we are discussing. Not only is neither Secretary of State present, but not even the Minister responsible for steel in the Department of Trade and Industry is here. It seems as though almost every Minister who should be here is absent without leave, which may be a measure of the embarrassment that they feel about what has been happening and the recent tragedies that have unfolded in the Scottish steel industry.
  The tragedy has taken the form of a vendetta, ruthlessly conducted over many years by British Steel's top management. The evidence of malice has been persistent and unmistakable. The plants in many areas have had excellent records of productivity and the work force has shown a commitment to quality control. If, in some parts, there has been a shading of that performance in recent months, it is because of the persistent refusal in the past decade to give the plants and work force the tools and investment to carry out the job.
  Some time ago, British Steel decided to concentrate on an even smaller number of sites. Scotland is not the only part of the United Kingdom to suffer and there will be other victims in the future if present policies are pursued. The obsession was reinforced by privatisation, and wider considerations of public interest were abandoned along with the work force which, in Clydesdale, Ravenscraig and Dalzell, have served the industry so well. Employees became no more than a disposable asset. Valid and well-founded technical and financial arguments were swept away, soon to be followed by the plants, simply because they did not fit into Sir Robert Scholey's grand design.
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman commit a possible future Labour Government to keeping the plants at Dalzell and Scunthorpe open? Would they intervene to keep them open? Yes or no?
  Mr. Dewar: The answer is simply that the Government's sin is not that they have failed but that they have not tried. We have seen a dereliction of duty by the Government over a considerable period. For example, I gather from an interview of the Under-Secretary of State in The Scotsman today that British Steel is prepared to clear the sites of its former plants only in the most superficial fashion. It refuses even to deal with the central problems of subsidence and contamination. The cost to the public purse has been estimated at over £50 million. We have a company that is not afraid to act as an industrial vandal and the Government have stood by and watched it happen. They do not care that their policies add insult to injury. The Scottish Office has, once again, been left lamenting and empty handed.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): If the hon. Gentleman had been Secretary of State for Scotland for the past year, precisely what would he have done differently?
  Mr. Dewar: We shall be saying a good deal about that. On the specific point with which I am dealing, I would have made it clear to British Steel that it could not simply nod an apology as it left and that it could not walk away without even clearing and preparing the sites that it was abandoning. I would not then lament the fact in a public interview in The Scotsman but apparently do nothing about it. I would not remain a member of a Government who, when hon. Members came to the Department of Trade and Industry worried about the loss of thousands of jobs, told those hon. Members that they were doing nothing and would do nothing because the Scottish Office had asked them to do nothing.
  As long as I am in politics I shall remember the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who is responsible for the steel industry getting the name "Ravenscraig" wrong. Perhaps it was an unfortunate slip of the tongue. He then told me that he would not be involved and saw no need to be involved. The difference between a Government who are committed to trying to save those jobs and who believe that the industry has a future and are prepared to use the influence, leverage and pressure of the Government to do something about it, and a Government who make a virtue of the fact that they are doing nothing is the difference between success and failure, between betrayal and a Government who know their duty.
  On Monday, British Steel attempted to pronounce the death sentence on Dalzell, moving ruthlessly on from the destruction of Clydesdale and Ravenscraig. The timing and form of the announcement is of some interest. The Minister owes us an account of the Government's involvement because it has been alleged that, on 4 June, British Steel told Ministers that that would happen. The Government therefore collaborated with the company. If that is true, they were simply the passive recipients of unwelcome news, interested only in minimising the embarrassment to the Government and distancing the Secretary of State as best they could from the coming disaster.
  468
  It has already been mentioned by other hon. Members that the Prime Minister was writing to the Dalzell stewards on 4 June—the very day—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a serious debate, let us hear what the Opposition have to say about it.
  Mr. Dewar: I hope that my colleagues will not be offended, but I must confess that the comings and goings of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) are of limited interest.
  Mr. Oppenheim: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely it is reasonable for an hon. Member to walk out of the Chamber when, patently, he has not received an answer from the Opposition spokesman.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. There has been no breach of Standing Orders.
  Mr. Dewar: Let me assure the hon. Member for Amber Valley—who I believe has finally left us—that I was making the point that I did not care whether he was here or there—he is usually both.
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: Cheap.
  Mr. Dewar: The Whip is mouthing "Cheap" at me. I think that he recognised the description—that is probably the trouble.
  I should like to return to the serious points. The Prime Minister was writing to the Dalzell shop stewards on 4 June, the very day on which we understand—it is up to the Minister to confirm it—that the Secretary of State for Scotland learnt of the decision to close the plant. Many people will wonder if the letter was any more than a defensive device, written in the knowledge of what was coming. The Secretary of State is shaking his head—
  Mr. Allan Stewart: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary.
  Mr. Dewar: Ah, well, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is shaking his head. He may be able to clear this up—we shall wait. I hope that he will give us some details. I recognise that his job is complex and difficult.
  I was interested to read of the important concession made in an article in today's edition of The Scotsman, to which I have already referred. In it, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, talking of the industrial mix of Scotland, said:
  "In addition, there are situations when the Scottish Office has to know what is happening and liaise with Whitehall—an example of that would be Rosyth."
  I am glad that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and, no doubt, the Secretary of State recognise that there are occasions when the Scottish Office has to know what is happening. I should have hoped that the Scottish Office would like to know what is happening most of the time, but that may be an optimistic assumption to make of the present incumbents.
  There are also rumours circulating about imminent announcements involving Rosyth. If they are as advertised, any words about being in touch with what is happening and liaising with Whitehall in that connection

  469
  may come back to haunt the Parliamentary Under-Secretary unless he can deliver in a way in which he has signally failed to do in the past for the steel industry in Scotland.
  On 14 June, BBC Radio Scotland reported that the decision to close Dalzell had been taken and Ministers had been told of it. That was followed by fierce denials all round. It is typical. Throughout the proceedings, it seems that the Government have been more interested in saving face and manipulating the timetable for their own political purposes than in finding solutions to existing problems. That shabby episode does little for the confidence of those who hope for a little frankness in public affairs.
  I now come to the substantive points. I believe that the Government lost the battle with British Steel at an early stage. It goes back to the days when the now Secretary of State for Transport was Secretary of State for Scotland and complacently told Scottish Members that privatisation was the best way of ensuring a secure future for the industry. The message was that British Steel always knew best.
  The Government have never put British Steel under effective pressure. They have not acted with decision in the public interest. The Department of Trade and Industry did nothing and said nothing, claiming as its alibi that it had not been asked to help by the Scottish Office. We were left with the impression that the Secretary of State for Scotland was licensed by the Cabinet to make noises and protests as long as they were ineffective and as long as he did not embarrass his colleagues by asking them to join the fight. That is not the sort of service that we expect from a Government of the United Kingdom, and it is certainly not the sort of service and commitment that Scotland expects from a Secretary of State for Scotland.
  There was a complacent acceptance of guarantees at the time of privatisation which turned out to be worthless. There has been a persistent refusal to recognise that the existence of the golden share—I concede that it has a limited remit—meant that the industry had a special standing and the Government had a special relationship with, and responsibility for, its fate.
  The Secretary of State's casual admission to the Select Committee of the interests of prospective purchasers and the subsequent failure to act to allow them to pursue those interests seems lamentable. I stress that twice in recent months my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and I have made requests to both the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Scotland for meetings to discuss the future of the Scottish steel industry and the aftermath of the announcements that had then been made. On both occasions, both Secretaries of State replied that they would not have meetings with their opposite numbers because there was nothing to discuss.
  I cannot remember any time in my career when, with a major industrial issue unresolved, with jobs and investments at stake and anxieties being expressed, a Secretary of State has refused point blank to discuss the matter or meet his opposite number because he felt that it was not necessary. Everyone in Scotland thought that the meeting was necessary. I do not belittle the fact that the problems are difficult to solve, particularly post-privatisation, but to say that there is no place for, and no point in, a meeting seems to be an insulting wish to save ministerial embarrassment at the expense of public interest and the parliamentary process.
  470
  What of the future? Steel making at Ravenscraig will continue at least until 1994. Plates will be produced at Dalzell until 1994 or perhaps as late as 1996. Are Ministers prepared to stand aside as spectators of the sad, dying decline of a great industry? The Government should be prepared, and Labour would be prepared, to look at new technology and to examine such options as thin slab casting. Ministers should be prepared to explore and push the Arthur D. Little options, not simply nod to them in passing. As I understood it, that was the view of the Select Committee, expressed in its conclusions and in the text of its report.
  The Labour party has never accepted that the one plate mill strategy was inevitably right and the only way forward for the industry. What has happened this week fully justified our scepticism. I believe that, even now, there is a case for further investment in Dalzell and the introduction of accelerated cooling techniques. A strong financial case has been made for that investment, and the Government should not accept, as the Prime Minister has said, that the decision will be for British Steel to take on commercial considerations alone. There is a wider public interest which a wise Government would not ignore.
  In its annual report, British Steel made it clear that a final decision on the Teesside investment would be taken only when the budget had been agreed and optimum financial and technical terms had been finalised. The stewards at Dalzell are rightly determined to argue the commercial case, despite British Steel's record of embittering indifference. Above all, Ministers should be pressing British Steel to offer their existing plants in Scotland for sale in the open market. The Government preach the gospel of competition, the spirit—
  Mr. Richard Holt: It is the first time that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned Teesside, and there are no Labour Members representing Teesside present. Would a Labour Government stop investment in Teesside and so stop the joy and jobs which it has brought to my constituents in that hard-pressed part of the north-east of England simply because the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) wears a Scottish hat and is not concerned with the whole country?
  Mr. Dewar: No, and if the hon. Gentleman had listened to my arguments he would understand why. We welcome investment in the industry, and modernisation. Throughout the long, hard and sometimes depressing days of the campaign, the steel workers in Scotland have never cavilled about development in south Wales or the north of England or anywhere else. We still want a modern, competitive industry. What I have said—and I hold to this—is that we have consistently argued that the idea that one can concentrate on not just five integrated sites, but reduce it to two or three at the most—so that one concentrates and concentrates still further—is not necessarily the right formula for the industry. Of course, I welcome investment in Teesside, but I do not believe that that excludes investment in Dalzell or other parts of the industry.
  To return to my point about sale on the open market, the Secretary of State told the Select Committee that there had been "approaches from interested parties", but that they did not have the information to pursue matters. In that case the Government should have made sure that they were in a position at least to make their approach and to consider whether they could get to the stage of an offer. If

  471
  British Steel is so certain that there is no case for a strip mill at Ravenscraig of for a plate mill at Dalzell, what risk does it run in testing the market? The only explanation is that it wants to knock out the capacity. I should not have thought that an attractive argument to a Government who preach the doctrine of competition.
  What about the future? There have been many easy promises to rebuild Lanarkshire's industrial base. It is, of course, easier to make the commitment than to carry it out. Even if the Government have failed the steel industry it is important that people be convinced that a new and diversified economy is the long-term aim of the Government and that in the short term immediate steps are being taken to lay the foundations for that. Precious little, however, has happened so far. A working party has been set up. I have been told, I do not know whether accurately, that its chairman opened the first meeting by saying that the group should base its plans on the assumption that there would be no additional finance. Certainly, there does not seem to be enough money to measure up to the scale of the crisis.
  The Prime Minister told the party faithful at Perth on 10 May:
  "For too long the outdated face of Scottish industry turned opportunity away. Now people and businesses are voting for Scotland with their cash and with their feet."
  The Prime Minister's message has obviously not got through to Sir Robert Scholey. The Prime Minister did, however, recognise in the same speech
  "that for all the progress since 1979, some parts of Scotland have managed these changes less easily than others. Lanarkshire is one."
  I think that that was a delicate reference to unemployment and to the closure of the steel industry.
  The upshot was the offer of £15 million to green over the worst areas of industrial decline. There was something a touch patronising about that. The Labour party is not interested in greening over the memories of industrial decline. We want to put in its place viable industries that provide jobs and a high technology base for a work force with skill, commitment and a wish to earn their way.
  Where is the £15 million? I asked the economic section of the Library to look into the matter. It told me that the money was not in the June supplementary estimates—so far, it appears to have had life only on the page of a party conference speech. That is rather curious; after all, the speech was made at the beginning of May and the estimates were for June. If the Government had been genuinely committed to finding even that limited additional money for Lanarkshire I should have expected it to appear in the June supplementary estimates. It may just be a little late and be on its way, but I should like an unambiguous answer from the Under-Secretary.
  The Government have responded to the package unveiled by the working party, but I must protest that the small print makes depressing reading. The working party spoke of the need for spending between £200 million and £300 million and it required between £85 million and £110 million for immediate projects. Measured against that, the Government's response adds up to next to nothing.
  Of course, large figures are bandied about, but most of them come from programmes already in being. The commissioning of a much-needed general hospital at
  472
  Wishaw—awaited for many years—is hardly a tailor-made response to the crisis in the steel industry. The Government's efforts begin to fall apart on closer inspection. The A8 upgrading from Baillieston to Newhouse, on the stocks for years, is only to be the object of a further design study. At second glance that looks like a way of putting off the project. The additional money that the regional council will have to find as its contribution will merely be a factor for consideration in next year's revenue grant settlement.
  The central plan for enterprise zone status is only to be considered by the Government
  "against the background of its existing policy on Enterprise Zones and the cost which might be involved."
  Asked to explain what that meant the Minister protested:
  "It means exactly what it says."
  That is the problem. It sounds like a further recipe for muddle and delay and it will probably end with a victory for the Treasury.
  We are all uncomfortably aware that Scotland is not bouncing back towards economic recovery. We are plunging into recession. The Minister should look at the report just published by Cambridge Econometrics which gloomily states that the north-south divide is a permanent feature of the economic landscape and that when recovery ultimately comes growth in Scotland will be lower than in any other part of Britain.
  Against that background the Government's performance is unconvincing and inadequate. The truly damaging charge is not that they have failed but that they did not even try. There has been no commitment, and no willingness to take the fight to British Steel, to challenge, to harry, to use with imagination the power and influence of the Government. The dreary story of political failure is bad enough. Far worse are its implications for the future of Lanarkshire and of its people, who have worked and delivered honourably in often difficult economic conditions over the years.
  The Government's response does not begin to measure up to these people's needs, to reflect the respect that they have earned or to repay the debt of honour owed. British Steel has treated the industry and the people shabbily. That is a disgrace and a disappointment. It would be a tragedy in the fullest sense of the word if the Government now abdicated their responsibility.
  5.25 pm
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I follow the speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) with some pleasure and with an apology. The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted a viable high-technology-based industry in Scotland. When I have finished speaking—I apologise for this—I shall have to leave for a meeting in which a huge investment in just such a base in Scotland is being prepared and discussed. We do not need any lessons, therefore, from Labour Members—
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: A champagne bottling plant?
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am afraid that Highland Spring, based in my constituency, contains no wine—and it was I who brought the company there, since when it has employed a great many people.
  When discussing the steel industry in Scotland we should remember how Ravenscraig came about in the first

  473
  place. It was a political bribe to Scotland. I do not care what colour of Government put it there but it should have been a plant in Wales. The Government refused that idea and the Department responsible for industry at the time suggested throwing a sop to each Cerberus and giving Scotland a steel industry—in the wrong place, away from deep water, near which it would have been viable. Thus was Ravenscraig born. Like all similar industrial-political bribes for Scotland, it has paid a terrible penalty. Nevertheless, it became a source of employment, not just in the industry but for suppliers and shops. It sucked in people from England. So did Linwood which was a ridiculous industrial investment foisted on the place by a Government trying to buy votes in Scotland. Then there was Alcan—it was in the wrong place; Fort William pulp mill—also in the wrong place; likewise Bathgate.
  Predictably, all these plants failed because they were installed not for commercial or industrial reasons but for political reasons. They sucked in enormous numbers of people, not from Scotland but from other parts of the United Kingdom. When the collapse came, created communities which were viable only on the basis of this great industrial investment were left with nothing to do. Ravenscraig was one of the most tragic of those. Hunterston is in deep water but it is in mothballs and shut. The most important factor in the production of steel is the cost of transport. Most viable steelworks are on the coast and that is why they remain viable.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: No, I shall give way later.
  Mr. Campbell: It is on this point.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I did not think that Opposition Members understood my point.
  We have a responsibility to be brave and it was cheap and stupid for the hon. Member for Garscadden to suggest that the Secretary of State was dependent on a sovereign. I am willing to bet 1,000p to a dime or a Scots penny that if roles had been the other way round the hon. Member for Garscadden would have been a collier, and would certainly not have been at Ravenscraig.
  False political industrial developments should not be countenanced. There are tens of thousands more people employed in Scotland than when we took office, and that message should go out from the House.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Scotland's population is falling.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: That means that an even greater percentage of the population is employed. It is falling because the Liberal Democrats are not frightfully good at conceding anything. Scotland has 40 per cent. of inward investment and people there enjoy a quality of life better than that in any other part of Europe. That is why new companies can be persuaded to come to Scotland.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: This is a music hall turn.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: There is nothing wrong with the music hall. Greenock used to have music halls before the hon. Member represented it, but he is so boring that they have all closed.
  474
  Socialism did not invent the steel industry; it was invented by private enterprise. We cannot have industrial museums nor can we say that industries should be maintained simply because they have always been there. That is quite the wrong approach. The correct approach is new investment and new concepts. I am informed by those who claim to know that more than 80 per cent. of everything that hon. Members will use by the end of the century has still to be invented. That is the market that we must seek. Industrial dinosaurs must not be kept in being. Let us be inspired about getting investment into Scotland. I am trying to do something about that, and I hope that the Opposition are doing the same.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Stan Crowther: I shall not attempt to comment on the amusing and rather quaint speech by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). It is clear that he did not read our Select Committee report.
  We should bear in mind that we are debating not only the steel industry in Scotland, but the industry throughout the United Kingdom. This is an opportune time to do that just three days after British Steel reported the most miserable year in living memory, a year in which output was significantly reduced and profits were down by 65 per cent. According to the newspapers, Sir Robert Scholey is to take a pay cut. We are not told the size of the cut or whether it will be 65 per cent. in line with the drop in profits. We shall wait and see.
  The debate takes place one day after the latest OECD report makes crystal clear that the recession in Britain is far worse than in any other western country and that, in the main, it is due to Government policy. Ministers should accept that the recession is not an act of God but a result of their policies.
  The recession is especially tragic for the steel communities which in the 1980s went through the most appalling social pain when plant after plant was closed and 120,000 jobs were destroyed—all in the interests of creating a greatly reduced industry that would be ripe for privatisation.
  A vast investment of taxpayers' money led to huge increases in productivity in the remaining BSC plants arid one after another they entered the private sector. Those companies were Allied Steel and Wire, Sheffield Forgemasters, United Engineering Steels and, finally, British Steel plc.
  Rotherham lost 10,000 jobs during that period of restructuring—a term invented by the European Commission which means closure. The community that I represent has not recovered from those job losses. Unemployment is still appallingly high in Rotherham. I am not speaking about the travel-to-work area which includes the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). In my constituency, almost 7,000 are out of work.
  Conservative Members who have not seen such a process in their constituencies may not understand the terrible consequences and the distress, poverty, family strain and ill-health that unemployment brings. We are still suffering in Rotherham. In Rotherham, as in other steel areas, people thought that some good would come of all that pain. United Engineering Steels emerged as the biggest and, at that time, the most productive engineering

  475
  steel maker in the European Community. We thought that that company, which had been slimmed down and was lean and fit—those were the expressions Ministers used in those days—could hold its own and beat any competitor in Europe. Unfortunately, we overlooked the Government's limitless capacity to get things wrong. These dedicated apostles of privatisation, the disciples of the free market, have not only left the steel industry to sink or swim but have done their best to push its head under water. An industry that was supposed to be leaner and fitter is now struggling to survive. It is still contracting. Almost every month more closures and more redundancies are announced.
  The closure of Ravenscraig is an excellent illustration of the mess in which the industry finds itself. It is not good enough to say that the closure had to take place because of some surplus capacity in Europe. We went through all that in the 1980s. During that period there were so many closures and 120,000 jobs were lost. That happened because we were being pressed by the European Commission to reduce capacity because of a supposed surplus. It is no good saying now that there is a surplus and that the Ravenscraig hot mill must close.
  There is no surplus capacity in Britain. How can anyone pretend that there is when 38 per cent. of the home market for these products is supplied by imports? How can it be claimed that there is surplus manufacturing capacity in Britain in the light of that level of imports?
  When the Select Committee on Trade and Industry was conducting an inquiry into Ravenscraig, someone told us that Ravenscraig was too far from its customers in the vehicle industry. That is more or less the argument that was advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross. How can that be justified when German manufacturers, for example, can get their products into the west midlands? It is nonsense to suggest that Ravenscraig is too far away from the industry that needs its products.
  The House will have noticed that the Select Committee's report contains some fairly critical comments about Sir Robert Scholey. I feel that the criticism is not unfair. The most amazing fact to emerge, apart from the fact that Sir Robert had not been near the Ravenscraig works for five years, was that he refused to give the economic justification for closing the Ravenscraig hot mill not only to the shop stewards but to the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is what he told us. I think that all the members of the Select Committee found that astonishing.
  The Select Committee's report contains certain criticisms of Bob Scholey but I do not blame him for the terrible difficulties that his company and others are facing. Instead, I blame the Government. A large part of the problem stems from the ridiculous exchange rates at which the Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, took us into the exchange rate mechanism. I spoke to many British manufacturers at the time, and almost all of them were in despair. They knew that their German competitors were rubbing their hands with glee.
  Then there came another body blow, for United Engineering Steels and other large electricity users. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth referred to it when he spoke in the energy debate. All the steel that emerges from United Engineering Steels is produced through the electric-arc process, and it is the largest
  476
  purchaser of electricity in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. It is having to cope with an increase in electricity prices of about 20 per cent. That is a direct consequence of the privatisation of the electricity industry.
  If anyone doubts my assertion, I shall take a few moments to explain why I make it. When the electricity industry was being privatised, we were told that the outcome would be competition. It was said that privatisation would enable large users to shop around and buy their electricity from the best source that they could find. That has not been the outcome. There is a man who is known as the Director General of Electricity Supply, who is empowered to fix a limit in each region on the amount of electricity that can be bought directly from the generating companies, and in Yorkshire and Humberside the limit is 10 per cent. Therefore, United Engineering Steels cannot shop around and approach PowerGen, National Power and the Yorkshire regional company to see which organisation can offer the best price. The competition that we were promised has not appeared and there is not a free market.
  The arrangement which used to be beneficial to large consumers of electricity, under which they could obtain a discount because they were huge purchasers, was abolished in April. As a result, the large consumers are suffering on two fronts. I explained that when I went with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and members of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation to meet the Under-Secretary of State for Energy. The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) seemed to know nothing about the difficulties faced by consumers. He said that in any event it was nothing to do with him and that responsibility rested with the director general.
  It is the habit of Ministers to push through the Government's policies, even though they are warned of the dangers by those who know something about the likely outcome of them, and then to leave others to pick up the pieces. Ministers cannot continue for ever to blame others. All the main steel-using industries—vehicles, shipbuilding, construction and machine tools—are in the doldrums as a result of the Government's policies. It is time that Ministers started to take a genuine interest in manufacturing industry and to stop saying that it is all someone else's fault when things go wrong. They have a duty to give the steel industry and steel-using industries a chance to compete on equal terms with foreign manufacturers. It is a chance that they have not given them so far.
  Energy costs, interest rates and exchange rates militate against British manufacturers, and all these factors come within the realm of Government policies. If Ministers would only do their duty and give the steel industry and steel-using industries a fighting chance, I am convinced that our steel men could beat the competition anywhere else in the world.
  5.46 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: I agree with some of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther). He was, of course, a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, and I know that he knows a great deal about the steel industry. His recounting of the repercussions of closures for his constituency highlight the problems that concern Lanarkshire today, and even more so in future. I thank the Select Committee

  477
  on Trade and Industry—the Chairman is my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who presented the report, is a member of it—for producing the report. It seems that the theme throughout the report is the failure of British Steel to communicate with the Government, with its employees and with the Select Committee. It was wrong of British Steel to shelter behind commercial information or judgment and not to reveal the financial criteria that forced it to come to a conclusion that no one else could understand.
  It was obvious from the start that British Steel had no interest in its Scottish base, but, as the hon. Member for Rotherham has said, there is a huge Scottish market. I think of the oil fields, steel fabricators, the construction industry and a thousand or more other users. It was wrong to concentrate on markets south of the border, on the continent or in other parts of the world. As the hon. Member for Rotherham has said, steel produced in Germany and in other parts of the continent is readily available in Scotland. Why cannot we produce steel profitably in Scotland? It has been wrong of British Steel to concentrate future developments in England and Wales to the detriment of the work force employed in Scotland.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was right to talk about the responsible campaign that has been pursued on behalf of the industry's work force and its trade unions and by the Scottish Trades Union Congress. I found little in the Select Committee's report that substantiated, even under cross-examination, a good reason to close the steel industry in Scotland. That was brought out extremely well on pages 8 and 9 of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation's publication, where the Select Committee's report is examined succinctly and concisely. It highlights British Steel's poor showing before the Select Committee, the lack of information, the way in which British Steel reneged on its promises on the sale of Ravenscraig and, as a side issue—something which is topical at present—the substantial increase in the salaries of British Steel directors despite the dwindling profits that were announced last week.
  I would not like to be a prophet or to quote my own words, but during the Gartcosh debate on 23 January 1986, at column 485, I spoke of the link between the closure of Gartcosh and Ravenscraig, how Ravenscraig was a great symbol a manifestation of the Scottish steel industry, and how, if Gartcosh were closed, the fallout would be serious for the Scottish steel industry. We must remember that if it had not been for the effective work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), British Steel would have done its best to shut Ravenscraig in 1982.
  In the Gartcosh debate, I also asked what would happen to Dalzell, Clydesdale and Imperial if the closure of Gartcosh was not stopped; what about the repercussions on local industry; what about the local suppliers, and so on. We have had a long time to think about what could happen once we accepted the closure of Gartcosh.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman knows that at the time, as the Member of Parliament representing Gartcosh, I was particularly grateful for his support. However, does he accept—I think that he will—that the problems of site clearance at Gartcosh and elsewhere
  478
  underline how miserly and mean British Steel is being in the announcement that we read in The Scotsman this morning?
  Sir Hector Monro: Yes, indeed. I have not finished with British Steel.
  I also said that, in 1986, the South of Scotland electricity board received £1·7 million for the supply of power to the steel industry, and asked the House to consider what that could mean to the electricity industry in Scotland and the 1,400 suppliers to the steel industry in Lanarkshire, all of whom are now feeling the draught. I went on to say that the steel industry is, in a way, an indication of a nation's virility and that Ravenscraig without Gartcosh would be vulnerable. I protested. I felt that we had misjudged the industrial, political and social repercussions, and on that occasion I voted against the Government because I felt that we were giving the wrong signal to British Steel and to Scotland in general.
  Let us look at what has happened during the past 13 months. I am highly critical of British Steel. It was announced that the hot strip mill was to close, with 770 unemployed. In November, the announcement was made about Clydesdale tube works. In February the reduction to the single blast furnace at Ravenscraig was announced. In June 1991, the Dalzell plate mill was closed. All that resulted in substantial unemployment.
  That is a dreadful record for British Steel. Has it no responsibility to the nation or to its work force? Does it only have a responsibility to its shareholders? Great national institutions such as British Steel and ICI, or any other major company one can think of, have a wider responsibility than just to their shareholders. They have a duty to try to find a middle way forward to help when the situation is grave and difficult.
  I know that boards, like the Cabinet, must have collective responsibility, but when one considers all the members of the British Steel board, I find it odd that none of them ever speaks out and questions what British Steel is doing. It is a great worry that a company of the importance of British Steel seems to have shied away from a fair introduction of capital to Scotland to enable some of the plants to remain open and for many of the employees to retain their jobs.
  If that is to happen—I am highly critical of British Steel rather than anyone else—what shall we do now to help those in difficulty in Lanarkshire and those who will experience the knock-on effect of more closures? Will British Steel rethink? Having read Sir Robert Scholey's evidence to the Select Committee, I doubt whether he will. But let us check what he should be doing.
  Will British Steel clear up the mess left behind by empty steel works? We believe strongly that the polluter must pay, as evidenced by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Are we to hound British Steel to clear up the areas for which it has been responsible for generations? How shall we help the Lanarkshire development agency, now the local enterprise company, and Motherwell district council, all of which have put forward excellent papers?
  I hope that, when my hon. Friend the Minister replies, he will be able to spell out—I am sure he will—the substantial sums of money that the Government and others are making available to help in the crisis. We should not look on it as less than a crisis for Lanarkshire during the next couple of years. I am glad that the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have made

  479
  announcements, following the work of the Lanarkshire working group and others involved. We must simply press ahead with urgency to lay the foundations for a renaissance of industry in the area.
  I met the same problems in a much smaller way when the coal mines closed in Upper Nithsdale, which was then in my constituency, when unemployment soared to 30 per cent. and more. The only way back was to have advance factories ready and waiting for incoming employers. They do not want to be told that it will take a year to produce a factory: they want to move in next week if they possibly can. Therefore, I would like to hear that Enterprise Scotland or the local enterprise company will press on with preparations for advance factories suitably sited and landscaped.
  Everyone wants a high standard of workplace in the future. People do not want to go to derelict sites; they want to go to new attractive sites. We have got to work fast on that. We do not want to start next year; we want the architectural plans under way now and through the planning committees by October, and action on site as soon as possible in the new year.
  We want to see co-operation. I know that we will get it from the jobcentres. We must bring in Locate in Scotland and, all importantly—something which the Government are addressing as the highest priority—the economic climate of the country must be right, with continuing low inflation and a steady lowering of interest rates.
  There is the great opportunity of a new freight terminal at Mossend. However, if that is to happen, the Government would have to put pressure on British Rail. I hope that the Minister will comment on that when he replies. It would produce many new jobs on a green-field site. I hope that my hon. Friend will say that discussions are under way with British Rail and that such a terminal will be encouraged.
  The west coast route will lose a lot of steel traffic. Whenever I come to the House of Commons, I stand in Carlisle station and see trainload on trainload of coiled steel going through. That will stop, so let us get some other attraction to bring British Rail to Scotland with an additional freight facility which I am sure will be developed further when the channel tunnel is opened.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend will spell out what help will be available. Today we want to leave a message for Lanarkshire and the whole of the area of Strathclyde, which has had such a terrible knock that, yes, we are determined to provide opportunities. Yes, we will fulfil that promise by providing adequate resources to create the right infrastructure, construct advance factories, and bring new employers to the area. If we have a sense of urgency, motivation and enthusiasm, we can work together in partnership to help that part of Scotland.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful for the opportunity for this debate, and wholly accept the contention of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) that it concerns British Steel. However, that emphasises the sadness we feel that not only is the Secretary of State for Scotland absent from the debate but the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—whose
  480
  record in connection with the whole sorry story is abysmal. He has shown a determination to wash his hands of the entire situation.
  I will not spend very much time analysing what has occurred, because it is more important to consider what we can do for the future of the steel industry and for the United Kingdom economy.
  I contend—as I did at the time that British Steel was privatised—that the steel industry has suffered more than any other from ideological conflicts, having been kicked in and out of public ownership no fewer than four or, technically, five times. We argued that the Government should not privatise British Steel as a single entity but instead we have insisted on the creation of another company, with Scottish capacity as its nucleus.
  At the time of privatisation, the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) tabled an amendment which, had it been adopted, might significantly have altered the future direction of the British steel industry, and that of Scotland in particular might today be in a much healthier state. No one can guarantee that, but such a policy would have created better opportunities.
  Those of us who knew before privatisation and, at the time that it occurred, of Bob Scholey's attitude to Scottish steel knew that it was doomed from the moment that British Steel was put in the private sector with him as its chairman. There was no hope from then on. No one can tell me that we are talking about a rational, objective, analytical decision as to the best interests of British Steel and its shareholders, or of the national interest.
  As a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in the earlier part of this Parliament, I cross-examined Sir Bob Scholey, and came to know of the almost pathological response that he makes whenever Scotland and Scottish steel are mentioned. It is not a rational, lucid, or well-argued response, but sheer venom against everything that Scotland and Scottish steel stand for. We have a right to be bitter in the knowledge that the Government knowingly put British Steel into the hands of that man, for we in Scotland knew what would be the consequences of that decision, and attempted to prevent what was almost an inevitable disaster.
  I note that the Secretary of State is absent because of his engagement at Buckingham palace with Her Majesty. Sir Bob Scholey seems to suggest that the entire steel strike originated at Ravenscraig—which was a disgraceful slur on its work force, given the contribution that it made to the turnround in British Steel's profits since privatisation. I gained the impression that it would be easier to persuade Attila the Hun to behave with decorum at a royal garden party than to persuade Sir Bob Scholey publicly to acknowledge the contribution made by Scottish steel workers to British steel's productivity, profitability, and his own salary—until it was cut as a result of this year's profits downturn.
  A few months ago, I and a number of my hon. Friends met the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to persuade him to accept his obligation, as a supposed promoter of competition, to intervene and to take action. His response was a caricature of what ought to take place in a constructive discussion between Members of Parliament and a Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who claims to be one of the leading thinkers of the free market. For about half an hour, we discussed the Secretary of State's responsibilities to promote steel competition, the importance of competition to British

  481
  trade and the country's balance of payments, and the circumstances in which he felt that he had any responsibility to intervene, on the ground either of competition or the national interest.
  It was impossible to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to confirm that there were any circumstances in which he would intervene. We asked him what he would do if British Steel's board decided that it was in the shareholders' best interest to shift all the company's production and investment capacity to South Korea, on the ground that it would be more profitable. The right hon. Gentleman said that was a hypothetical question, and one that he was not prepared to address. I hope that it remains a hypothetical question, but one cannot give any guarantee. The Secretary of State's ducking of that question implies that he acknowledges his responsibility, but is not prepared to accept it.
  It is still appropriate and relevant to insist—and the Government still have the power to do this—that British Steel disposes of all its Scottish assets as a going concern; to at least attempt to establish whether there exists an alternative bidder who wants to move into the market. When I refer to all the company's assets, I specifically include Hunterston, which offers a long-term attraction as a steel plant that has yet to be developed. It is despicable that British Steel should be allowed to kick out a whole generation of steel workers, yet hang on to a prime plum, which, at some time in the future, it may make the subject of investment or disposal. There may be more alternative bidders now, though if the Government had taken action three or four years ago today's climate might be even more favourable.
  The European Community and the treaty of Paris impose certain constraints, but I understand that the action I suggest is entirely within the Government's power and in no way incompatible with the treaty. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) has left the Chamber, but I may say in response to his remarks that, in reality, the nationalisation of a steel industry or of any plant is irrelevant, because the treaty introduces specific limitations regardless of whether the concern is in the private or public sector. Those who suggest that nationalisation is the answer are being very misleading.
  Mr. Sillars: Suppose the hon. Gentleman's hypothetical nightmare became a reality and we found ourselves talking, in the British context—never mind the Scottish context—about shifting all steel production from the United Kingdom to Korea. Would not public ownership prevent that hypothetical nightmare turning into reality? Right hon. and hon. Members can fulminate as much as they like, but the fact remains that we have no control over decision-making in respect of a privatised concern. However, if the steel industry were in public ownership, the situation would be entirely different.
  Mr. Bruce: Not as much control as the hon. Gentleman pretends to the Scottish people. He cannot expect Scotland to be an independent sovereign state and a full participating member of the European Community, yet the only one not bound by the treaties that all its other member states have signed. The treaty of Paris is clearly restrictive. On occasions, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) has given the impression that massive investment could be channelled into Scotland's steel sector, regardless of profitability. I believe that that is
  482
  possible, but the right way forward is to use existing competition policy, and that is entirely within the British Government's domestic power and in accord with the treaty of Paris.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?
  Mr. Bruce: I will not give way on the same point, which I have answered. Neither the hon. Member for Govan nor the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) should promise more than they can realistically deliver.
  What of the consequences of British Steel's current decisions? The hon. Member for Rotherham made the pertinent point that the consequences of the contraction of Scotland's steel capacity will almost inevitably be a further loss of market share. That has been past experience. Our concern is that British Steel's reaction to a competitive squeeze will be to continue to contract so that it can make a profit from a smaller and smaller base. However, that strategy is devastatingly wrong for the national interest, and is likely to lead to a severe erosion of Britain's competitiveness and balance of payments.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman, but surely he must realise that British Steel's productivity has soared and that it has invested a great deal in Teesside. I know that Scottish Opposition Members do not like British Steel's investment decisions. However, if there is new investment and if greater productivity is achieved, the industry is not necessarily contracting.
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman should look at British Steel's record. It has contracted substantially. It has given up its market share. That has been the standard pattern to date. Some of the steel capacity given up in Scotland has not been replaced elsewhere in terms of the quality of steel on offer. British Steel has made a conscious decision to give up markets. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is not right. However, it is right to talk about the increase in productivity achieved by British Steel. The greatest increases were achieved in the Scottish steel plants, but little thanks they got for that from the management of British Steel.
  The decisions that have already been taken for Lanarkshire have created a major and worsening crisis in Lanarkshire, not just in terms of blight, unemployment and devastation but in terms of community morale. Everything is on a downward spiral. There is lack of hope and no optimism. It is incumbent on the Government to recognise that the scale of resources that is necessary is of a very much larger order than anything that they have yet put forward. The local council estimates that it has 2,000 acres of derelict land and that it will cost £60 million to bring it back into alternative use. It also estimates that the total cost is likely to be about £200 to £300 million. The Government must say where that money is to come from and how it is to be channelled.
  The Government seem determined to resolve the future of the new town development corporations in Scotland. It is generally accepted that they have made a great contribution to attracting investment to Scotland and to a style of development that has been extremely successful. Rather than that it should be dissipated, will the Minister consider the creation of a west of Scotland development corporation that could draw on the expertise of the new

  483
  towns and, in co-operation with the local authorities, be provided with a real estate portfolio and a package of planning and development agreements that would enable it to attract substantial new industry that could bring new hope to the area?
  The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) implied that advance factories are necessary. I do not disagree with him, but in many cases custom-built factories for major new projects that can be built quickly on attractive green-field sites are required. We need to identify urgently attractive new sites and also provide for the rehabilitation of derelict land. We shall not succeed if we try to attract prime new investment on to derelict land. No one will wish to invest there. It has to be done in two phases. I hope that the Minister accepts that that is a constructive, sensible and timely proposal.
  6.13 pm
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: In Motherwell, we are very conscious of the support that we have enjoyed in all parts of the House for the problems that the industry faces, as well as a readiness to address the problems that we shall face in the future as we enter a period of major industrial change. May I express the thanks of the steel workers and the people of Lanarkshire to the Trade and Industry Select Committee for both this and previous inquiries it has carried out into the affairs of the steel industry. In particular, I wish the Chairman of the Select Committee a speedy recovery from his incapacity.
  I pay tribute to the trade union leaders of the Scottish steel plants—in particular to Mr. Tommy Brennan, the chairman of the Ravenscraig joint trade union committee until he was made redundant last Friday—for the magnificent fight that they have led for their industry. It has been, and it always will be, a privilege to work with them.
  The effective decisions to close the Scottish steel industry—the Ravenscraig hot mill, the second blast furnace, the Dalzell plate mill, the Clydesdale tube works and, as we may yet learn, the Imperial works and the remaining plants operating at Ravenscraig—were effectively taken by Government Ministers when they decided to privatise British Steel as a monopoly steel producer in the United Kingdom. The Scottish plants were not allowed to compete, as they could have done, by allying them with other plants in a competitive United Kingdom steel industry. They could and should have been allowed to prove their mettle.
  The hands that closed the plants were the hairy hands of British Steel, but the voice was that of the Tory Government. It is the Tory party that will long be remembered in Scotland as doing it out of its industrial heritage. The sorry tale of wilful misunderstanding, of deliberate myopia, of cultivated naivety on the part of Ministers is there in the record of Parliament for all to read.
  The United Kingdom is now one of the highest priced steel markets in Europe, with cold rolled sheet steeling selling for $460 a tonne, compared with $436 in Belgium and $433 in France. That was reported in the Financial Times on Monday of this week. That price difference reflects closely the transport costs from the European Community, a premium that British Steel is able to charge
  484
  because there is no competing producer in the United Kingdom. As reported today in the Financial Times, the European Commission has launched a probe into a suspected cartel of European Community steel producers that restricts the output of hot rolled coil, the biggest single element of which would be the closure of the Ravenscraig hot mill. As for loss of competition within the United Kingdom, we are already hearing complaints from British Steel management that the south Wales steel workers are taking advantage of the easing of competitive pressures from Ravenscraig to raise labour costs in south Wales. Surprise, surprise.
  What I am concerned about, however, is not the dismal record of incompetence and betrayal by Ministers that has brought the steel industry in Scotland to its present sad state but where we go from here, if we are to rebuild an industrial base in the heart of Scotland.
  As for the steel industry, phase 2 of the Arthur D. Little report, commissioned by the late-lamented Scottish Development Agency, confirmed, as I had suggested and as I have suggested for years, that the best option for Ravenscraig would be as a present generation thick slab producer, phasing into a coil and sheet producer by means of the new thin slab technology route. That would undercut, according to the figures in the Arthur D. Little report, Port Talbot and Llanwern. Without such a development, by the mid-1990s British Steel would be vulnerable to an electric arc mini-mill thin slab producer investing in the United Kingdom.
  During the present recession, it is no use talking to British Steel about new technology, but its view in two years could be rather different, as British Steel pulls out of the recession under a new chairman. If British Steel management has an ounce of sense it will lash Black Bob Odysseus to the mast so that he will not follow the behest of the siren voices in the City luring him into the premature closure of what remains of Ravenscraig. That could close, for British Steel, a valuable route into new technology and put it at a serious competitive disadvantage. Furthermore, it would cost more money.
  As for selling the hot mill to the Chinese, who are visiting Ravenscraig this weekend, there are components of the mill and its ancillary plant that could be used to save money in terms of building the new technology mill that would accompany thin slab casting. If the haste to sell the hot mill to the Chinese is an attempt to stop the development of a new technology mill, it will not work. That will not be the decisive factor.
  Only this week, British Steel announced that it has taken the strategic decision to build a new plate mill on Teesside to replace the old Dalzell and Scunthorpe plate mills. I say to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who represents my former constituency on Teesside, that if I had £400 million to spend on Teesside—which is a long-suffering community—I would spend it not on a plate mill, but on new materials production, whether from British Steel or from ICI, and I would not put the money into obsolescent technology as British Steel proposes to do. Rather than replace—
  Mr. Devlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Although the debate centralises itself entirely on the steel industry, there is an immense amount of investment going on in a wide range of other industries, many of which were not there when he represented that part of the country. We

  485
  must not look at this purely in isolation and say that Teesside is investing in old technology; it is very much investing in new technology.
  Dr. Bray: I look forward to debating the economy of Teesside with the hon. Gentleman in the future, but I think that he is wrong in his analysis.
  With retained profits in British Steel cut from £399 million last year to £18 million this year, and interest rates in the United Kingdom the second highest in the industrial world, I do not know where British Steel will get the extra £300 million that it will need for the more expensive option of building a new plate mill on Teesside, rather than developing the Dalzell mill.
  British Steel says that it is thinking of customers well into the next century. By then, and before building a plate mill on Teesside with obsolescent technology, it may be induced to spell out its arithmetic to shareholders and investment analysts who, it seems to think, are as credulous as Tory Ministers. If shareholders are that dumb, a Labour Government will have to tighten up the competition and company rules to make management more accountable. In Scotland we are not convinced. We demand that British Steel justify its plate strategy because we believe that the answers will come out in support of the redevelopment of the Dalzell mill.
  I will address myself to the hard competitive, commercial realities where the customer rules because that is the world in which my constituents have always lived and worked. If they had merely pleaded social need, the community would have been swept away many years ago. The House should not confuse a determination to perform with a blindness to social need or a lack of community loyalty. It is that that is demanding effective action now to allow Lanarkshire, and Motherwell in particular, to continue to earn its living as it has always done.
  The closures that have already taken place in steel and the undoubted difficulties and uncertainty of saving anything that remains in the Scottish steel plants means that the Government must now act decisively to lay the foundations for a new industrial economy in Motherwell in particular, and in Lanarkshire in general. Of the 14,700 jobs in steel in the Motherwell district in 1974, only 1,500 will remain when already announced closures have taken effect. The remainder will go if the last blast furnace in Ravenscraig is closed in 1994, as foreshadowed by British Steel.
  The measures announced by the Government to attract new industry are totally inadequate, and were in the pipeline long before the steel closures were announced. Even the location of the freight terminal for Scotland at Mossend is still in doubt. We need an enterprise zone in Motherwell and the redevelopment of the steel sites, which from past closures form a great gaping hole in the heart of Motherwell. As long as they are left as a wilderness of dereliction, any lesser development measures elsewhere will be ineffectively cosmetic.
  The opportunity provided by the new electrified InterCity rail service starting next Monday between Glasgow and Edinburgh should be taken. The plans and investment were made long ago, and the service had already been commissioned. The trains will stop only in Motherwell, so the opportunity should be taken to turn Motherwell into the kind of business satellite to the Scottish city centres that Croydon is to London.
  486
  I welcome the tone of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) who urged the necessity and practicality of getting on with initiatives of real vision to create a new image for Motherwell. The main line between Glasgow, Edinburgh and London passes the steel sites where land has been in the ownership of the Scottish Development Agency for 10 years—throughout the lifetime of the Government—but nothing has been done about it. That land is available for a new main line station, which would be the only one in Scotland with ample car parking and development land adjacent to it.
  The necessary design concept for a new millenium Motherwell new town on the former steel sites could be made the subject of a fully-fledged architectural competition. It would be a challenge to produce a design as civilised as Edinburgh new town, and as attractive to private development capital. In one sense, it would change the image of Motherwell. In another, it would confirm it as the contemporary industrial heart of Scotland, which has been demonstrated so magnificently in the fight for steel. That fight was not a fight for a smokestack industry. It was a fight for the industrial soul of a nation, reborn on the threshold of the new millenium. It is a fight that we shall win.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: There is a sense of deja vu here today—[HON. MEMBERS: "You."] Indeed. I am speaking, and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) has spoken. My hon. Friend the Minister hopes to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) has just spoken. All of us spoke in a debate on 16 December 1980. It is worth our while refreshing our memories about what we said then. It is just as well that few of us ever bother to take the trouble to find out what we said in this Chamber in a particular debate on a particular subject that crops up a decade later. However, I will remind the House of what some of us said then, because there are lessons today for the future of the Scottish steel industry which we can learn by looking back to 10 years ago.
  The debate on 16 December 1980 arose because the then chairman of the British Steel Corporation, Mr. Ian MacGregor, laid before the Secretary of State, who presented it to Parliament, a restructuring plan for the steel industry. The House will recall that in those days my constituency was called Brigg and Scunthorpe, and included the town of Scunthorpe, which is now represented by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). In those days, one afternoon I received a telephone call from Mr. MacGregor to tell me that he would announce the following day redundancies totalling 4,100 in my constituency alone. Although a great deal of concern was shown about the MacGregor proposals by Opposition Front-Bench Members—and I am glad of that—and although they initiated a debate, when we talked about 4,100 redundancies in one town in England, there was not the type of concern that is being expressed today about Ravenscraig. Although I recognise that it is entirely right and proper for the House to devote itself today to the importance of Ravenscraig and its future, the size of the steel industry in Scunthorpe then was far greater than that in Ravenscraig today. I do not seem to recall receiving the same support when I advocated

  487
  enterprise zones, development area status and the rest of it, which I fully acknowledge need to be considered in a debate such as this.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I think that it is only fair to the House if I press on. I am normally very generous about giving way, but I shall not do so on this occasion because I want to complete my speech fairly quickly.
  I am sure that if the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, he will rightly and legitimately draw to the attention of the House British Steel's recent announcement about the plate mills in Dalzell and in Scunthorpe, the large town right on my constituency boundary. From the best of intentions, and for the best of reasons, the hon. Gentleman will want to submit to British Steel his case as to why the Scunthorpe mill should not be closed. Ten years ago, I was in exactly the same position that he is in today: I had to face the difficulty of representing a constituency in which large numbers of redundancies had been announced. I would caution him that, although the temptation simply to lobby the company concerned to protect and preserve those jobs is eminently understandable, that is too easy a road to take, and, rightly or wrongly, I resisted that temptation in 1980. In the 1983 general election, my constituency boundaries had changed, so I cannot honestly say that the views that I had expressed in the House were endorsed at that election. I can only point out that a Conservative Member was elected to Glanford and Scunthorpe at the 1983 general election.
  I submit that we can do the industry a favour only if we ensure that at all times it answers to profit; that applies as much to the privatised steel industry in 1991 as it did to the nationalised steel industry in 1980. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh yes. The industry should answer to profit generated as a result of the demand for its product. Opposition Members make noises, as if to suggest that that assertion is wrong. I remind them that the motion before the House in 1980, which they themselves tabled, mentioned the word "profit". They did not deny—my goodness, how could they deny—the importance of profit.
  We must remember that, in 1980, the steel industry came to the House and the taxpayer to ask for £1·7 billion —that being the loss made in that year. The hon. Member for Rotherham sneeringly said that British Steel's recently produced figures showed a massive reduction in its profits. I remind the hon. Gentleman, who spoke in the debate on 16 December 1980, that we were then talking not about a reduction in profit but about the British Steel Corporation losing £50 million every single month of that year. That was the scale of the disaster. Everyone recognised then that, even though the industry was nationalised, its future would be secured only if we got rid of the begging-bowl approach.
  It is only fair to draw to the attention of the House the memorandum submitted to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry by the chairman of British Steel which appears in the minutes of evidence. Much criticism has, in my view quite wrongly, fallen upon Sir Bob Scholey, who has done a great job in securing both the well-being of the steel industry in the 1980s and its future for the 1990s.
  Mr. Adam Ingram: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: No, I will not give way. I no longer represent a steel constituency, and it would not be fair for me to speak for too long. I want to press on because I want the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, in particular, to have the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The memorandum submitted to the Select Committee by the chairman of British Steel states:
  "The company … has clear legal and moral responsibilities towards our shareholders for the financial success of the business. That depends absolutely on maintaining international competitiveness. I emphasised this issue in my letter of 14th June to the Secretary of State for Scotland, which was made public, on the reasons for the Company's decision to close the Ravenscraig hot strip mill. I said on that occasion:
  'I must first say, and formally, that we live in a highly competitive world in steel and there is a clear sensitivity both in terms of share prices and from the international competition standpoint that prevents British Steel as a private company from disclosing quantitative information relating to matters of a commercial nature, or which are profit-sensitive.'
  If we do not succeed in the increasingly competitive international market place we shall fail not only in our responsibilities towards our shareholders, but also towards our employees, for jobs depend totally on the maintenance of a viable business."
  That is the bottom line. Whether we are debating the British Steel Corporation in 1980 or British Steel plc in 1991, the only thing that matters is whether British Steel can sell its products and be internationally competitive.
  Dr. Bray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Browne: I am afraid that I will not give way. You know what I am like, Mr. Deputy Speaker: once I go down a highway or byway, I detain the House for a further 10 or 15 minutes, and I am determined not to do that.
  I simply want to make this point to hon. Members who have the interests of Ravenscraig at heart, be they Conservative, Liberal or Labour. When I became a Member of Parliament, I represented a constituency in which 20,000 people worked in the steel industry. The Labour Government of 1978–79 could not defend the jobs—even by recourse to the taxpayer, the printing presses and massive public borrowing. Even they sacked 1,700 workers in 1979. It was Labour politicians—specifically the Secretary of State for Industry—who told British Steel that it would have to sack those people.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was right in what he said about the role of the European Commission—whether British steel is in public or private hands. The restructuring that was necessary in 1980–81 was largely the result of the European Coal and Steel Community requirement of the time. From the point of view of policy, the Government recognised that they could not lose £50 million of taxpayers' money. Then, we had a secure future for the steel industry, but steel is always out there in the international marketplace; the industry is always vulnerable to imports, and the extent to which imports are coming into Britain has been mentioned. If the Government have a responsibility, it is to ensure that our products can compete in the international marketplace and that aim can be secured only if the relationship between the pound and other currencies is not allowed unduly to handicap British industry. That is code for

  489
  expressing my views on the point that we have reached in the debate about European monetary union and the European monetary system.
  If the Government are to assist the steel industry, they must examine once again the relationship between our currency and the German currency. That will give us the opportunity to ensure that our industry is competitive. But we cannot insulate the steel industry from the cold facts of international competition in 1991, any more than we could in 1980. By trying hard, for understandable constituency reasons, to protect, in the short term, part of the steel industry that is simply no longer viable, we shall do the industry a disservice in the long term. In essence, those are the words not of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes in 1991 but of the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe in 1980. Those words are engraved on my heart. I remember Labour Members saying then, "You are not representing your constituency." They said that I should simply save an old out-of-date rundown plant. I refused to do that. However, a Conservative Member of Parliament was elected to represent the area at the following general election.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Out of courtesy to my colleagues who are anxious to speak, I intend to be brief. I am particluarly grateful for the references to Gartcosh and to the lessons that we have tried to learn. I am also grateful for the references to the Imperial works, Airdrie, in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) because many of my constituents work there. We are very concerned about the consequences of the closures and redundancies at Ravenscraig, Clydesdale and Dalzell and we want the lessons that we have tried to learn from Gartcosh to be relevant to this debate.
  We are debating a Select Committee report that made seven recommendations. So far the Government have reluctantly accepted only one—that we should have a debate on the subject today.
  We should remind the Government that the consequences of their obsession with privatisation has meant devastation in Monklands and in Strathkelvin. That obsession has cost us much in human terms throughout Lanarkshire and certainly in Motherwell, as the moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) testified. In the light of the Select Committee's report, we are entitled to say that the Government cannot simply abdicate their responsibilities. In the absence of the Secretary of State, I shall raise several points with the Minister in the hope that he will respond to them.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East and I believe that the hundreds of people struggling at the Imperial works, as so many did in Ravenscraig and Dalzell, should make their contribution to the steel industry. Their commitment to the industry should not be taken lightly. British Steel is not terribly forthcoming about its accounts and is worried about the £15 million allocated for exceptional items. Does that mean redundancies? What role does British Steel have for Imperial?
  The import of tubes into Scotland for the North sea is scandalous. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) cannot disguise the anger of many people in
  490
  Scotland. British Steel is prepared to import 70 per cent of its pipes from Japan, Germany, Italy and France when our people are desperately keen to make a contribution. No one can deny our balance of payments problems, but those imports amount to a £67 million a year loss to the balance of payments. Where is the sense in that? Where is the sense in allowing a small minority of people the right to take decisions that are so crucial to all our people, not just to the shareholders? British Steel is taking decisions which mean that British men, mills and machinery will stand idle. British Steel will not accept the consequences of the decisions that it has taken in Lanarkshire.
  What is the answer to what has happened at Gartcosh? The decision was taken more than five years ago. Some people thought at the time that the Freightliner site, which we support today for Mossend, might have been given to Gartcosh and Coatbridge. That has not happened. We have great hopes for the paper recycling plant, as the Minister is aware, but we should see a great deal more energy from Scottish Enterprise to ensure that that becomes a reality.
  The announcement—in so far as it was an announcement—in today's Scotsman about site clearance is of the utmost importance to Monklands and Strathkelvin. It seems that the steel masters settled in Lanarkshire, made profits and then disappeared, leaving our local councils and communities with enormous problems especially with regard to site dereliction.
  More than 85 per cent. of the derelict land in Lanarkshire is in my district. Twelve per cent. of Monklands is derelict. We cannot deal with such problems on our own. It is profoundly unacceptable, if not immoral, for British Steel to make the kind of statementhat it made this morning. We demand regeneration and British Steel should believe that it has a contribution to make, as should the Government.
  The Prime Minister made what he described as a major statement in Perth. The working party estimates that £300 million will be required for the regeneration of Lanarkshire. Only £120 million has been provided so far and most of that has already been allocated—even before we learnt of the Dalzell closure.
  We in Lanarkshire, in Monklands and in Strathkelvin, believe that we still have a contribution to make to the economy of Scotland and that no one has the right to prevent us from making that contribution. The spectre of unemployment, deprivation and poverty in Lanarkshire is completely unacceptable. I received a letter recently from a doctor in one of our local health centres. The Minister should be aware of the concerns in Lanarkshire. The doctor wrote:
  "The answer to heart disease"—
  which, incidentally, in Monklands is 3 per cent. above the United Kingdom average—
  "will not lie with doctors and drugs but with proper public health policy on unemployment, poor housing and the lifestyle of poverty."
  Nowhere in the Government's approach so far, including their disgraceful and lukewarm response to the Select Committee's report and their influence on the Lanarkshire working party, have they been prepared to accept the consequences of their free market decisions. Because of that, our determination to fight for what remains of the steel industry and to fight for Lanarkshire and Scotland will remain and will be increasingly apparent.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The Secretary of State for Scotland is seeking refuge in Holyrood palace, but he sent along some court jesters to hold the fort, including the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). When the full extent of the Secretary of State's involvement in recent closure decisions in Scottish steel becomes known, he will be seeking refuge in Edinburgh castle, not Holyrood palace. I suspect a tapestry of deceit with regard to Scottish steel from the Conservative party stretching up to and including the Prime Minister's office.
  If the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes wants to consider the real pattern of developments in British Steel throughout the 1980s, he need look no further than table 1 of the Select Committee report which charts the investment pattern year after year, throughout the 1980s, when tens of millions, indeed hundreds of millions, of pounds were sent to Teesside, Lackenby, Llanwern and Port Talbot while the Scottish plants were starved of investment.
  We have had three Secretaries of State for Scotland during that period—
  Mr. Devlin rose—
  Mr. Salmond: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has only just come into the Chamber.
  There have been three Secretaries of State for Scotland in that period and each has failed the Scottish people. The right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) intervened in the early 1980s and received some plaudits in Scotland for, as he put it, "saving Ravenscraig". However, he failed to change British Steel's investment pattern, thus leaving Ravenscraig exposed and vulnerable as the decade wore on.
  This time last year, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) was engaged in a public dispute with Robert Scholey, the chairman of British Steel, and was asking for explanations about why the strip mill was to close. However, despite the warnings that were given by hon. Members of all parties about the consequences of delivering unfettered the Scottish steel plants into the hands of their enemies—as a result of privatisation—it was the same right hon. and learned Gentleman who refused to alter the terms of the privatisation to give the Scottish industry even a chance of success in the future. That position was not argued only by the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats or by some Labour Members; it was argued also by non-political bodies such as the Scottish Council (Development and Industry). The writing was clearly on the wall when British Steel was delivered into the private hands of an anti-Scottish management.
  It is ironic to look back to the speeches that were made by Conservatives, including the Minister responsible for industry in Scotland, arguing that privatisation would strengthen Ravenscraig within British Steel. What empty rhetoric that now looks. What of the seven-year production pledge that was much vaunted as secure during the privatisation? At best, it is meaningless and, at worst, it has given the Scottish steel industry a defined time scale for its death sentence.
  However disreputable the performance of the two previous Secretaries of State for Scotland, they cannot
  492
  match that of the present Secretary of State. The involvement of the right hon. Member for Ayr was short-term and superficial. The right hon. and learned Member for Pentlands went through the motions and played for time, without having any real effect. However, the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) has been engaged in a cynical game of publicly supporting the steel industry while privately capitulating in his meetings with British Steel.
  As time is short, I shall give only two examples of the performance of that right hon. Gentleman, who is absent from the Chamber this evening. Page XIV of the Select Committee's report refers to "uncertainty" in British Steel's evidence about why it was refusing to sell the Scottish plant. At one point, it was said that British Steel would not sell the plant because nobody wanted it, but at another point the evidence suggests that British Steel would not sell the plant because nobody wanted it, but at another point the evidence suggests that British Steel would not sell the plant because that would be detrimental to its interests, implying that if any other company had been able to buy it would lose in competition to that entrant company. However, the reason on which British Steel settled was that the Commission would stop such a sale. As Robert Scholey put it, the Commission would be
  "jumping out of its skin"
  if British Steel tried to sell Ravenscraig or the other Scottish plants.
  The Select Committee dismissed that evidence because of letters to the contrary from the Commission. The Secretary of State for Scotland had even more insight into the evidence because on 25 March he met Sir Leon Brittan, the European Commissioner, and was told not only that the European Commission would not stop the sale of Ravenscraig, but that Robert Scholey himself knew that he had "gone too far" when he appeared before the Select Committee. In other words, the Secretary of State had been told that the chairman of British Steel had acknowledged that his evidence misled the Committee.
  One might think that, having been given that information, the Secretary of State for Scotland would return to Scotland, hold a press conference, summon the chairman of British Steel—or be summoned by him—or demand that Robert Scholey be recalled to the Select Committee, but the Secretary of State said nothing for four weeks until the evidence was made public—just as he has said nothing in the past four weeks since he has known about the closure of the Dalzell plate mill.
  We now move on to a new phase, in which the Minister responsible for industry in Scotland is very much involved. In April, the Minister released a Scottish Office document supporting the case for investment in Dalzell. That was done with full knowledge of its public implications. If there was any doubt about that, The Sunday Times in Scotland—
  Mr. Allan Stewart: It was done specifically in response to a request from the trade unions.
  Mr. Salmond: It was done to nail the Minister's flag to the mast of supporting the Dalzell investment. If that was to have any effect, it should have been backed by other action. If there was any doubt about that, The Sunday Times in Scotland, which is hardly a paper against the Conservative interest, could have told the Government about it at the time because it argued:

  493
  "Unless there is a break with precedent, the Scholey formula of solemnly taking arguments into account, weighing them in the balance, finding them wanting and then failing to say why, will rule the day."
  The Minister must have known that his gesture would have no effect unless it was backed by some other action that would put pressure on British Steel.
  On 4 June the Secretary of State for Scotland had a private meeting with Bob Scholey. As the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place, we cannot question him about exactly what was said, but I can tell the House his response according to a Scottish Office briefing on the meeting. When told of the closure of the Dalzell plate mill, against the advice of the Scottish Office which was submitted to British Steel, the Secretary of State said:
  "You know my view that the management of British Steel is entirely a matter for you, subject of course to competition law".
  The right hon. Gentleman did not even follow the performance of his predecessor by questioning the decision and arguing that more information should come to light. At that meeting the right hon. Gentleman immediately accepted British Steel's decision. That was on the very same day as the Prime Minister wrote to the Dalzell shop stewards stating his "full support":
  "The trade union paper, 'The Mill, The Skill, and the Will' and the Scottish Office paper on the single plate strategy demonstrate that the case merits careful appraisal by l3ritish Steel."
  Perhaps the Minister will tell us more, but we are expected to believe that, having capitulated immediately to British Steel's decision, the Secretary of State for Scotland ran to No. 10 Downing street but was too late to stop the post, which meant that that public endorsement was sent to the Dalzell shop stewards.
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman's quotation from the Prime Minister's letter gives a rather misleading impression of what the Prime Minister actually said. He certainly referred to "The Mill, the Skill and the Will" and to the Scottish Office paper on a single plate strategy, but he said:
  "It demonstrates the case merits careful appraisal by British Steel along with any other options the company may be considering."
  Mr. Salmond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My point is that the letter was designed to give public support to the Dalzell shop stewards. A full two weeks later, on 19 June—that is two weeks after the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Prime Minister knew about British Steel's decision—on a public platform with the Dalzell shop stewards, the president of the Conservative and Unionist Association argued:
  "Major's backing of the view is something which I really do not believe that British Steel can afford to ignore."
  The public impression was clear—that the Prime Minister's involvement and support would be decisive in helping the Dalzell shop stewards' . case. Privately, however, at his meeting with Bob Scholey, the Secretary of State for Scotland immediately capitulated to British Steel's decision without any questioning or argument, merely saying that it was "entirely a matter" for the company. That is the extent of the Conservative party's treatment of Scotland. The Government publicly support the workers north of the border, while privately selling them down the river in London. That is the Conservative
  494
  party's position on the Scottish steel industry. It is little wonder that the Secretary of State was prudent enough to remain at a garden party this evening.
  I contest the opinion of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that the position is irreversible and that nothing can be done. It is apposite to do so because the many positive and fruitful ideas that have been produced this evening depend on some action being taken to release those assets from the maw and the grip of British Steel. Having given his endorsement to the Dalzell shop stewards, is not the Prime Minister honour-bound to act to secure the release of those assets and allow someone else to run them properly? Is he not honour-bound to follow up his words with actions and stop that exercise of monopoly power?
  The Labour party is also on the spot. Earlier, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) argued that public ownership was not an option under the treaty of Paris. He then went against his own argument by saying that Scottish steel was profitable and productive, which means that it would not be a problem under the terms of the treaty of Paris. If we are to exercise any influence in the decision-making of British Steel, there must be a threat that, unless it stops destroying its Scottish plants, something will be done.
  One would have thought that the Labour party would have argued the case for public investment in an industry that is too important to be left in the hands of someone like Robert Scholey. However, the Labour party has made no attempt to examine the issues, and it has not said what it will do if there is a change of Government. Both Ravenscraig and Dalzell are profitable and productive. Even the Scottish Office Minister believes that British Steel would save £300 million by adopting the Dalzell option. That is the figure given in the Scottish Office paper. British Steel owns the assets, but it has no arbitrary authority over them. They were created within the public sector. Billions of pounds of debt were written off before the company went into the private sector. Does British Steel have the right to destroy those assets, despite their production potential?
  There is a vital difference between the current closure plans and those that have gone before: a general election will intervene before the closures take effect. There is a clear realisation of the process of destruction in which British Steel has engaged in Scotland. One immediate reaction to the news last Tuesday came from Bishop Joseph Devine of Motherwell, who said on BBC television:
  "It is quite appalling what has happened here, as one is seeing the systematic dismantling of steel making in Scotland. Why British Steel can still continue to be called British Steel escapes me. It's clearly now English Steel."
  The Glasgow Evening Times said:
  "The politicians, charged with the responsibility of protecting the people of Lanarkshire, have miserably failed them. Margaret Thatcher, George Younger, Malcolm Rifkind, and now John Major and Ian Lang are on that roll of infamy. Labour's heirarchy are no better.
  Neil Kinnock even yesterday still couldn't bring himself to back Dalzell because he knows every steel job lost in Scotland —his political power base—is a job safe in Wales or Teesside.
  With friends like these, who needs enemies? They are all guilty of watching a crime against the nation being perpetrated—and doing nothing to stop it."

  495
  There will be an opportunity at the general election to change the political climate and environment that have allowed British Steel to destroy its Scottish industry. I believe that the Scottish people will take that opportunity.
  7.3 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: This debate is supposed to be about the future of the steel industry; it is supposed to be an opportunity to think about where the industry is going. It is fortunate—or, perhaps, unfortunate—that it coincides with the publication of British Steel's annual report, which casts doubt on the future of the two plate mills at Dalzell and Scunthorpe.
  I wish to correct a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). Although I was not in the House in 1980, I have read the Hansard report of the debate at that time on a motion about the indifference shown towards Britain's manufacturing base, the decline of its industrial base, and the loss of jobs and investment. That motion is as relevant today as it was in 1980 because the Government are still indifferent towards our manufacturing base. That is shown by their attitude towards British Steel.
  I do not argue for the retention of the Scunthorpe plate mill. It would make no sense to argue for a plate mill that is becoming obsolescent, that will not be able to meet the new quality standards that will be dictated in European markets, and that cannot embrace the new thin plate technology. Of course, I want the new plate mill investment to come to Scunthorpe, which has a very strong social and economic case for it, but I will not attack other parts of the country where jobs will be affected. I will not be caught up in the divisiveness that the Government often encourage. I believe that the work forces of all the existing steel plants in the country have made enormous sacrifices through increased productivity. All of them are in profit, and all deserve consideration.
  As hon. Members would expect, I want to make the case for Scunthorpe. As the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes said, Scunthorpe has had enormous job losses since the early 1980s, when about 20,000 people were employed in the steel industry. The figure is now down to 7,500. In addition to the 500 job losses that will occur if the plate mill closes, it has been announced that some 800 other jobs are to go. There will also be job losses in craft restructuring.
  Since the privatisation of British Steel, it has been difficult to obtain information about its plans. I do not criticise the local works manager, who has been helpful. We have a good relationship and we meet regularly. All Members of Parliament have connections with local industry, so we have an idea of what is happening and of the trends. For some months it has been clear that Teesside has been the favoured site for a plate mill, if that investment is confirmed. It is worth emphasising that the report says that any plans for a plate mill will have to be confirmed. Given the economic climate, I suspect that it could be many years before a start is made on a new plate mill at Teesside, yet both Scunthorpe and Dalzell face closure.
  This debate should be about more than Scunthorpe and Dalzell; it should be about British Steel and its future plans. Together with other Labour Members, I strongly
  496
  opposed privatisation. What have the public—the taxpayers and the local workers—got out of privatisation? Certainly, those who were encouraged to buy shares did not get a great deal because the shares have done very little. I accept that, at the time, it was pointed out that the steel industry is cyclical and prone to booms and slumps. There was tremendous investment in the industry when it was in public ownership, yet when it was privatised debts of almost £5 billion were written off. It was virtually given away, with the benefit of all the public expenditure. Because of that, I believe that the Government have the right to ask British Steel about its plans. They have the right to ask British Steel to show some consideration for the work forces and communities, such as mine in Scunthorpe, who paid for that productivity with their jobs, sometimes with their health, and sometimes even with their lives.
  In the end, the judgment on where British Steel is going depends on its investment programme and policy. I find it strange that investment in the Scunthorpe works has been concentrated on the heavy end—the production of liquid steel. Indeed, because of the relining and rebuilding of two of the four blast furnaces, with the rebuilding of a third to come, Scunthorpe is capable of producing an additional 10,000 tonnes of liquid steel.
  However, if Scunthorpe loses its plate mill, it will also lose the demand for 14,000 tonnes of liquid steel. We have a steelworks with the capacity for a new plate mill that could be left with an excess capacity of 24,000 tonnes. Where is that excess capacity to go? It cannot go to Teesside; Teesside has an existing commitment relating not only to output of liquid steel for its own use, but to output for the use of other steel works.
  As some hon. Members have pointed out, British Steel has a tendency to retrench—to slim down, and to attempt to maximise output while returning to the minimum plant size. Of course, British Steel must operate in a commercial market place, both domestically and abroad. If it slims down and retrenches too much, however, how will it meet demand when it increases, as we hope that it will? Will not imports undermine its market share?
  Let me ask two questions. First, will the Minister assure the House that the Government will use what influence they have—I accept that that influence has diminished considerably since privatisation—to press British Steel to ensure that investment is increased, especially "upstream" investment in plants such as the one at Scunthorpe? The history of steel privatisation is not good. When it was first privatised, very little investment went into the plants; the new owners substituted a coat of paint for the purchase of new plant, equipment and technology. Such investment is vital if we are to have a viable steel industry, and to meet strategic and economic needs.
  My second point is this. Towns such as Scunthorpe have received some help because of the drastic job losses that they have experienced. Although that help is much appreciated, I emphasise that the Government have a responsibility: ultimately, the downturn in demand is due to their mismanagement of the economy, and their engineering of two recessions in the past decade. They have a duty to help Glanford and Scunthorpe, and other towns in the same position. Local authorities in such towns have had considerable success in attracting new industry and investment; but we are competing increasingly with other parts of the country—and, indeed, with other parts of Europe.

  497
  Areas such as Glanford and Scunthorpe have a great deal to offer. My local work force has proved its commitment to British Steel in terms of efficiency. The fact that the Scunthorpe plant holds the national steel production record is a source of great pride to a work force that has devoted so much time and energy to improving productivity. That plant deserves some consideration from British Steel; and, at this time of increasing unemployment, I believe that the Government should give my constituency a degree of priority by means of DTI grants and by working with the local councils that are doing so much to promote Scunthorpe and widen its employment base.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I call Mr. Allan Stewart.
  Dr. John Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you explain how it is in order, in a debate that is primarily concerned with the Clydesdale tube works and the Ravenscraig plant, for the Member of Parliament representing the area involved not to be able to catch your eye?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is one of a number who have been disappointed this evening. I can only regret that. This is a short debate and, unfortunately, some of the speeches have been too long.
  Dr. Reid rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I suggest that he may find it fruitful to intervene on the Minister's speech.
  Dr. Reid: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are wasting time. I call the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Dr. Reid: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will give way, as he has always been generous in that regard, but I do not wish to intervene on his speech. I did not ask about other hon. Members who might want to speak; I asked a specific question. How can it be in order for a debate to be held on the subject of the Clydesdale tube works without the local Member of Parliament being able to catch your eye?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can add nothing to what I have already said.
  7.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I confirm that I shall be glad to give way to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) if he wishes to intervene at an appropriate point.
  I welcome the opportunity to explain the Government's position on the steel industry, particularly in Scotland, and on the measures for the regeneration of Lanarkshire. First, let me pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in investigating the closures in the Scottish steel industry. The House is agreed that the Committee has carried out a thorough investigation, which has given us all a better insight into the background
  498
  and implications of those closures. Let me also join other hon. Members in wishing my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) a speedy return to good health and the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) rightly set the debate in the framework of the European Coal and Steel Community provisions. He was right to emphasise that not only the Committee's conclusion but the very process of taking evidence, has been illuminating. I shall refer later to what was said by another Committee member, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther).
  A number of hon. Members who have spoken, including the hon. Members for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), represent communities that are directly affected by the plant closures. It was a pity that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—somewhat uncharacteristically—began by criticising my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for being absent. Surely he knows that the arrangement has always been for the Secretary of State for Scotland to accompany Her Majesty on official visits to Scotland—just as the Secretary of State for Wales accompanies her in Wales and the Secretary of State for Defence accompanies her on visits to defence establishments.
  I address the hon. Member for Garscadden more in sorrow than in anger. However, I entirely reject the allegations of collusion and ill faith made, on the basis of no evidence, by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). Such allegations by the Scottish National party highlight the difference between its attitude to Scotland's steel problems and that of the Labour party. My impression is that Labour Members have been concerned primarily with jobs, while SNP Members, all too often, have been concerned primarily with headlines.
  Mr. Salmond: Was the Minister present at the meeting on 4 June between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the chairman of British Steel? Is it true that, in response to the announcement of the Dalzell closure, the Secretary of State said:
  "You know my view that the management of British Steel is entirely a matter for you, subject of course to competition law"?
  Mr. Stewart: I certainly confirm that I was present at that meeting. Over a long period, the Scottish Office has asked British Steel to consider Dalzell's case, and we presented a paper to British Steel arguing that case. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan alleged that there was some kind of collusion or ill faith in my decision to publish that Scottish Office document. I published it in response to a specific request by the Dalzell trade unions. I held no press conference about it but gave the document to the trade unions so that they could use it as they wished. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his allegations.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw his allegations? I shall not give way—the hon. Gentleman can simply say, "Yes."
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister answer my second question?
  Mr. Stewart: I shall answer it if the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment to do so.
  At that meeting with the chairman of British Steel and some of his colleagues, we were told, in total commercial confidentiality, of the decision in relation to Dalzell. We pointed out that we had argued Dalzell's case over a long period, and we expressed extreme disappointment at the news that had been brought to us. We asked for confirmation that the board had fully considered the Scottish Office document, and we were assured that it had carefully considered every option and had come to the conclusion to invest on Teesside.
  If the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is suggesting that we should, somehow, have released that information to the public, that would have been a breach of faith and trust. As for his allegation about the president of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association and subsequent statements, he was not at that meeting.
  Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have specifically asked the Minister twice about the response to Bob Scholey's news—is it correct?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Stewart: I have already answered that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Although no one doubts that the concern of the hon. Member for Garscadden is genuine, when I asked him what he would have done differently in the past year had he been Secretary of State for Scotland, his reply was not convincing. The essence of his reply was that he would have resigned.
  Dr. Reid: I shall go back on my word and take the opportunity to intervene on the Minister. The position has been made absolutely clear by my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on numerous occasions. First, there would have been an interventionist Department of Trade and Industry. Secondly, there would have been a strengthened Monopolies and Mergers Commission, to which British Steel would have been taken. Thirdly, there would have been joint ventures with British Steel in new technology, which are legal under both treaties in Europe. Fourthly, research assistance would have been channelled to British Steel in terms of moneys for research and development. Again, that would have been legal under European legislation. I give the Minister merely four or five measures that a Labour Government would have taken in the past two years for Ravenscraig and Clydesdale.
  The great tragedy is that Bob Scholey is well aware of what a Labour Government would do had the plants remained. With the prospect of a Labour Government, he has run his timetable one to two years ahead and ordered an army with a scorched earth policy to remove the hot strip mill and the steel works at Clydesdale, so that none of that can be done in a year's time.
  Mr. Stewart: Who would have funded that plan? The Government could not have done so because state aid for steel is closely circumscribed by European Community coal and steel regulations. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that a Labour Government would direct the steel industry and force it to invest against its commercial judgment, he
  500
  should tell the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that that will be Labour's policy, so that he can make it clear to the City.
  Dr. Reid: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Stewart: No, I must get on with the general debate.
  Scotland's steel industry has a long and honourable history. Together with other traditional industries such as shipbuilding and coal mining, it has attracted a deep attachment from the Scottish people. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have emphasised that the workers in the industry have served it well, and it is a matter of deep regret that they do not face a more promising future. However, the factors shaping that future do not lie entirely within the control of the company or the Government. International competition grows ever more intensive. In his positive speech, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) put the matter properly into perspective.
  It is true that, since 1981, employment in British Steel and ECSC products has dropped by 45 per cent. But there has been an equivalent drop of 52 per cent. in France, 57 per cent. in Spain and 42 per cent. in the European Community generally. The whole industry has had to readjust to changing circumstances.
  Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I should like to make a little more progress.
  I emphasise the importance of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). British Steel has been transformed from a company that made a loss of nearly £5 million of taxpayers' money a day into a profitable company. Its productivity has also been transformed. It must be right to allow British Steel to compete and to continue to put poor productivity and the subsidies of the past behind it.
  Mr. Dewar: Will the Secretary of State explain his policy of asking help from other parts of the Government? I was at a meeting at which the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), when Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said that his Department was making no efforts to help the campaign to save the Scottish steel industry because it had not been asked to do so by the Scottish Office. It is difficult to understand why, if the Scottish Office is as committed to the campaign as the Minister says, the Department of Trade and Industry—which is responsible for steel—was not being involved in the campaign because the Scottish Office had not specifically asked for its help.
  Mr. Stewart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the policies, statements and representations made by my right hon. Friend and successive Secretaries of State have had the full support of the whole Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) was right to emphasise that the work force, faced with the proposal to close the hot strip mill, were entitled to as full an explanation as possible of the basis for that decision. My right hon. Friend and I have continually urged British Steel to release as much information as possible about the company's position, consistent with the need to safeguard commercially sensitive information. We

  501
  have continually urged British Steel to consider fully and carefully any potential opportunities that might be identified in relation to their Scottish assets.
  The European Community's regional policy and how it relates to the sale of the hot strip mill has been discussed. I would tell the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that on 25 March Sir Leon Brittan told my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that Sir Robert Scholey had wrongly told the Select Committee that the Commission would object to the sale of the strip mill. The Secretary of State had written to Sir Robert Scholey on 20 March stating:
  "You suggested earlier that the European Commission would object to that prospect"—
  the sale of the hot strip mill—
  "but I now understand that this is unlikely."
  He then went on to ask the chairman of British Steel to reconsider his position in relation to the strip mill.
  With regard to the plate strategy, I accept the deep sense of disappointment in Lanarkshire and Scunthorpe at British Steel's announcement on 1 July that the company was to invest in new plate facilities at Teesside. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes was right to say, first, that the rest of that plant did not depend on the plate mill, so there was no reason why the rest of the plant should be affected significantly by the closure of the plate mill; secondly, and more importantly, on the need to be positive. The creation of new jobs requires the development of new products, processes and markets. During the past decade, Scunthorpe has shown just how successfully diversification can be put into practice.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Stewart: No, I do not have time.
  I shall turn briefly to the Larnarkshire working group and the remedial measures that have been announced. I believe that those measures have received a good response in Lanarkshire, and that there is a spirit of co-operation and a willingness to try to ensure that they succeed.
  I shall outline some of the figures that make up the £120 million which has been mentioned. Some £36 million was the initial allocation of Scottish Enterprise to the Lanarkshire development agency—as recently announced. I thought that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made a positive suggestion in relation to the future role of the expertise that has been built up in East Kilbride development corporation, which we are examining. East Kilbride has £26 million. We can add the £28 million from the Department of Trade and Industry, through the iron and steel employees re-adaptation benefit scheme.
  Some £5 million extra was given by the Scottish Development Agency for sites purchased in 1991—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries. There is also the £15 million announced by the Prime Minister, and the £5 million allocated to Scottish Enterprise for
  502
  Lanarkshire in 1991–92. Again, picking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, there was £4 million for the Lanarkshire development agency for extra training and associated expenses, and the £4 million in extra capital consents to local authorities for factory building.
  This is what has been announced so far, and it constitutes a substantial commitment to Lanarkshire. The Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that Lanarkshire will continue to have a high priority in future public expenditure decisions. We have commissioned a study on the upgrading of the A8 and have undertaken to consider the case for an enterprise zone. We have given a commitment to a new hospital. I believe that there will be a positive response from Lanarkshire to those positive proposals.
  Mr. George Robertson: Not enough.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman suggests that that is not enough, but it is a substantial commitment. I noticed that the Opposition did not promise any extra money under a Labour Government.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: This debate on the whole of the United Kingdom steel industry was triggered by the Select Committee's report. It is clearly a debate that will not conclude tonight, because the events with which it is concerned will not be concluded tonight. The evidence we took only little more than half a year ago about the projections for steel consumption in western Europe in particular have already been vitiated, and it looks as though the costs of reunifying eastern with west Germany will push interest rates still higher, or at least prevent them from falling as we would have wished. Therefore, the problems facing the management of every form of steel production and steel processing plant in western Europe will come under greater pressure. They will not be relieved of difficult decisions by an unexpected improvement in the demand for steel and steel products throughout western Europe.
  The present afflictions that are hitting the rest of the world and the political uncertainties now in many of the export markets—Yugoslavia is merely one case in point—are likely to lead to further postponements of investment in the steel industry in particular, because the demand for some of its products is likely to be postponed.
  I imagine that the House will want to return to the extremely important subject of what continues to be one of the United Kingdom's most important industries.
  The debate was concluded, and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).

Waiting Lists
[Relevant documents: The First Report from the Health Committee of Session 1990–91 on Public Expenditure on Health Services: Waiting Lists ( House of Commons Paper No. 429–1): the Government Reply to the First Report (Cm. 1586) and the Minutes of Evidence of the Welsh Affairs, Committee of Session 1990–91 ( House of Commons Papers Nos. 390—i to iii).]
Waiting Lists

  CLASS XIII, VOTE I
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £9,962,627,000, and including a Supplementary Sum of £162,196,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payments during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Department of Health on hospital, community health, family health and family health service administration services, and on related services.—[Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the next estimate on the Order Paper under class XVI, vote 8:
  That a further sum, not exceeding £697,400,000 and including a Supplementary Sum of £10,291,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Welsh Office on hospital, community health, family health (part) and family health service administration services and on related services.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to initiate a debate this evening under class XIII, vote 1 and class XVI, vote 8 on waiting lists in the national health service and to enable the House to debate a report of the Select Committee on Health on waiting lists and waiting times.
  Waiting lists for treatment have been a feature of the national health service since its inception in 1948. In a cash-limited system such as the NHS in the United Kingdom, waiting lists represent the main rationalising mechanism for reconciling supply and demand. While actual list sizes are of legitimate concern, not only to the House but to people outside, the more important issue is the time that people have to wait for their treatment. In theory, waiting lists are for only elective, non-emergency cases which are ordered in relation to a doctor's assessment of clinical priority. The lower the priority of an individual's condition, the longer that individual is likely to wait for treatment.
  The most recent validated figures from the Department of Health show that at the end of September 1990 almost 750,000 people were waiting for in-patient admissions. In addition, slightly more than 210,000 people were waiting for day case admissions. In my view and that of the Select Committee on Health, strong measures are required to reduce those lists and, more importantly, to reduce the time that people have to wait for treatment.
  The figures also show that, of all those waiting for treatment in September 1990, more than 200,000 people had been waiting for more than one year and more than 70,000 had been waiting for two years or more. Those are stark but important statistics.
  504
  In its first report since being formally instituted in January this year, the Select Committee on Health described the potential consequences of long waiting times as follows:
  "People may lose their jobs as they may have to wait longer than their sick pay conditions entitle them to; others may have to give up their jobs to look after a relative who is waiting for an admission; some people may experience a further deterioration of complication in their conditions. This may add to eventual financial cost to the NHS as they may then require even greater levels of medical intervention."
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health properly understands that. The report continues:
  "People waiting for admissions represent a continuing cost to the health and social services: community nursing visits, prescription charges, sick pay, GPs' time, social support in people's homes all continue as the person waits."
  We concluded in paragraph 6:
  "The human misery and financial cost of long waiting lists is impossible to quantify."
  The Committee also found unacceptable variations in the size of lists and in the time that people had to wait for treatment, depending on which region, district, hospital, specialty or consultant a person was referred to. Those variations could not be explained by differences in need between different places. We therefore inquired into the steps that the Government are taking to reduce the size of NHS waiting lists and, more importantly, to reduce the time that people have to wait for treatment.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: When my hon. Friend's Committee considered the different factors that might have affected waiting lists in different areas, what investigation did it make into the quality of management in different health authorities?
  Mr. Winterton: That is an important point and I hope to answer it in my speech. I am about to refer to it en passant in relation to my area. Perhaps good management has a part to play in reducing waiting lists. I refer first to the Mersey regional health authority. I do not always see eye to eye with its chairman, Sir Donald Wilson, but I must give him full credit for the excellent work that he and his staff in Mersey have done to achieve the lowest waiting lists in the country. He deserves congratulations on that.
  I know rather more, however, about Macclesfield health authority than about Mersey. Macclesfield's waiting list record is one of the best in the Mersey region. I pay tribute to the district general manager, Mr. Bill Dobson, and to the chairman of the health authority, Mr. Peter Hayes, who has done an amazing job. I quote from the Macclesfield Express Advertiser:
  "Health Minister, Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, recently gave Mersey region credit for having done more to reduce its waiting lists than any other region, having no-one waiting more than two years".
  In Macclesfield we have gone one step further. According to Mr. Dobson,
  "'We now have only two people on our waiting lists who have been waiting longer than 18 months and I expect that figure to go down again very soon.' But there is no room for complacency … We should continue to monitor waiting lists closely. Our next target is to have no one who has been on a waiting list for treatment in Macclesfield longer than 12 months."
  To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), good management did play an important part in Macclesfield in reducing waiting lists and waiting times, but I would not be allowed to get away with saying that without adding that, possibly in

  505
  most areas, additional resources could also make a large contribution to further reductions in waiting lists and times.
  I should also pay tribute and express my thanks to our specialist adviser, Dr. Steve Engleman, for his help in this inquiry into waiting lists and times. I am also grateful to our specialist adviser Gregor Henderson who has done exceptionally good work for the Committee. The Committee is also grateful to Mr. John Yates of the university of Birmingham's Inter-Authority Comparisons and Consultancy for his frank and thoughtful evidence to the Committee. I do not think that we have ever been given such competent, informed, and well-researched evidence.
  The Government published their reply to our report on Tuesday 2 July, just two days ago. They said in their introduction:
  "The Committee's report makes a number of helpful comments on how waiting fists and times might be reduced. Most of these are firm policy: others are being considered carefully."
  That is encouraging to the Select Committee and we are especially pleased that the Government have accepted 13 of our 22 recommendations.
  There are five areas in our report and the Government's reply to it to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. The first I call, "Leaving things to the district health authorities." The Government agree that the validation of waiting lists is a normal part of waiting list management, but in some circumstances extra resources may be required for information systems and clerical support to help some specialties to validate their lists effectively. These extra resources may not be easily identifiable from within a district budget. The Department should therefore give districts support to ensure that the people responsible for validating waiting lists do not start from a disadvantaged position.
  We were pleased to see that the Department is encouraging the development of more day case work, but, as we pointed out in the report, a further shift of resources to more day case work will necessitate further strengthening of primary and community health care services. We look to the Department to ensure that its monitoring of health authorities is capable of assessing the implications of the shift to more day case work for primary and community care services.
  Similarly, it is not enough to say that health authorities are responsible for the provision and organisation of services to meet the health needs of their resident populations when central help can be provided by the Department to help them in that task. For example, we believe that the Department should investigate the likely cost-effectiveness and impact on services, in both urban and rural areas, of providing out-patient clinics in different specialties in community and primary care settings. We call on the Government to fund assessments of cost-effectiveness in this area and then to disseminate the relevant experiences.
  When we visited Huntingdon we found that consultant obstetricians from Hinchingbrooke hospital are conducting out-patient antenatal clinics in GPs' surgeries every week. Other districts can learn from such examples and then apply what is relevant to their local needs.
  Districts also need help in dealing with problems caused by the few consultants who, regrettably, do not pull their weight in their national health service work. Everyone is aware of the local effects of that and of the money wasted
  506
  if a consultant is suspended while a long inquiry takes place. We recommend that the Department carry out a study to try to determine the influence that private practice in the same unit or specialty has on the time people have to wait for NHS treatment. Unfortunately, the Government rejected that recommendation as they were unsure of what it would achieve. They told us that it is up to the district health authority to ensure that consultants match their service contracts to their job plans. That, however, is a difficult task, since districts hold only consultants' job plans, not their service contracts—they are held by the region. Of course, trust hospitals employ their consultants directly. May I suggest to Ministers that consultants' service contracts in directly managed units be held by the hospitals concerned, not by the regions?
  The Select Committee of which we used to be part, the Social Services Select Committee, made that recommendation in more than one of its reports. I reiterate our recommendation that a study be carried out on the influence, if any, of private practice on waiting times. We believe that most doctors would welcome such a study.
  I should like to make one further point connected with the Government's reply to our conclusions on the effect of private medical practice. It concerns the Government's choice of words, and I quote from their response:
  "Management is also responsible for ensuring that private practice does not, to a significant extent, interfere with the performance of the functions of the health service or disadvantage non-paying patients."
  Surely that should read "to any extent". I should welcome an assurance on that.
  The second area requiring immediate and careful attention is money. The Government rejected our calls for more resources to reduce waiting lists and times. The central allocation of money to this year's waiting list initiative was increased in cash terms in 1991–92 by £2 million—from £33 million to £35 million. Some £25·5 million of that will be paid to regions only if they achieve the targets that they have agreed with the NHS management executive. Regions have also to match the central contribution of £25·5 million pound for pound from their own resources. That effectively removes £25·5 million that could be spent by the regions on other services.
  Targets have to be met before any money is paid up front, and there is a chance that central expenditure for 1991–92 on the waiting list initiative will not be as high as last year. An assurance about that would be helpful. Paying money only when targets are met reduces the perverse incentive for specialties to increase their lists to attract more money. It does not make adequate provision for paying money up front to help specialities reduce their lists in the first place.
  Our report recommends that some waiting list money should be kept aside to reward good practice. We made that recommendation after hearing the views of Mr. John Yates, whose work in reducing the worst waiting lists has rightly been commended by the Government and the Committee. Mr. Yates thinks that hospitals or specialties should be given an incentive—a good practice bonus for specialties or authorities that keep their lists down. We call that a preventive incentive scheme aimed at preventing waiting lists and waiting times from rising in the first place by rewarding those who manage their specialties effectively.

  507
  Sadly, the Government's reply to our report failed to respond to that recommendation and I invite the Minister to respond in her winding-up speech. However, the Government's reply states that they are considering future initiatives for tackling waiting lists and times and their funding. We would welcome clarification about when we will know what those initiatives are and whether they will involve more resources which, as I said earlier, are necessary to deal with the problem. An announcement today about more resources to reduce waiting lists and times would be welcome news not only for the thousands of people on the waiting lists, but for doctors who are constantly required to arbitrate between patients with similar clinical needs, one of whom may be seen the following week while the other cannot be seen for six months or more.
  The third main area is that of extra-contractual referrals. I am confident that the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) will have more to say on that matter if she speaks in the debate. The Committee heard evidence that where there are block contracts between health authorities and provider units and when the health authority has set aside a small reserve for extra-contractual referrals, GPs have a restricted choice about where to send patients.
  A new sort of waiting list may be appearing consisting of patients who could be treated immediately outside their districts but who are having to wait for treatment, not because the hospital concerned cannot treat them immediately, but because their district health authority has not kept sufficient money in its back pocket to pay for that treatment in the current financial year. I hope that the NHS reforms will not simply replace one sort of waiting list with another.
  The fourth area of concern to the Select Committee is the monitoring of NHS reforms and the information that will be made available. The Government responded to the Committee's concern that close and careful monitoring of the reforms should take place by citing the work of the six NHS sites which are working with the management executive on assessing the local impact of reforms. We all eagerly await some feedback on the lessons to be learnt from Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Halton in my neck of the woods in Cheshire, St. Helens, Knowsley and Warrington, which is close to my area, Newcastle, Portsmouth, Wandsworth and West Dorset. When will those sites make their first reports to the management executive?
  The Committee was pleased to hear about the establishment of a joint NHS review committee with the general medical services committee. However, we are not sure of the purpose and authority of the committee that has been established. Will it monitor and evaluate the reforms, or will it be a forum only for raising and discussing issues that arise from the reforms? If it is to be the former, evaluation implies that a judgment will be made at the end of the exercise on whether the venture has been successful and is worth continuing in its present form. The Select Committee would welcome such an approach.
  If that is to be the joint committee's purpose, what resources will be made available to it to enable it to carry out the required monitoring, research and evaluation? Further clarification of the Government's intentions in agreeing to the setting up of the new joint review
  508
  committee is needed to give a clear sign that the Government intend to develop a more meaningful relationship with the profession than has been possible in the past.
  We were also concerned that information on waiting lists and waiting times should not be restricted to collecting only purchaser-based figures. The Committee viewed that as important and took the view that information on waiting lists and times should continue to be collected and disseminated for each provider unit. If that is not done, how will GPs and, much more importantly, their patients, the clients, be able to compare the waiting times of different hospitals and exercise choice about where to go for treatment? If the Government proceed on the lines that they imply in their reply to our report, the philosophy behind the reforms will be negated by Government action.
  The Government say that people should have more choice. However, they must have the proper information on which to base that choice. That is why we need not only purchaser-based figures but provider-based figures. I hope that on mature consideration the Minister and her Department will assure the House that that is the future intention. We hear a great deal and speak a great deal about the Prime Minister's citizens charter and what I have asked the Minister to do is entirely in accordance with the concept of that charter. I hope that in her winding-up speech the Minister will give the Committee and the House the assurances that I seek.
  Finally, our report on waiting lists raises the need for a wide and open public debate about what the NHS can and should do. We are worried that the reformed NHS may lead to unplanned changes or inequalities in access to health services. We need to ensure that the NHS continues to deliver a national health service that meets the needs of all our people in a co-ordinated and planned way. We were concerned that the reforms might not succeed in reducing waiting lists and times for treatment to a manageable and reasonable level because of an inability to face the key question of how to meet the demand for services from limited health resources. We were also concerned that the new arrangement of purchasers and providers could lead to the stage at which people were waiting not only for treatment but for money.
  The logical outcome of the NHS reforms is that the responsibility for waiting lists will shift from hospitals to general practitioner fund holders and district health authorities. I hope that that does not mean that the period that a patient waits for treatment will be determined solely by the amount of money left in the authority's or general practitioner's kitty. I look to the Government to continue to target their waiting list initiative in such a way that, wherever possible, patients in need of treatment can be promptly admitted to a hospital as a day case or on an in-patient basis as required.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health will consider that the Committee's report is sound and well-researched and that the views that I have expressed on behalf of the Committee are constructive and merit the Government's serious consideration. I hope that I shall receive some reassurances when my hon. Friend contributes to the debate.
  8 pm
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: When talking about waiting lists, we need to bear in mind exactly what we mean by the term. Waiting list figures are serious enough but there is what might be called a hidden waiting list. As a patient is considered to be on a hospital waiting list after the first visit to a consultant, we ignore the many months that the patient may have waited between the general practitioner's referral and the visit to the consultant. I endorse everything that was said so well and clearly by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), but I sound the warning that waiting-list figures, serious though they are, underestimate the extent of the problem.
  General practitioners are aware that there are long waiting lists in certain specialties or in certain areas, and that it may be necessary for a patient to wait a long time to see a consultant for the first time. That can act as a profound disincentive to a GP to make a referral. Once he tells the patient that he wants to send him to a hospital, he knows that that patient will be on tenterhooks while waiting for the visit and wondering what the outcome will be. Accordingly, the GP may be strongly inclined to delay referral, if that is at all possible. That can happen if someone is suffering from cataracts, for example. The temptation not to refer is a strong one.
  We should not forget that there are two layers, as it were, before we reach the waiting list proper. I have noticed also that there is a tendency to use the term "elective surgery" as if that means that someone can take it or leave it and that the surgery is an optional extra in someone's life. I fully accept that those who go on waiting lists are not suffering from conditions that require emergency treatment. If someone is knocked over or he or she falls in the street, or is involved in some other accident that requires emergency treatment, he or she will be taken to hospital immediately and treated. We are all extremely proud of the national health service's record in providing that sort of treatment, and grateful for it. However, someone can suffer from a condition that is extremely important to him or her even though it cannot be described as one that requires emergency treatment. The use of the term "elective surgery", the tone in which it is uttered and the context in which it is used, often underestimates the vital part that the appropriate treatment can play in people's lives.
  Cataract operations are described as elective surgery, as are hip replacements. People who need the operations to be carried out can languish in waiting lists for a considerable time, during which they can involve various public services in considerable expense. Those who find themselves in that position suffer considerable misery, distress and anxiety. Elective does not mean unimportant.
  Waiting lists have been long in the north-west but I am glad to say that there are improvements. However, one or two matters still concern me. I have been reading a document that was published by the regional health authority in March 1991. It contains a column that sets out reductions in waiting lists, which is headed "Waiting Lists Reduced". The document states that the region's total waiting list stands at 87,579. The list has been reduced, but it is still considerable. The document states:
  "It is an encouraging sign that the majority of these patients have been on the list for less than a year, with 12 per cent. waiting over a year"—
  that is more than 10,500—
  "and only 6 per cent for more than two years."
  510
  The word to which I wish to draw attention is "only". When "only" precedes 6 per cent., it means that 5,255 people have been waiting for more than two years. A reference to "only 6 per cent." may give the impression that only a few people are involved, but 5,255 sounds a lot more. If they have been waiting for more than two years, for how long have they been waiting?
  A young woman in my constituency—I shall not name her for obvious reasons—has been waiting for surgery since 1984. The term "over two years" can hide a waiting time that is considerably longer than two years. It is significant, however, that the specialty involved is plastic surgery. There are many who choose to think of plastic surgery as an optional extra and as something that is not especially important, and in doing so they often make a grave mistake. The young woman who has been waiting since 1984 wrote to me in the autumn of 1990—she is still waiting—and explained the position. She wrote:
  "I was assaulted in 1983. My nose was broken. I have recently had an operation on my nose to help me breathe easier as I could not sleep properly at night."
  She waited several years for an operation to help her to breathe properly after a criminal assault. Her letter continues:
  "But I still need plastic surgery on it for my appearance. I am 28 years old now. I do not have a social life as I have lost my confidence due to my nose."
  When she saw the plastic surgeon shortly before writing that letter, she was told that she might still have to wait a further three or four years. I think that she is reasonable when she writes:
  "I think this is ridiculous as I was the innocent party in this assault."
  If someone suffers a criminal assault we are all extremely sorry and we wish to see the assailant brought to justice. Surely we have some further responsibility to the victim. It is ridiculous and disgraceful that my constituent has had to wait so many years because she requires plastic surgery. I have now been informed—naturally I am in contact with the health authority about the matter—that it is hoped that she will be seen in the next financial year. That is progress. It is better than three or four years. But I am still deeply distressed on behalf of that young woman.
  In the Preston health authority 1,010 people have been waiting for plastic surgery for more than two years. I have given one example. In case people are tempted to think that these are cases where, for example, a person goes along for plastic surgery having been foolish enough to have a tattoo saying "Judy" and is now going out with a young lady called Carol, I remind the House that before those 1,010 people got on the waiting list they had to satisfy their general practitioner that the treatment was necessary and proper for the NHS and they had to satisfy the consultant likewise.
  It is reasonable for us to assume that those 1,010 people who have waited more than two years are genuinely waiting for clinically necessary treatment. I deplore any suggestions—they are sometimes made—that because a specialty is plastic surgery it somehow does not matter that there are these outrageous waiting lists.
  Extra-contractual referrals have been mentioned and I certainly intend to say a word about them. That issue was raised with the Secretary of State when he was being cross-examined on the Department's spending plans in general. On that occasion I quoted from advice, perhaps better described as instructions, to general practitioners in the Preston health authority area that extra-contractual

  511
  referrals could be authorised only after reference to the health authority, and general practitioners were advised that previous consultation about the case was desirable in order to avoid the "embarrassment" of having "to defer or even reject" the extra-contractual referral.
  In response to my complaint about that, the Secretary of State said that the clinical judgment of where, when and if to refer a patient remained with the general practitioner. However, he somewhat undermined that welcome statement with the qualification that the health authority might have to defer the referral. Clinical judgment which can be exercised but which can then be deferred by the health authority is the exercise of clinical judgment in theory only and that is no use to any patient. If a patient is referred by a general practitioner outside the health authority's contractual area, that patient wants to have the consultation and the treatment if appropriate. It is no earthly use to that patient if the referral can be deferred, and it may mean deferred indefinitely, by the health authority.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Just today I received a letter from my district health authority's general manager giving me the reason for refusing 18 extra-contractual referrals and one of them was the refusal of a general practitioner referral direct to Leeds for in vitro fertilisation treatment because Calderdale has a contract with Hull. It said that charges can be accepted only if referred through a Calderdale consultant.
  Mrs. Wise: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because that is another example from an entirely different area of the restriction of the general practitioner's exercise of his clinical judgment; a refusal to allow a GP to exercise clinical judgment. It is valueless for the Secretary of State to tell general practitioners that these judgments can be made by them if in practice no such thing can happen.
  In reply, the Secretary of State said that we are used to waiting lists and that this is simply a waiting list. I find it deeply disturbing that we are contemplating the creation of yet another layer of waiting lists. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Health will look carefully at this and will not be content with empty words.
  We should take care in relation to one of even the Select Committee's recommendations. The Select Committee's recommendations are, as always, excellent, but it has been drawn to my attention, and perhaps to that of other members of the Committee, that recommendation 7 concerning the South Western regional health authority's efforts to replace waiting lists by new arrangements giving all patients booked appointments may have many pitfalls.
  Therefore, when recommendation 7 says:
  "We recommend that the NHS Management Executive study closely the progress of"
  such efforts, I hope that in doing so they will also study the exact working of such efforts to ensure that they are not just another method of causing problems for general practitioners and their patients.
  Recommendation 12 refers to day case work which the Select Committee and the Department think is highly desirable. However, the Select Committee makes the vital point that:
  "This will necessitate further strengthening of primary health care services and substantial improvements in
  512
  community health systems and services to enable people to be discharged from hospital earlier and supported in their own home environment."
  One of the things that I am sorriest about is that I see no evidence of any such improvements. We cannot come to a satisfactory solution of waiting list problems or health service problems without carrying out the recommendation contained in that sentence.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Jerry Hayes: I admire, like and respect the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise)—I hope that that does not do her political career too much damage —but it is not right for her to say, as she did a moment ago, that there have not been improvements. There have been significant improvements in waiting lists. I will explain to the hon. Lady in a moment where they have been. They have been widespread.
  Mrs. Wise: I did not say that there have been no improvements; there have been improvements. I acknowledged that there have been improvements.
  Mr. Hayes: I am grateful. I completely misunderstood what the hon. Lady said. I am delighted that she accepts that there have been improvements. It is very easy for Conservative Members to tell people that we are spending more on health than any other Government, which is true; that for the first time we are spending more on health than on defence, which is true; that we are spending about £33 billion per year on health compared with £7·5 billion in 1979, which is true. It is true also that waiting lists increased by 40 per cent. under the last Labour Government and have fallen by 6 per cent. under the present Government. However, that does not cut a lot of ice with our constituents, for whom the measure of the health service is not the amount of money that is spent on it—important though that is—but the treatment that people receive and the relief from pain and suffering that the service provides.
  In the eyes of the electorate, the measure of the health service is its success in getting people off the waiting list who should not be on it. All right hon. and hon. Members can tell appalling stories about waiting lists. I await with interest the speech of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), who is Labour's health spokesman. How is it that, under every Labour Government, waiting lists increased, whereas they have decreased under every Conservative Government?
  The recent April-on-April figures look much better than some of us ever imagined. The number of persons waiting for elective surgery for more than a year has fallen by 19 per cent.; and for longer than two years by more than 39 per cent. That is incredibly good news. People may say that that is not the case in their areas. I hope that it will not be too tedious if I give the figures region by region, because the public should know them.
  Those who have been waiting for more than two years for elective surgery in the Northern region has fallen by 47·9 per cent.; in Yorkshire, 18·1 per cent.; Trent, 87·4 per cent.; East Anglian, 24·5 per cent.; North West Thames, 22·3 per cent.; North East Thames, 58·3 per cent.; South East Thames, 30·2 per cent.; South West Thames, 50·1 per cent.; Wessex, 30·2 per cent.; Oxford, 31 per cent.; South Western, 19·8 per cent.; West Midlands, 32 per cent.; North Western, 45·9 per cent.; and Mersey, 100 per cent. Thank goodness one public service in Merseyside is

  513
  working—and it is not surprising that the people who run it were appointed by a Conservative Government. However, the polling stations in Walton are just about to close, and no one voting in by-elections pays the slightest attention to what is said in this place anyway.
  People should know that there is good news. We always hear good news from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who spoke of the great strides forward in his area—which is doubtless partly due to his splendid advocacy. In 1979, the number of people on the waiting list in his constituency was more than 1,000, but the figure today is fewer than 120. That may be rough on the 118 individuals concerned, but it is still a tremendous achievement. Why not give credit where it is due?
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 31 of the Select Committee's report, which shows waiting list statistics for in-patient admissions in England in respect of those waiting more than one year. If one compares September 1986 with September 1990, one sees that the figure for the Northern region, for example, increased from 6,426 to 7,264; for East Anglian, from 6,793 to 8,650; and for North West Thames from 10,837 to 12,632. I will not continue, because I might then have to truncate my speech.
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman may not be called, if he goes on. I was making the point that many more people are being treated under the present Government than ever before. It is good to see a Select Committee report so universally welcomed by the Government. It prompted so many responses of "agree" and "entirely agree" that I could not believe my ears. If there is good management, and if funds are used properly, waiting lists can be significantly reduced.
  I was delighted to see from the Government's response that clerical validation, which is an aspect to which more thought ought to be given, has increased by 52 per cent. We can do better than that. In his evidence to the Committee, Duncan Nichol said:
  "I was talking this morning with general practitioners in Oxford; they had secured their waiting lists from the hospitals, got their patients who were currently waiting back in front of them and they had gone through this list and removed 34 per cent. of the patients that they knew did not require to be on that waiting list."
  That is a remarkable reduction. Validation should be not just 52 per cent. but 100 per cent. Inter-Authority Comparisons and Consultancy wrote:
  "Some of the failures to validate lists properly almost defy belief. When the largest single surgical list in the country was validated in 1989, 4,000 were written to from that one specialty alone. One half of the patients did not reply at all and a further 450 patients asked to be removed from the waiting list. By the time the validation was completed only 35 per cent. of those written to remained on the list. In another specialty all general surgical patients were written to in two successive years and on both occasions all the patients who failed to reply were left on the waiting list."
  An enormous amount of work remains to be done on that aspect. It may be boring, painstaking and clerical work, but it must be done.
  The fact remains that national health patients are operated upon far more quickly than in the past. I am delighted that the Government are spending more money, and I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members share my view.
  514
  In today's issue of The Independent, its political correspondent, Nicholas Timmins, who is an expert on health matters, writes that the Government are to cease publication of hospital waiting lists. No doubt the hon. Member for Peckham will say that that is because the waiting lists are so rotten and miserable. The truth is that far more information about waiting lists is to be given by the Government than ever before. Mr. Timmins knows a great deal about health matters, and I do not mean to be difficult, but I refer him to the final paragraph of the Government's response:
  "We shall continue to publish waiting list and time figures, as we have done since 1984. In the short term, figures will be published on both a provider basis, as now, and on a purchaser basis. In future, we will publish purchaser-based figures, as these will reveal health authorities' performance in purchasing early treatment for their local populations."
  The hon. Member for Peckham is always announcing new policies, but she may be afraid that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary will cost them. On the other hand, we hear from Labour that it will not spend more money on the health service. Nevertheless, we want to hear what the hon. Lady has to say about how Labour will reduce waiting lists, and improve hospital efficiency and management.
  In health care today, money travels with the patient. For the first time, hospitals will have an incentive to produce effective, quality contracts, and to perform operations as quickly as they can. There will be a financial incentive for not just health service trust hospitals—which will be opting out of nothing except bureaucracy—but all others to publish the maximum information, so that the public can make the right choice. We know that the Opposition do not believe in choice, unless it is choice for a little more money for NUPE and COHSE and £175 million for the minimum wage for the NHS. All that will not help patient care [Interruption] The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) suggests that I should get on with it. He is right. He talks a lot of common sense some of the time. I should not be too unkind to the hon. Member for Peckham. She will have the opportunity to put her case. It is nonsense to say that there will be insufficient information—quite the opposite.
  While I am on the question of national health service trust hospitals, I hope that the hon. Member for Peckham will have the grace to say that all the talk about profits before patients and all the talk just about profits is not true. She was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the National Health Service and Community Care Bill which is now an Act. She knows that it is unlawful for any NHS trust hospital to make a profit. I hope that, once and for all, she will have the grace to put the record straight.
  As for the publication of information, the Audit Commission has done a fantastic job. All the members of the Select Committee were very impressed by the evidence it gave us. Within one year, it has produced a health and financial profile for every single district. I should like the Government to consider carefully the fact that these profiles are not in the public domain. They should be. The Audit Commission put forward all sorts of ways in which the national health service could use its resources far more efficiently. Many of the Select Committee members would like the Audit Commission to extend the scope of its investigation into the national health service.
  Our report referred to the importance of day surgery. The Select Committee has just returned from Sweden. The

  515
  hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye has one of those looks that suggests something that did not happen. It was a perfectly respectable and sensible visit to Sweden.
  We visited one of the finest hospitals that Sweden, and Stockholm, has to offer. The members of the Select Committee found in that plush hospital that the walls were almost lined with money. It should not be forgotten that we were in a socialist mecca. Lots of patients were being treated; there were hardly any waiting lists; there was an air of hushed excitement and expectancy among administrators and doctors; they were treating more and more people.
  We said "What's the secret of your success?" "Actually," we were told, "we have removed one tier of management—the politicians; we have got rid of them. We have brought in industrialists to help to run our hospitals." "Oh," said some of the members of the Committee, "how very interesting." "Also," said the administrator, who is also a professor, "we are going to be in competition with other hospitals. You know what?" he said: "it's very exciting; we're going to have to work to a budget." We realised, in this mecca of socialism, that the finest hospital in Stockholm and in Sweden was effectively a national health service trust hospital. It was only nine months behind the reforms that this Government have introduced.
  One of the members of the Select Committee said, "This is a spotlessly clean hospital; you must employ lots of people to keep it clean." "No," said the administrator, "We put all that out to private tender some time ago." If that is good enough for socialist Sweden, it is good enough for us. Despite all the problems, the Government have nothing to be ashamed about in waiting lists. We need a little bit more money to reduce them, but the figures that have been published are very good news.
  It is also good news that, at last, the British Medical Association is beginning to appreciate that many doctors are queuing up to become fund holders. That is why there has been a change of mood. NHS administrators are beginning to realise that these reforms are very good. At trust hospitals such as Guy's, doctors and nurses are treating more and more patients than ever before. That is what the reforms are all about. I hope that we shall hear about what the Labour party intends to do.
  8.35 pm
  Ms. Harriet Harman: I intend to concentrate on the excellent report that the Select Committee has produced and on the Government's response to it. This is an important debate. The Committee produced an important and weighty report. I welcome the chance to debate it. I welcome also what was said by way of introduction by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), the Committee's Chairman, who was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise). The fact that they chose the waiting list issue for their first report shows a sharp sense of priorities. Waiting times are the major source of complaint.
  Most people are happy with the care that is provided by the NHS. They have great affection for it and they support it. However, people are very worried about waiting times. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) thinks that it is just a clerical or a statistical issue. He produced loads of statistical and clerical figures in an effort to suggest that
  516
  this is all a figment of our imagination. Whatever the figures may suggest, if one goes into the orthopaedic ward of any hospital and talks to the people there, following surgery, they say, "Thank goodness I've had my operation. Yes, I'm getting on really well and beginning to look forward to the future, but it has been the most terrible thing to have to wait for my operation." Then out pour stories of family relationships broken, of the husband having to move into another bedroom because his wife has been unable to sleep for month after month and therefore argues with the children, of someone who has lost his job because he has been off work sick for so long waiting for his operation that he feels, when the firm hits hard times, that he cannot stand in the way of others who might be made redundant if he does not stand down from the firm.
  Mrs. Mahon: The one statistic that the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) did not give was the number of people who had been in so much pain that they decided to pay for a hip operation. It would have been interesting if he had referred to every district and said how many people had been forced by pain to pay thousands of pounds for a hip operation.
  Ms. Harman: My hon. Friend has made a very important point that I was about to make. We are talking not just about statistics but about people who are waiting in pain for their operations, about people who lose their jobs because they cannot get around and also about people who become immobile, even when they have had their operations, because they had to wait for it for so long. They never made the complete recovery that they would have made if they had had their operations when they needed them. I support the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield in the Committee's report, that
  "the human misery and financial cost of long waiting lists are impossible to quantify."
  That is the starting point to which we must continue to return.
  In addition to the pain, misery and financial cost of long waiting times for individual patients, there is also anger that, having paid their national insurance and taxes, the national health service was not there when they needed it. There is also bitterness because people know that, if they could go private, they could be treated the following week and would not have to wait. It is not fair that only those who can pay again, having already paid through their national insurance and taxes, should get the treatment when they need it.
  As the hon. Member for Macclesfield said, it is inefficient to treat people long after they need their operations. We should think of the work and the time that is lost to industry, and of the fact that an operation often needs to be larger if it is delayed—for example, hip operations. We should also think of the people who, after waiting immobile for a year and a half, never really get the courage to re-enter life in the outside word, even after they have had their operation and have regained their physical mobility. That recognition of the cost of long waiting lists is one of the reasons why so many employers offer health insurance to their employees. It is not as a perk to their staff, but because they cannot afford to have their employees off sick for a long time while they wait for operations.
  About 93 per cent. of the people on waiting lists are classed as non-urgent cases, but we should not be complacent. I reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend

  517
  the Member for Preston about calling it "elective surgery". We are referring to people waiting with failing eyesight for cataract operations or those who are waiting for hip replacements. The idea of non-urgency is a strictly medical definition about whether someone is likely to die, rather than whether he needs the surgery. Doctors are not gung-ho about surgery. People are not put on to a list unless they need an operation. An operation is always a significant step for the individual, quite apart from the background of a lack of resources or beds. People are not put on lists without a second thought.
  The numbers waiting more than two years have dropped, but worryingly the numbers waiting for more than a year have increased from 161,326, to 172,025. The problem of waiting is endemic. It is not a question just of local efficiency—of some areas not getting their act together—or of a lack of information—that if only people knew where to go to get the operation matters would improve. As the figures in the report show, 23 per cent. of people are waiting for more than a year. The problem does not affect only in-patients; day and out-patients are also waiting for treatment.
  Part of the Government's response is to imply that there is a lack of information, and that if there was more information about where people could get treatment quickly they would travel there and there would be less of a problem. The College of Health initiative—the national waiting list help line—shows, not surprisingly, that most of the calls are from people who need operations for which there are long waits in all areas. From the figures, we can see that about half the calls were from orthopaedic patients, most of whom were waiting for hip or knee replacements. Incidentally, a great many people were not able to get through when the lines were first opened because the lines were jammed. The next largest group were waiting for general surgery, such as hernia operations. After that came those wanting cataract operations and then those waiting for ear, nose and throat services, such as grommets for children with hearing problems.
  Faced with so many people calling about general surgery or orthopaedic services, it is worth examining the waiting lists for those services to see whether the problem can be dealt with by simply shifting patients from one area with long waiting lists to another area where there are not. The statistical section of the Library has kindly gone through the figures for me. If we examine the waiting lists for general surgery, trauma and orthopaedics, district by district, we see that all the districts have waiting lists. Large numbers of people are waiting for the same operation in every part of the country.
  Mr. David Amess rose—
  Ms. Harman: Perhaps the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) would like to know the figures for Basildon district health authority. It has a waiting list for general surgery, and for trauma and orthopaedics. If his constituents want to travel to find a place where they might find no waiting lists for those services, perhaps we cart hear from him, an advocate of the free market, where they can go to escape those waiting lists.
  Mr. Amess: I thank the hon. Lady for that generous billing. I hope that when I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be able to talk about Basildon. I have been following the hon. Lady's speech carefully. I know that she
  518
  is anxious to make progress, and to tell the House how Labour party policy will address the gloomy situation that she is describing. How much extra money has the Labour party pledged to spend on the national health service, especially on hospital waiting lists? Could she give us that information a jump ahead in her speech?
  Ms. Harman: I said from the outset that I would address myself to the report of the Select Committee and to the Government's response. I should be grateful if I could be allowed to carry on with my comments in that vein.
  The Government's response is to imply that the problem is simply one of people not knowing where there are no waiting lists and that if people had the information and could ring the helpline, they could go where there were no waiting lists. I hope that the Minister will admit that for the things that the people are ringing up the helpline for there are waiting lists in all areas. The idea for them simply to travel is not possible. It will be a shame if the Government get into the business of raising people's hopes by saying that all that they need to do is to make a telephone call or a train journey, and the problem will be solved. It is deeper than that—the problem is endemic.
  As has been pointed out, the problem will be that there will be less information as a result of the Government's intention to change the way in which waiting list information is collected. There will be less information about where the waiting lists are shorter. John Yates, commenting on the revelation that the Government are to change the way in which waiting lists information is collected, said in The Independent today:
  "These changes undermine the Government's own reforms. If health authorities and fund-holders want to shop around for the shortest wait, they need to know how long the wait is at hospitals with which they don't have contracts."
  The Government have acknowledged that there is a problem with waiting lists. We need to have information on which to assess the position. The Government have admitted that there is a problem, yet they are ending the means by which we can measure progress. Not only are they ending the means by which they say that people can travel to where waiting lists are shorter, but they are ending our opportunity to compare year by year whether improvements are being made, or whether the position is getting worse.
  The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) said that hospitals will publish their waiting lists. I hope that we shall have a more sophisticated response from the Minister because she will know that hospitals selectively publishing what they want to do as part of their sales patter is not the same as national Government responsibility for collecting information from all hospitals—those that want to reveal the information as well as those that do not. We cannot simply use information from an ad hoc marketing strategy as a substitute for nationally collected data, which we need to compare year on year. It is a cynical attempt to break the opportunity to compare because the Government think that things will get worse.
  Mr. Alistair Burt: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Harman: No, because I hope that I shall come to the problem that the hon. Gentleman seeks to address later in my speech.

  519
  Does the Minister really think that the problem is that people do not know where the treatment is and that, if they did, they could simply travel to it?
  The other assumption lurking behind the Government's relaxed, laid-back complacency is that we are talking merely about inefficiency at local level and that, if we beef up the management, everything will be all right. They say, "Everyone should model themselves on the best, and the best have managed to crack the problem. If the problem has not been sorted out, there is clearly a problem with management at local level"—or "the bureaucrats", as I understand the Secretary of State now calls them.
  A group of south London Members went to see the Under-Secretary about King's College hospital, which had 120 of its beds cut in the last financial year. People are having to wait longer for operations and people are even having to wait in the accident and emergency department because there are simply not enough beds available for them to be admitted to hospital even as emergencies. The Minister said, "King's cannot have the money to reopen its beds. The length of stay is too long." He took no account of the number of people in that hospital who cannot be discharged because the support services simply are not there.
  The point that the Select Committee made in its report is critical not just because of the moves to day care and the placing of greater emphasis on out-patient treatment but because we need an effective and appropriate use of in-patient beds. We all know that some people are ditched out of hospital and suffer because the necessary support services are lacking. Others remain in hospital because they simply cannot be discharged. The hospital social workers at King's told me of a patient on an orthopaedic ward who was desperate to go home. He was growing -depressed because, although he had been officially discharged over a month before, he could not go home: the hospital simply could not arrange the necessary support services; there was simply not enough care and support available in the community.
  In their response, the Government dealt with the matter in a narrow and shallow way. They said, "We expect health services and family health service authorities to take account of any increase in day case work when planning primary and community health services." That is not good enough, given that the support services are insufficient to allow people to be discharged when they need to be, let alone to cope with the welcome shift away from in-patient treatment to day-patient treatment. I hope that the Minister will show that she recognises the problem that already exists—quite apart from the growing problem. We are talking not just about the community nursing, psychiatric and chiropody services but about home helps, care assistants and all the other support services which should be there to enable the hospitals to do hospital work and people to be cared for in the community thereafter.
  Even if travelling were the way to deal with the problem—if people could get an away-day ticket to the magical place where there is no waiting list— the Government should not be urging people in that direction. I thought that it was the Government's view—I thought there was a consensus—that treatment should be as locally based as possible so that, if there were post-operative complications, the patient would have an easy trip back to
  520
  the person who had done the operation, to facilitate visiting and so that the patient could be discharged as early as possible because there was a close connection between the hospital and the community services. I do not accept the idea that people can get the information and then travel around but, even if I did, I would still be asking whether that is really the direction in which we should be going, especially as the operations for which there are long waiting lists—hip replacements and cataract removals—are mostly performed on elderly people who are the last people who should be shoved on a train and told to go somewhere else, even with the money following them.
  The trouble is that the money will not be following the patient. When people rang the College of Health on the helpline to ask where the shortest waiting times were, they were asked, "Do you have a fund-holding GP, or are you one of the 90 per cent. who do not, because if you are, and if we suggest that you go to a hospital miles away from where you live, you may not be able to get financial approval from your district health authority for the referral."
  The problem is not just that there are waiting lists in all parts of the country and not just that people should not be forced to travel. The Government's reforms and the internal market will make it more difficult for people to cross boundaries for their treatment.
  Mr. Hayes: No.
  Ms. Harman: The hon. Gentleman says no. The point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, who explained that the money for extracontractual referral is already running out and that the contract referral pattern sets in concrete existing local referrals. There are not contracts all over the place, so people are looking for extracontractual referrals and the budgets are already running out.
  The Government have failed to solve the problem of waiting lists. We should bear in mind the fact that they have been the Government for 12 years. I hope that, instead of making cheap, party-political points about the unions, as the hon. Member for Harlow did, the Minister will deal with her own Government's record and with the important points made by the Select Committee.
  There are three fundamental reasons why the Government have failed to deal with the problem of waiting lists. The first element is lack of political will. Although I do not believe this of the Minister, there are many in her party who would be happy to see NHS waiting lists grow because they know that that is the biggest boost that they can give to the private sector, and that affects the political climate in which the hon. Lady has to work. The No Turning Back group has made it clear that it wants the national health service to be reduced to an accident and emergency service and that it does not think it appropriate for elective surgery to be undertaken by the health service. I do not accuse the Minister of holding that view. She is one of the more reasonable members of the Government. Nevertheless, it is part of the political background against which we must measure the Government's failure to deal with the problem of waiting lists.
  The second element in that failure is a failure also to face the underfunding that lies at the root of the problem. As long as the Government talk about clerical audit of the

  521
  waiting lists, administrative changes and management, we know that they are ducking the issue and not providing enough resources.
  Mr. Hayes: No.
  Ms. Harman: John Yates himself recognised the importance of resourcing adequate services to meet demand. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has not read his Committee's report.
  The third element in the Government's failure to solve the problem is that at national, regional and local level, the national health service has been diverted away from the task of dealing with waiting lists and towards other tasks —commercialisation of services, opting out, the internal market and GP budget-holding. What are they talking about at every health authority unit general managers' meeting? Are they talking about reducing the waiting list? No, they are talking about how on earth they will cope with the administrative changes forced on a reluctant British people by the Government.
  If the Government cannot acknowledge the great diversion of energy, effort and resources that the NHS reforms have entailed, and if they cannot acknowledge that that has prevented the NHS from dealing with the problems with which everyone wants it to deal, they are failing—and will continue to fail—to address the issues that the Select Committee has so sensibly and seriously put before the House.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Alistair Burt: I. am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) who finally reached the meat of the issue for some of us—although not all of us—when she referred to the reasons why she believed that the Government could not deal with the problem of waiting lists. If I remember correctly, her second point related to the underfunding of the health service. At that point 1, like many other hon. Members, was waiting for the hon. Lady to announce the figure by which she considers the health service to be underfunded and for her commitment to restore that funding under a future Labour Government. I waited for that information with bated breath, but there was nothing and 1 was not surprised about that.
  The idea that the national health service is somehow safer with Labour is one of the longest running deceits in British politics. With no experience of reducing waiting lists and with no pledge to increase resources for the NHS, how does the hon. Member for Peckham expect to tackle the problem of waiting lists? We heard no answers tonight.
  Once again a serious debate on the NHS has resolved itself to its component parts. While we heard the rhetoric from Opposition Members about their commitment to the health service, the facts make their commitment just an idle boast. It must be rather depressing for them. Whether on the number of staff employed, on capital expenditure or patients treated—whatever the form of level playing field or horizontal operating table upon which the debate is to be conducted—the Opposition always come out second best. On this occasion, they have chosen the Select Committee's report on waiting lists to make their point.
  I pay tribute to the Select Committee for the way in which it went about its task. We all care about waiting lists. My background in the health service is that I am the son of an NHS general practitioner. My brother works in
  522
  the hospital service. I am a member of the NHS and of no other health care plan. I have a very close association with the hospitals in my area where I was born and brought up. 1 need no lectures on commitment to the health service from Opposition Members.
  Hon. Members on all sides of the House share a commitment to reducing waiting lists. We recognise what the hon. Member for Peckham said, that behind each statistic there is a human story because no one would voluntarily wish to be on a waiting list. People are put on waiting lists because they are ill and something needs to be done. They would rather not be on one.
  However, a waiting list does not tell the whole story. It is an indicator of the service provided through the NHS, but it is not the only indicator. For example, waiting lists do not tell us much about the remarkable stories of medical advance that now enable people to receive treatment that was undreamed of barely a decade ago. With regard to heart operations and hip replacements, new waiting lists are created as a result of medical expertise for which we should all be enormously grateful.
  Waiting lists do not tell the full story about the efficiency of health authorities and how many people are actually treated. The hon. Member for Peckham did not mention the significant increase in the number of patients treated—both in-patients and day cases—under this Government. That is surely the bottom line for the health service—not beds, or waiting lists, but the actual number of people treated. That is the point at which the human stories of pain and suffering are dealt with. We hear too little of the successes of the health service from Opposition Members and too much about problems which they have no idea how to tackle.
  I am pleased about the way in which the Government have dealt with the problem identd by the Select Committee and have tried to tackle waiting lists. I want to refer to several parts of the Government's national programme to tackle that problem.
  The special management teams that were sent in to investigate the worst lists halved the number waiting more than one year in 43 long lists in 1989–90. Provisional figures for 1990–91 show that they reduced long waits in the worst 100 lists by 36 per cent. Those are not simply statistics—there is a human case behind each one.
  The special waiting list fund of £190 million over the four years 1987–88 to 1990–91 has helped health authorities to treat more than 300,000 extra in-patients and day cases and more than 200,000 out-patients from waiting lists.
  The special team led by John Yates, which the Government acknowledged and expected would do its work more efficiently than some health authorities, has had a profound effect on identifying and dealing with the problems. I pay tribute to the Government's work in tackling those problems and to the identification and acknowledgement given to them in the Select Committee's report.
  We all want to concentrate on our own areas. That is where we see the health service in practice most often. We can deal with global and national statistics as much as we like, but what is really important is what is happening in our own back yards. In that respect, I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 49 of the Select Committee's report which deals with improved management and co-operation with clinicians. That paragraph deals with the importance of management and staff getting together to cut down waiting lists and to deal with the problems.

  523
  Paragraph 51 contains an encouraging quotation from Mr. Edwards of Trent regional health authority who, referring to the conversations that are now being held between administrators and doctors, asks:
  "'How can we together manage this important part of our business?' This is the first time this has happened in 30 years, and for me this is one of the most exciting bits of the new world [the NHS reforms]; managers and doctors getting together to share a view about the way forward."
  In no other district has that spirit, which is wanted and desired by both the Select Committee and the Government, been put into practice to more effect than in my own authority of Bury, and I pay tribute to Bury district health authority for that.
  I shall first give some statistics about Bury's waiting lists and then say how it has tackled them and how that work might be affected by future policies. We want to talk about waiting lists—and this is Bury's story. The hon. Member for Peckham said that there was no district health authority in the country that did not have a waiting list for general surgery. She is wrong—there is mine. In 1989, 86 per cent. of patients for general surgery waited less than three months. In 1990–91, no patient waited for more than three months for general surgery. The hon. Lady might say that a wait of nought to three months is still a waiting list, and that is fine, if that is what she wishes to do, but to most people the fact that no patient has waited longer than three months for general surgery means that there is no waiting list.
  In 1989, 84 per cent. of ear, nose and throat patients waited less than 12 months, with 30 patients waiting more than a year. In 1991, that had improved to 98 per cent. of patients waiting less than 12 months, with only seven waiting between one and two years and none waiting more than two years. In the three years 1988–91, between 99 and 100 per cent. of orthopaedic patients waited less than two years and there was a decrease in the number of people waiting for more than 12 months, from 49 in 1989 to only three in 1991. In oral surgery, between 1989 and 1990, 100 per cent. of patients waited less than three months. Again, I submit that that is no waiting list. In 1991, only one patient waited between three and six months while the rest waited less than three months. In 1989, 97 per cent. of gynaecology patients waited less than 12 months, with nine patients waiting for more than a year. In 1990–91, there was a further improvement, with no one waiting for more than 12 months.
  That is the record of just one district—Bury district health authority in the north-west. I submit that those statistics on waiting lists would stand comparison with figures anywhere in the world. The way in which those statistics have been achieved is worthy of comment because that is what is at the heart of paragraph 49 of the report, which deals with the improved co-operation between administrators and doctors. That is what has happened in my district in the past decade or so.
  How has the district achieved that? First, it has been committed to reform—to the sort of reforms that are now being discussed as possible ways forward. Bury district health authority has always been open to following through any reforms in an effort to try to improve its service. Secondly, there has been a commitment to competitive tendering to which I shall return later. In Bury, 17 services have been put out to competitive tender,
  524
  resulting in savings of hundreds of thousands of pounds for the health authority each and every year, which might stand to be lost in the future. I should be interested to hear the hon. Member for Peckham explain how that shortfall might be made up if competitive tendering ends.
  However, more important than those two matters and the statistics is the way in which Bury health authority has managed its services because that is the key to how it has been able to treat more patients and why it has fewer waiting lists. First, there has been an increase of 43 per cent. in the number of doctors employed. Additional consultants have been appointed, all in the specialties where waiting lists have been reduced in accident and emergency services; anaesthetics; paediatrics; obstetrics and gynaecology; radiology; geriatrics; psychiatry; pathology; ear, nose and throat; adult health and orthopaedics. These are not just statistics—real doctors have been appointed. Our waiting lists have fallen because our health authority has had the funds to employ them.
  Secondly, we in Bury have been able to commit £25 million to capital expenditure in the past few years to provide the facilities for the operations that will help us to reduce waiting lists. Some of that money has been provided through savings on the health authorities' own resources—achieved by such things as competitive tendering. The savings have not just been a nebulous figure that has somehow gone into somebody's pocket; they have been used for a new obstetrics unit so that more people can be treated and the waiting lists can be reduced.
  In 1978–79, some 17,780 in-patients were treated and there were 1,575 day cases. The latest figures show an increase to 26,700 in-patients and 4,100 day cases. That represents a total increase over 10 years of 55 per cent. in the number of in-patients, and 160 per cent. in the number of day cases treated. If the Government and the Select Committee want waiting lists to be reduced, the way is through co-operation between the doctors and the administrators in health authorities, such as happens in Bury. Our policies, together with the attention being paid to waiting lists during the past few years, are doing the job. The Conservative party has ideas, facts, statistics and achievements. All we hear from the hon. Member for Peckham is criticism—not a single idea about how to deal with the problems that we are tackling.
  I worry about the future, and about what will happen if the policies that we have put into effect were no longer followed. If the economy cannot provide the growth which it has provided over the past 10 years, and which has allowed expenditure in our health authorities to rise by 19 per cent.—under the previous Labour Government NHS spending in Bury fell by 2 per cent.—my constituents would he badly disadvantaged and waiting lists would rise again. I do not want my constituents to face that risk.
  The abolition of competitive tendering would mean the loss of hundreds of thousands of pounds for my health authority, and I see no commitment to make up that loss. Whose waiting lists would rise first to deal with that change in policy? Such facts and figures make a compelling case for what we are doing to tackle waiting lists. We do not have just rhetoric; we have achievements, determination and a commitment to the health service that I suspect Labour Members only dream about. They wish that they could actually deliver what they say, but they know that only the Conservative party can do that.
  On waiting lists, on the Select Committee report, and on the way in which problems are tackled, only the

  525
  Conservative party shows the determination and the commitment to deal with the human casualties behind the statistics. That is far better than the empty rhetoric that we hear from Labour Members.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I shall be brief. I echo the congratulations to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), the Chairman of the Select Committee, and his colleagues on their excellent report on this important matter. The hon. Gentleman opened the debate in splendid fashion and he set the parameters very effectively. For a moment, I thought that he had found the whole debate so moving that he had crossed the Floor of the House, but I see that he has now returned to his usual lair.
  It is understandable that in such a debate there should be claims and counterclaims about what is happening in the NHS and about its health or otherwise. However, in discussing waiting lists we would do well to remember what Mr. Yates said in his evidence to the Committee. That was fairly reproduced on page ix of the report, which stated:
  "Two issues emerge from his replies. The first was his concern that a large amount of public money had been spent on attempting to reduce the numbers of people waiting over a year for treatment, only to see the numbers rise."
  It is worth bearing in mind that rather basic point when listening to some of the claims that are made, not least those of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt).
  Mr. Yates told the Committee:
  "I have been concerned about its … failure"—
  that is, the failure of the waiting list initiative—
  "in terms of delivering the goods in terms of what was expected … in the first three years it has been somewhat of a disappointment to see that the Department of Health investment of (£80·6 million) has led to a rise in the generally accepted measure to waiting time, the number of long wait patients, waiting over a year."
  That is not much of a success story—and it came from the man who was in charge of trying to deliver an improved service and who, indeed, went a long way towards achieving that.
  The Committee mentioned the need for a good, high-quality flow of information. That is certainly crucial. As I have said in other health debates, I am worried about what will happen under the new arrangements—an internal market, self-governing trusts, GP budget-holding and so forth. Although finance has been made available, I do not think that the computer technology is advanced enough for, in particular, the big hospitals to be able to evaluate their own information systems as professionally as they do now. They could have an important effect on waiting lists.
  I am glad that the Committee, in dealing with developments in the primary-care sector, drew attention specifically to the contrast between rural and urban needs. Because I represent a vast rural area, I am especially conscious of that distinction. There is no doubt, however, that that blanket or blueprint approach should not be adopted to that important function of the health service; the position in, for instance, the Scottish highlands is not the same as the position in one of our cities. IF am encouraged to note that the Government have responded positively to what the Committee said.
  526
  Let me echo what was said by the hon. Member for Macclesfield by quoting from point 15 of the Department of Health's response:
  "Management is also responsible for ensuring that private practice does not, to a significant extent, interfere with the performance of the function of the health service".
  How right the hon. Gentleman was to remind us that there should be no interference with the performance of the health service, and that non-paying patients should not be disadvantaged. I hope that the Minister, too, will emphasise that; after all, taxpayers' money is being spent. The Select Committee is right to be concerned about efficiency and value for money.
  Like every other debate that we have had about the health service, this one is ultimately concerned with finance. The Select Committee said that more finance was available for the waiting list initiative; in their response, the Government said that they did not feel that that was viable at this stage in the financial year, and gave various other reasons.
  There is no doubt that health care is a bottomless pit, which, by definition, can never prove 100 per cent. satisfactory. As soon as a procedure is discovered, whereby a physical ailment or deficiency can be cured, a new waiting list is created. We appreciate that; but Conservative Back Benchers who retail the more repeatable details of their trips to Scandinavia, drawing telling contrasts between British and Swedish health care, should bear in mind the fact that Scandinavian countries —and most other developed countries that can be compared with Britain—spend a much larger proportion of their gross domestic product on health care. That is why it is right to continue to underscore the need for more cash for the waiting list initiative. Although we want value for money and quality, we cannot escape the argument about quantity.
  In highlighting those and many other points, which I do not have time to touch on tonight, the Select Commitlee has performed to its credit and I commend its report.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I congratulate the Select Committee on its excellent report and the Government on their positive response. The speech of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) was, to put it crudely, a cop-out. It totally lacked any details about policy. Considering that the subject under discussion was money, it was a bit cheap of the hon. Lady not to respond to my request for some details.
  All hon. Members understand the trauma that someone experiences when they are on a waiting list for an operation. I have been fortunate as I have never been admitted to hospital for an operation. Obviously, patients want the operation to be carried out as quickly as possible. However, it is totally irresponsible for any politician to pretend that there is an easy answer to enable a patient to have that operation quickly.
  I am privileged to have in my constituency one of the finest hospitals in the country—Basildon hospital. I regret the way in which local Labour and Alliance politicians try to run down our excellent hospital. Basildon hospital is at the bottom of my garden. My family uses its services. My wife has had four babies there under the excellent national health service and, God willing, she will have a fifth in September. My family has used its excellent accident and emergency unit—
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Were all the babies accidents?
  Mr. Amess: None of our children were accidents. We regard every one of them as a blessing. In two weeks' time, the Duke of Kent will open our brand new accident and emergency unit. My wife had an ear operation in our excellent hospital. My constituents are extremely proud of their hospital.
  Hon. Members can imagine my anger when one of those ridiculous health monitoring committees was set up by the local Labour party. The chairman—or chair, as he likes to be called—used to be employed by our hospital, when he was in charge of the private patients' waiting list. When he was working at the hospital he considered it acceptable that the hospital admitted private patients but as soon as he left he immediately castigated private health care.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Peckham will soon return to her place because she and I were on a Committee of this House two or three years ago when the Government first announced the waiting list option. Walworth road, bless its heart, undertook the initiative of spewing out literature highlighting waiting lists in various hon. Members' constituencies. One such list referred to my constituency.
  In the 1987 general election campaign, when the Opposition guns were firing at me, the then Opposition spokesman—I think that it was the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—came to my constituency and found a child who had been waiting for rather a long time to have an operation. The national newspapers took up the child's plight and highlighted it during the campaign. As soon as the campaign was over and I was returned as hon. Member for Basildon, the Opposition ducked the issue and I was left to deal with it, which I did successfully.
  I am delighted that there have been major reductions in the size of waiting lists during the past year in the hospital in my constituency. It has achieved the biggest overall reduction out of 15 districts in the Thames region. If we compare March 1991 figures with those for one year earlier, there were nearly 2,000 fewer people on the waiting list—a reduction of one quarter. That is why I did not respond to the point that I think that the hon. Member for Peckham had in mind when I tried to intervene. There are nearly 1,600 fewer people waiting longer than one year —a reduction of more than one half.
  Mr. Gill: Does my hon. Friend accept that the statistics that he has just given are not isolated examples? In Shropshire, the county from where I come, the total waiting list for operations is down by 32 per cent. and the number of people waiting for more than one year has been reduced by 67 per cent.
  Mr. Amess: Those figures are quite magnificent and I join my hon. Friend in saluting his local authority, and the men and women who work at his local hospital who have achieved such excellent results.
  In Basildon, there has been a 37 per cent. reduction in the number waiting for general surgery, a 20 per cent. reduction in those waiting for ear, nose and throat treatment and a 10 per cent. reduction in those waiting for oral surgery and orthopaedic surgery.
  In Basildon, we have already adopted many of the recommendations in the report of the Select Committee on Health. All waiting lists are now routinely checked to
  528
  ensure that those on them still need the operation. We have increased medical staff in problem sectors. A new consultant oral surgeon, whom the authority shares with Southend health authority, started in August 1990. New consultant posts were created in urology and plastic surgery in April 1991. The additional urology service set up in January 1991 resulted in more operations during the first three months.
  Basildon has "short notice" waiting lists for filling last minute cancellations by patients. It gives appropriate notice of admission to ensure a minimum number of cancellations by patients. It has matched theatre capacity to bed availability. It has blitzed problem sectors of the list such as special sessions for day case urology. It has reduced "bed blocking" by returning patients to their home with proper support in order to free acute beds more quickly. It has introduced new clinical techniques and increased the use of day care surgery.
  For 1991–92, Basildon and Thurrock health authority has obtained from the North East Thames regional health authority the following waiting list initiative funds: more than £500,000 to build and equip a dedicated day surgery unit at Orsett hospital; £12,000 to purchase arthroscopy equipment, used in the examination of joints; £28,000 for a hysteroscope to enable gynaecology surgical procedures to be carried out on an out-patient day-case basis; and £30,000 for equipment to enable key-hole surgery to remove gall bladders, substantially reducing average lengths of stay for such procedures and reducing the trauma.
  In conclusion, I pay tribute to the former chairman of our health authority, Mrs. Joan Martin, the acting chairman, Mr. Gould, and the hospital manager, Ken Sharp. On 1 April 1992, the hospital will apply to become a national health service trust and the application is supported by local hospital doctors, nurses and managers, who believe that when it becomes a trust it will bring benefits to patients and staff, and a guarantee of job security to all those who work at the hospital. When I open the hospital fete on Saturday I shall thank all the women and men for their efforts in seizing the Government's initiative and reducing hospital waiting lists so dramatically in Basildon.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. In addition to debating the Select Committee's report on waiting lists we were also meant to look at the evidence taken by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. I am disappointed to have been called as late as this in the debate.
  We have completed our evidence on elective surgery in Wales. Rather than taking a wide-brush approach I shall concentrate on an initiative unique to Wales which the Welsh Office, to its credit, has innovated—the three all-Wales regional specialist treatment centres: at Ysbyty Gwynedd in Bangor we looked at ophthalmology, at the Prince of Wales hospital at Rhydlafar in Cardiff we looked at hip and knee replacement surgery, and at Bridgend hospital we looked at hernia and varicose vein surgery. It is fascinating to see England lagging so far behind in this area.
  It has given me great satisfaction to promote these centres in Gower, as I have visited all three and can vouch for the superb quality of service attained. Less than two

  529
  weeks ago I was privileged to witness the brilliant skills of Mr. Mehta, one of the three consultant ophthalmic surgeons at Ysbyty Gwynedd, carrying out cataract surgery followed by lens implant. It was obvious from my visits that the work of the treatment centres brings about dramatic improvements in the quality of people's lives.
  The issue that deserves full attention is that of how to increase the number of patients treated so that human suffering, often for long periods, may be alleviated. It is significant that Mr. John Yates, giving evidence before the Welsh Select Committee, estimated that the more than 11,000 people waiting in Wales for more than a year for elective surgery could have their operations and treatment in only three weeks' work by the surgeons that specialise in their conditions. If the treatment centres are to be truly successful in dramatically reducing waiting lists, I believe that the Welsh Office must institute six changes.
  First, the Welsh Office must commit itself to a future period for funding that is radically different from the present one, so that general practitioners and consultants know that post-operative, follow-up care will be available at centres on a long-term basis. The Minister and the Welsh Office must be more definite than they were in the parliamentary reply that the Minister gave me on 29 April. He must no longer be prepared to offer the type of parliamentary reply that he gave me on 3 May, which showed that the throughput targets for 1991–92 are yet to be agreed.
  In passing I must also mention the need for the Welsh Office to have a care about the temptation now and again to rewrite history. Mr. John Wyn Owen, director of the NHS in Wales, informed the Public Accounts Committee in a letter of 3 April 1991—it is reprinted in appendix 1 of the Select Committee's report—that the orthopaedic treatment centre at Rhydlafar had a contracted throughput in 1990–91 of 172 hip replacements, 29 knee replacements and 44 other operations. But in a parliamentary reply to me on 3 May 1991, only a month later, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales gave the throughput for 1990–91 at the same hospital as 233 hip replacements, 57 knee replacements and 73 other procedures. Great care must be exercised when bandying about information like that.
  Secondly, the Minister must insist that any patient who has waited for more than four months on a consultant's waiting list, as specified in the contract between the Welsh Office and the three treatment centres, is automatically informed by the local consultant that he can be referred to the treatment centre. That will get rid of the widespread practice among GPs and consultants of presenting the options to their patients as either a long wait or private treatment. The treatment centres exist, so this could be a constructive way forward.
  Thirdly, Welsh Office funding must be made available to ensure that the waiting period after the patient has been referred to the treatment centre is short. Last week l[was told that one of my constituents from the village of Pontarddulais had been referred by his GP to Rhydlafar hospital for a knee joint operation. The hospital sent the referral back to the GP, saying that no more knee operations could be carried out on any patient in Wales for the remainder of the financial year 1991–92, no matter how severe the pain and suffering of the patient. Officials might find that amusing, but I do not. We are only three months into the financial year.
  530
  Expectations for early treatment should not be cruelly raised only for people to see their hopes dashed because the quota for knee surgery for the current year seems to be a miserly 50 for the whole of Wales. The quota for hip operations is only 160. According to the figures given to me on 3 May, that compares with 233 hip operations, 57 knee operations and 73 other procedures carried out last year. Obviously there is a decline. How can the Minister rest content when East Dyfed health authority has already taken up its quota of one knee and five hip operations? Is he content that Clwyd has already taken up its quota of two hip and two knee operations or with the 37 hip and five knee operations by West Glamorgan health authority, while the much less populated Pembrokeshire health authority area benefits disproportionately with 26 hip and 11 knee operations?
  The answer for orthopaedics seems straightforward. When I visited the hospital at Rhydlafar I saw the obvious need to use the two main theatres exclusively for major joint surgery. To achieve that simple goal, the so-called plaster theatre could be a dedicated theatre for minor joint surgery performed on a day basis. It is also obvious that an empty ward is available to complement the additional theatre, enabling a substantial increase in major joint surgery. It is imperative that the present level of major joint work at Rhydlafar be substantially raised. I urge the Minister to raise it to as many as 1,200 operations a year and seriously to consider making the hospital a major centre.
  Fourthly, a time bomb is ticking away in orthopaedics, and it is the time bomb of hip and knee replacement revisions, for which the Minister needs an action plan. Within 10 years of a major joint replacement, 10 per cent. of patients have to be revised with another 10 per cent a year after that requiring revision. Thus within 20 years of the initial major joint replacement surgery, all patients will need revision surgery. The Secretary of State for Wales must prepare for the setting up of joint revision centres in Wales together with specialist surgeons and the necessary infrastructure. As he knows, the Welsh Office contract with the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital does not permit revisions. That issue must be addressed.
  Fifthly, if the treatment centres are to be truly Welsh regional centres they must not be permitted to discriminate in favour of the host authority. Allowing Ysbyty Gwynedd in Bangor to treat 306 patients for cataracts between 1 September 1990 and 31 March 1991, with only 23 residents outside Gwynedd being treated and only three of those residents from the county of West Glamorgan, was a major blot on the Welsh Office. That happened when 1,345 patients were waiting for non-urgent ophthalmic treatment at Singleton hospital, 476 of whom had been waiting for more than a year.
  Sixthly, the Minister must move ahead quickly to establish the second specialist centre for cataract treatment at Bridgend general hospital. It would be useful to know the time scale for that.
  I am delighted that the Welsh Office has set up treatment centres. I think that it is a major step forward in the reduction of waiting lists. England should learn from what the Welsh have done. In terms of the Select Committee's report, the fundamental issue is that the Minister for Health and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales must be extremely careful, if they decide quickly —perhaps too quickly—to adopt what the Audit Commission says about day surgery, not to fall into the

  531
  trap of failing to provide sufficient support services. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) has drawn attention to that danger.
  The Government's response to recommendation No. 12 is the most disappointing of all. When the Minister for Health replies, it would be helpful if she could substitute, even at this late stage, something for the comment with which the Government end their response. In fact, it is a non-response to a vital problem. It reads:
  "We expect health authorities and family health service authorities to take account of any increases in day case work when planning primary and community health care services."
  That is a blatant disregard of a massive job if day surgery is to be expanded. The members of the Select Committee went to the United States to see the expansion that has taken place there, and particularly to California. We know that without community back-up facilities the day-surgery initiative will never get off the ground in a big way. We must not put the cart before the horse. Instead, we must ensure that the necessary services are provided. That is why the next report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, following the one on elective surgery, will be on community care.
  9.42 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): It is a great pleasure to respond to the first report of the new Select Committee on Health. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) an understanding of the priority that needs to be given to tackling waiting lists in our national health service. There was a waiting list for those who wanted to speak in the debate and I am sorry that there has not been time for all hon. Members to participate.
  I have the invidious task of responding in a short time to some of the comments that have been made before leaving time for my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield to respond. 1 say to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales heard his speech and awaits the Select Committee's report. When he has had the opportunity to read it, he will respond.
  There is no doubt that we have heard some excellent speeches this evening. My hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) once again set out their strong commitment to our NHS, to the developments, to the progress and to the challenges. How strongly that contrasts with the whinges of Opposition Members. I would loathe to be a member of the health authority that comes within the area represented by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), or to be in the health service in that area. She seems oblivious to the fact that a day surgery unit is being constructed at the hospital in her constituency at a cost of £9 million. The unit will be completed in the autumn. It is expected that work will start later this year on a new theatre block that will cost £14·8 million. There will be a new AIDS and HIV unit. There will be a great increase in the number of day cases that are treated.
  The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) mentioned the important topic of plastic surgery, which poses some difficult questions in the handling of waiting lists. John Yates questioned our emphasis on the need to be rid of all
  532
  who find themselves on waiting lists for more than two years. But the hon. Member has forgotten to tell the House that there is an additional registrar and consultant in plastic surgery in her district health authority, a new waiting list scheme for day cases and further initiatives and developments.
  Once again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North pointed out, the hon. Member for Peckham ducked putting a figure on the amount by which she believes the NHS to be under-funded. I am surprised that she even failed to rally to the call of her hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who said recently that he thought that an extra £6 billion was in the right ball park.
  But we know, as my hon. Friends have pointed out so clearly and forcefully, that every Labour Government, despite their words, policies and commitments, have always left Government with waiting lists longer than they were when they took over. Conservative Governments have consistently reduced waiting lists. I think that all my hon. Friends will agree that the Labour party is essentially a walking waiting list disaster area.
  Opposition Members have told us of disasters and of confusing facts and figures. My hon. Friends have pointed out clearly and forcefully the developments that they have seen in their health authority areas. The simple and central fact is that under this Government in-patient waiting lists have fallen by 6 per cent. and 40,000 fewer patients now await in-patient treatment than was the case in 1979.
  Long waiting times are falling even more quickly. The latest figures obtained direct from the regions since the Select Committee's report was published show a 19 per cent. fall in long-wait patients—those waiting more than a year—in the year to this April. Those waiting more than two years fell even faster—by 38 per cent. over the same period. Long waiting times are tumbling and that fact should be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The reduction in waiting lists looks all the more impressive in the context of the steady increases in the number of patients being treated. There are 24 per cent. more in-patients than in 1979. That is a substantial figure. Five patients are treated now for every four that were treated then. There are nearly twice as many day cases and 8 per cent more out-patient attendances than in 1979. That is in addition to the phenomenal expansion that we have seen in the family doctor services which have grown faster than any other area of health spending over those years. Not only has the number of patients waiting been reduced, but as a proportion of those being treated it has fallen even faster than the figures show.
  One important point that I want to address is the discussion to which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield and other hon. Members referred about the waiting list information being published. We have revolutionised the information available about the health service. When the Labour party was in power there was a fog over the health service, as there was over education and any other area of the public sector. We have created an awareness and an understanding of the resource implications, outputs and waiting lists. But what is important is that under the new regime the waiting list information will, rightly and properly, be held by the purchasing health authority. It is the purchasing health authority that is the champion of its patients and it is the purchasing health authority that is accountable to the Secretary of State.

  533
  A misunderstanding may have arisen because the present information is based not on provider units but on provider districts. It is concerned with where the treatment is provided, not where people live. But what is clear, and it is important, is that the information will continue to be available to health authorities to enable them to establish contracts in which they drive waiting times down and seek those improvements.
  In all the work of the health authorities we have seen greater pressure put on providers, all of whom will be required to make that information available so that even better quality improvements and waiting times can be achieved. In other words, the new way in which we will collect information will be a major step forward for patients and reduce waiting times still further.
  Conservative Members have almost become weary of the debate about resources. Our investment in terms of financial input into the health service scarcely needs repeating. Let me say simply that we are spending £1,000 every second on the health service. In the time that it took my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield to make his speech, another £1·5 million was spent on the health service. A little less than that figure was spent during the speech of the hon. Member for Peckham—and, because of time constraints, my contribution will not produce expenditure anywhere near that figure.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends know that it is not only the amount of money that is important but the way that it is spent. Time and again, Labour denigrate management skills, business expertise, and cost-effectiveness. However, we know—and Mersey demonstrated this—that the use of management techniques such as list validation, running a tight ship, and informing patients of their appointment times can ensure efficiency and effectiveness. That makes the health service much more rewarding for those who work in it.
  We will soon provide all health authorities with guidance on best practice and principles in managing waiting lists. John Yates showed the way forward by advancing the debate and clarifying the many aspects that must be considered, such as the proper use of nurses, doctors, general practitioners and even booking systems, and the need for proper collaboration between family doctors and hospitals.
  I welcomed the comments made by several hon. Members about consultants holding out-patient sessions in GPs' surgeries. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) introduced me to a GP who arranged such sessions in his own surgery. We have seen also GP fundholders driving forward standards, innovating, and devising ways of serving their patients, to provide better health care and a better health service.
  We owe John Yates and IACC a great debt of gratitude. I visited Mr. Yates' centre at Birmingham, and he has regularly visited me to discuss his progress. I am pleased that he is now working with the West Midlands regional authority on its waiting lists.
  In the early days, the waiting list initiative organised by the health service did not make the same progress that John Yates has achieved, but there can be no doubt that it has taken ownership of the issue of driving down waiting lists. The targets set by the chief executive, regions and districts are being vindicated by the remarkable results now being achieved—such as in Mersey. I hope that my
  534
  hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield will ensure that his illustrious constituent, Brian Redhead, is made aware of the great progress made by his district health service.
  North East Thames region has presented a particularly intractable problem over the years, and right hon. and hon. Members will not need to be reminded of the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow. However, that region has experienced a remarkable fall of 37 per cent. in the one-year waiting list, and of 58 per cent. in respect of those waiting for more than two years since March 1990. Trent, North Western, and many other regions have made similar excellent progress.
  We will build on that progress. This year, a larger amount of money than ever before will be directed at the waiting list initiative, with the £35 million from the Department joined by another £25 million from the regions. I do not accept the suggestion that more resources for the waiting list initiative should be provided from the centre, because our argument is that priority is for the health service to deliver. Above all, it is for district health authorities to seek further improvements, because they are accountable for the time that their patients have to wait.
  Our targets are ambitious, but we are confident, because of the success that we have already achieved, that there will be further progress.
  A number of hon. Members asked about extra-contractual referrals. The key point about them is that in the past there was no financial benefit for a hospital from another area to receive a patient from outside its district. The money did not follow the patient. This year there has been an unprecedented level of consultation between the district health authorities and local general practitioners about where they wish to refer their patients and about historical patterns. At the same time, money has been kept back from extra-contractual referrals. Urgent cases have to be seen immediately. The debate should not overlook the central point that 50 per cent. of patients are admitted at once and of those who wait another 50 per cent. are treated within five weeks. The debate has concentrated on those whom we all agree have to wait longer than is right.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield made a number of other points. He knows that we have made considerable progress over developing job plans for consultants. It is important that their commitment to the NHS is properly understood and recognised. If we are to cut waiting lists, we must ensure that the health team works together as fast and as effectively as it can. My hon. Friend also made an important point about urban and rural areas. I hope that my remarks have already demonstrated to him that different ways of using resources and the NHS team to cut the time that people have to wait are part of our intention to provide better health care.
  My hon. Friend mentioned regional centres. They are monitoring the work of the trusts. They are not an essential ingredient of the waiting list initiative. The waiting list initiative is a matter for the entire national health service, not for a particular part of it. We have created 100 fully-funded consultant posts to tackle waiting lists. We have maintained our investment in improved information systems to enable hospitals to manage better. We funded the waiting list helpline with the College of Health and 68 per cent. of GPs are now providing minor surgical procedures. Qa Business Services is now helping us to develop our waiting list work even further.
  We fully agree with the Select Committee's view that long waiting lists for treatment are unacceptable. The

  535
  reduction of waiting times is a key priority for the reformed national health service. We want to put patients first. We can learn from the South Western regional health authority's new idea of a booking system. Reducing waiting times is a key objective of our reforms. Waiting times are tumbling. The reforms that we have introduced will help to drive them down still further.
  9.57 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her response to the debate. It is a pity that it was not longer, but that criticism is often levelled by Back Benchers when a number of important questions remain inadequately answered. I come back to a point that both 1 and other speakers raised forcefully. If the Government are serious about the success of the reforms that they are implementing in the national health service, not just health authorities but fund-holding practices and patients—the clients, the customers—must have the information that is essential if they are to exercise responsible choice and take informed decisions. I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that when waiting lists and times are published they are published on both a provider basis and a purchaser basis.
  return to the point that I made in my speech: if the citizens charter that the Government are so keen should succeed is to be meaningful, there must be a means by which the ordinary citizen—not just health authority officials as purchasers, but doctors acting on behalf of patients and the patients themselves—can exercise rights and have information upon which to exercise those rights.
  This has been an interesting debate. It is sad that party politics—almost electioneering—reared its ugly head once or twice in the debate. One or two people who could have made valuable contributions to the debate were not called because of a lack of time. It has been a useful debate and shows just how important Back-Bench Members believe the health service to be. It also shows how important the waiting list is and how important it is to have accurate information not only about the numbers on the list, but about the time that people have to wait.
  The debate was concluded, and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).
  It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates), put the deferred Questions on Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (Class IV, Vote 1 and Class XIII, Vote I) and the remaining estimates appointed for consideration this day.

  Class IV, Vote 1
  Resolved,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £81,404,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry on regional development grants, regional selective assistance, selective assistance to individual industries and firms, UK contributions arising from its commitments under the International Natural Rubber Agreements a strategic mineral stockpile, support for the film, aerospace and shipbuilding industries, assistance to redundant steel workers, and other payments.

  Class XV, Vote 3
  Resolved,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £421,137,000, and including a Supplementary Sum of £161,194,000, be granted to Her Majesty our of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Scottish Office Industry Department on Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise; on regional enterprise grants; on technical and vocational education; on the promotion of tourism; on financial assistance to the electricity industry and local enterprise companies; on residual expenditure for the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board; on roads and certain associated services, including the aquisition of land, lighting, road safety and related services; on assistance to local transport; on support for transport services in the highlands and islands; on piers and harbours, and on certain other transport services and grants; and on other sundry services in connection with trade and industry, etc.

  Class XIII, Vote 1
  Resolved,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £9,962,627,000, and including a Supplementary Sum of £162,196,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Department of Health on hospital, community health, family health and family health service administration services, and on related services.

  Class XVI, Vote 8
  Resolved,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £697,400,000, and including a Supplementary Sum of £ 10,291,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Welsh Office on hospital, community health, family health (part) and family health service administration services and on related services.
  MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question which he was directed to put, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.).
  Resolved,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £78,863,754,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1992, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 236, 237, 238 and 486.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions and upon the three resolutions yesterday by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. David Mellor, Mr. Francis Maude, Mrs. Gillian Shephard and Mr. John Maples.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
Mrs. Gillian Shephard accordingly presented a Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31 March 1992, to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 147].

Manchester (Olympic Bid)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
10.1 pm
Sir Thomas Arnold: I am most grateful for the opportunity to address the House on the subject of inner-city investment, Manchester and the north-west. I have already explained to my hon. Friend the Minister that my purpose in raising the subject on the Adjournment is that I wanted specifically to deal with the Manchester bid for the Olympic games in the year 2000. As I explained in a letter to you, Mr. Speaker, I sought your confirmation that I would be in order to do so. The answer was forthcoming in the affirmative.
At this stage of Manchester's bid, the infrastructure is the vital issue. Great though my respect and affection are for my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, he is not qualified, as I understand it, to deal with these matters. I therefore want to traverse the ground of partnership funding and the other urban funding for which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible, so that we can have a clearer understanding of where the Government stand at present in terms of the applications that are likely to come to them in due course.
It will not surprise you, Mr. Speaker, to know that there is a great deal of public interest, in Greater Manchester and elsewhere, about the nature of Manchester's bid. The previous bid was unsuccessful, but the committee regrouped, and a new proposal found favour with the British Olympic Committee.
I talked to the Gallup polling and opinion research company to see whether it would be sensible to test public attitudes towards the Olympics at this stage. I am most grateful to the chief executive officer, Mr. Gordon Heald, for his co-operation in carrying out, as a public service from Gallup, a preliminary survey of attitudes.
Gallup conducted its survey between 5 and 11 June and asked a series of questions on attitudes to the Olympics and the possibility of their being staged in Manchester. The sample size was 960. First, Gallup asked:
"Do you know which cities or countries are competing to be hosts for the Olympic Games to be held in 2000?"
Some 35 per cent. of respondents mentioned Manchester.
Clearly, there is good potential in terms of future awareness of what is being proposed. Ten per cent. cited the unsuccessful bid from London; 7 per cent. cited the USA; 6 per cent., Britain; 6 per cent., Barcelona; 5 per cent., England; 2 per cent., Athens; 1 per cent., Greece; and 1 per cent., Atlanta. I think that 35 per cent. is a respectable starting figure.
Gallup told all those interviewed that Manchester is competing to be the host in 2000 and then asked:
"How likely would you be to visit Manchester to see any of the events?"
Nearly 30 per cent. said that they would be "very" or "fairly" likely to go to Manchester to see some of the events. That underlines the need for early consideration and planning of the infrastructure measures that will be necessary if the bid is to have any hope of success.
Gallup asked respondents:
"How important do you think it is to Britain that Manchester wins the right to be the host in 2000?"
Forty-one per cent. of electors regarded this as "very" important and 36 per cent. as "fairly" important—a combined figure of 77 per cent. Some 51 per cent. of
538
respondents thought that staging the Olympics in Manchester would improve employment prospects for local people a great deal or a fair amount. That again must be of interest to my hon. Friend in evaluating any proposals that come to him for funding through his Department's schemes.
Finally, when Gallup asked:
"How much of the finances to host the year 2000 Olympic Games do you think the Government should give?",
71 per cent. thought that the Government should give some financial help, 16 per cent. thought the Government should pay all the costs and 8 per cent. that it should not pay any.
I draw the attention of the House to the potential for further work on evaluating public attitudes that lies behind those figures. I do not believe that the bid can be successful unless it enjoys widespread public support and, indeed, a clear commitment from the Government that they would like the Olympic games to be staged here.
I recently asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he would specify the full range of grants currently available under his inner-city programme, with a brief technical description of each. I should he most grateful, therefore, if my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us something about the work that he is doing on City Challenge, the urban development corporations, the urban programme, city grant, derelict land grant, city action teams and any other schemes that he thinks may be relevant to the concerns which I know the Olympic bid committee has at present. I should also appreciate it if he said something about the European regional development grant, although not necessarily this evening, if he thinks that inappropriate.
I understand from the Olympic bid committee that three potential sites are under consideration. One of them straddles the boundaries of the city of Manchester and the boroughs of Salford and Trafford. Another, sometimes referred to loosely and colloquially as Eastlands, is on the east side of Manchester, which I believe is already attracting some City Challenge money. The site would be in the area of the Oldham road and Ashton road on the Gorton-Openshaw side of the city. There is another area, referred to loosely as Hough End, which at the moment consists of fields on the way into the city from Ringway airport.
I do not propose to trespass on the constituency of any other hon. Member, so I shall say no more about those sites, except to point out that there is likely to be a very lively debate about which of the three should be chosen and about whether any other sites should be considered for the staging of the Olympic games in the year 2000.
How are the programmes to which I have referred working in practice and what is the take up? That information will begin to give us some idea of the possibilities in terms of the proposals that the committee is likely to make. For example, will there be a mechanism for evaluating whether projects associated with the Olympic bid should qualify for partnership funding and Government help? If the programmes are cash-limited, as I believe they should be, how will the resource implications be discussed within Government?
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said publicly that he welcomes the Manchester Olympic bid. I believe that in due course he intends to say something further about that bid. Clearly there are some important matters for the Government to deliberate upon.

539
I will want to know at an early stage whether my hon. Friend the Minister will hold regular meetings with the Olympic bid committee organisers.
Attention has also been focused on Liverpool. As I understand it, the bid committee has said that it wants to stage some of the events on Merseyside. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will consider it appropriate to say something about the application of his schemes with regard to Merseyside. However, my hon. Friend also has responsibility for the rest of the north-west. I would appreciate it if he would say something about the scope of his investment programmes elsewhere in the north-west and about whether some of the schemes could be relevant to Olympic events.
All hon. Members believe that the bid deserves a fair wind. No one is arguing that the Government should invest huge sums of public money. Those of us who support the initiative are seeking an early indication from the Government that they will be a willing partner with the members of the bid committee in trying to find solutions to important technical problems which must be overcome at this stage if Manchester's infrastructure is to satisfy the demanding criteria that the International Olympic Committee is bound to place on an application to stage the games. That is why I have raised the issue tonight. A number of complex issues need to be aired publicly at an early stage, and I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say.
10.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) on his good fortune in obtaining the Adjournment debate and on raising a matter which is clearly of great importance to his constituents, to everyone in Manchester and the north-west and to the nation.
As my hon. Friend knows, I have been privileged to spend a good deal of my time over recent months in Manchester. It is a vibrant and multicultural city. One need only think of its range of academic and musical institutions—it now has the largest student campus in Europe—and the pop scene, its media centre and the fact that it is becoming the regional focal point for the arts just as Birmingham and Glasgow have become.
Since I have come to know Manchester so well, I have been constantly impressed by the energy and confidence of the people of the area and their sense of vision and purpose. I have seen many instances of strong practical partnerships not just between central and local government agencies, but between the private sector, voluntary organisations, churches, schools and the whole community in Manchester and Salford which have launched and sustained many exciting projects.
Only last week I spent a lively hour at Trinity high school, which is a voluntary aided school in Hulme. I was very impressed not only by the long list of academic achievements, but by the sheer energy and enthusiasm of the pupils and staff alike. That school has parent-community involvement as well as business and industry involvement in the shape of a compact. The youth of today
540
are the statesmen of tomorrow and this school is equipping its pupils with the skills which will make them independent, well-balanced adults.
Also last week I attended a meeting to discuss environmental improvements to the M602, a dreary entrance to both Salford and Manchester. There were people there from the local authority, central Government, the Tidy Britain Group, the Groundwork Trust, Manchester polytechnic students, with their imaginative scheme, and local employers. We were all working towards the same end: how to turn that bleak stretch of urban motorway into an attractive approach to the heart of Manchester.
Nowhere is this sense of common purpose better demonstrated than in the activities of the Manchester Olympic bid commmittee. Its bid to host the 1996 Olympic Games was widley praised for its vision and its integrity. Although that bid did not succeed in bringing the Olympic Games to Britain for the first time since 1948, it spread the message of Manchester's economic revival across the world and reminded many people of the rich sporting heritage to be found not only in Manchester, but in Great Britain as a whole. Manchester's latest bid, which was endorsed by the British Olympic Association on 24 April this year, opens up exciting prospects for the city, other local authorities in the conurbation, the north-west region and throughout Britain. I am sure that the bid committee will build upon the foundations of its previous bid, and I am pleased to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Duke of Westminster and his bid team.
A successful bid, well executed, would be a great boost to the regional economy and urban regeneration in Manchester and the north-west. I have, for example, seen estimates that suggest that the event could add £0·5 billion to United Kingdom invisible exports. Moreover, there is a growing self-confidence that Manchester can take its rightful place as a major European city with all that that could bring in terms of international recognition and investment. The very process of mounting the bid is likely to improve further the international profile of the city.
The Government therefore wish Manchester every success with the bid. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has already met the chairman of the bid committee and the secretary of the BOA to discuss how best the Government can help to promote Manchester's bid. I have, of course, pledged my support to Bob Scott and the Manchester committee.
Partnership is a common theme of our whole approach to investment and regeneration, but we are demanding of our many partners in the regeneration process. We expect local commitment, participation, value for money and well-constructed ideas that are capable of implementation. I welcome the approach that has been adopted by the Olympic bid committee. Its strong emphasis on private sector participation, in line with Manchester city's historical entrepreneurial traditions, should produce the ideas, commitment and investment that will make the games a success. I understand that the Olympic bid committee is already engaged in the search for a suitable site for the main stadium and arena. In addition to sites at Barton Cross, the subject of last year's bid, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, there may be a possibility in east Manchester. A successful bid could make a worthwhile contribution to the regeneration of that area, which I know is now being closely examined by Manchester city council and the private sector, led by Terry Thomas.

541
I am pleased to report that my Department has recently agreed in principle to help with the cost of studies into the potential reclamation of part of the area. I welcome the city council's intention to consider east Manchester as a candidate for City Challenge next year. We shall examine closely any bids that we receive for support for Olympic facilities either in the context of City Challenge or separately.
However, my prime responsibility is for the regeneration of inner-city areas. My Department will play its part through the normal mechanisms and criteria that are designed to encourage greater economic activity in urban areas, especially on underused or derelict land. I encourage the bid committee to do what it can to ensure that there is sufficient developer interest to provide a suitable venue for major sporting events in the north-west. I look forward to hearing from the bid committee when its plans are more advanced.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, whom I am delighted to see on the Treasury Bench, has already taken a lively interest in the Olympic bid and, because we have discussed this together, I know that he is aware that the Central Manchester urban development corporation is also closely involved and playing its role.
Moreover, the Government have pledged themselves to a major programme of infrastructural and environmental works in the north-west within the time scale of the Olympic bid. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), when he was Secretary of State, spoke of a further £3 billion improvement programme when he addressed the Olympic committee in Tokyo last year—where he had gone to express the Government's commitment to that bid. This is already under way, and the effects will become increasingly evident over the next few years. Our attention has not been confined to Manchester; we have worked through the Merseyside development corporation and increasingly in collaboration with the local authorities to regenerate Merseyside. That approach, building on the great warmth and energy of the people of Merseyside, has begun to unlock the enormous potential of one of our nation's major conurbations. Of course, resources are also being targeted to the shire districts of the region; for example, almost £20 million has been allocated this year for transport supplementary grant, and further resources are being spent through derelict land grant and estate action programmes.
I am proud to be a member of a Government who have invested heavily in the regeneration of the north-west, in its inner-city areas, in its infrastructure, and in its environment—and that means in its people. The Government have done so by carefully targeting public resources and by levering in the private sector. We have created the conditions necessary for initiatives to flourish. The Olympic bid team are among those who have benefited from that approach, not only because of the physical transformation of many areas, which will directly enhance the bid, but because it is a partnership that draws together all sectors of the community and the economy. The job has only just started, but the Government have a continuing programme of investment and initiatives to tackle it.
One of the first things that was evident to me when I became inner-city Minister for Manchester and Salford was how rundown areas could be transformed by
542
imagination, the strong commitment of local people, and careful targeting of resources. One only has to visit the north-west region's three development corporation areas, with combined annual budgets of more than £72 million, to see the progress taking shape. Before the year 2000, and the Olympic games, the corporations expect to lever in £1·6 million of private investment. More than 620 hectares of derelict land will have been reclaimed and major infrastructure works will have been undertaken.
Since 1988, more than £139 million has been spent in the north-west's inner-city areas, excluding Merseyside, through the urban programme. Of that, almost £25 million has been spent on directly enhancing the environment, and £58·3 million has been spent on renewing the local economic infrastructure. The urban programme has levered in at least an equivalent amount of private investment in those areas. More than £56 million of city grant has been awarded to private sector companies in the north-west, which are investing more than £301 million of private money in a wide range of urban regeneration projects. Those projects are providing new homes, new jobs, new hotels, refurbishing listed buildings and reclaiming derelict sites.
The Government have allocated the main share of derelict land resources, almost £26 million, to the north-west region this year. Emphasis is being given to schemes that enhance the local environment and 10 rolling programmes are operating in those areas where the problems are most severe. We have been vigorously tackling, on a wide front, the problems posed by rundown council estates. The Government's estate action programme demands a strategic approach to turning round deprived areas, and seeks to incorporate wider proposals to secure comprehensive regeneration. Physical improvements alone are not the answer—estate action assists in the development, in tandem, of proposals for dealing with social, economic and environmental problems. Since 1986, the Government have provided resources totalling £805 million for estate action, of which no less than a third has gone to the north-west.
The Mersey basin campaign, a 25-year, £4 billion, initiative, is using central, local authority and private sector funds to regenerate the watercourses of the River Mersey through river and canal improvements and waterfront-linked schemes. North-West Water plans to spend £4·3 billion to improve water and waste services throughout the region over the next decade. That compares with £1 billion in the 1970s and £2 billion in the 1980s. A major part of the spending programme will he on environmental improvements.
We have established an impressive record of Government inner-city and environmental investment, which is continuing to transform the region, not by throwing money at the problem—an approach which had singularly failed in the past—but through imagination, strong local commitment, and careful targeting of cash.
My hon. Friend will be aware of particular examples in which the Government's approach and policies have been brought together to achieve fundamental changes to formerly neglected areas. One of the best-known examples, Salford Quays, has benefited from £28 million of derelict land and urban programme grant. That has attracted private investment of £293 million—with more to come —and has transformed a derelict inner-city area, providing homes, offices, hotels and leisure facilities.

543
The Government are not content to rest on what they have achieved so far; new ideas are needed to continue the transformation of our inner-city areas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced the City Challenge, in which 15 councils around the country have been invited to bid for a share of £75 million next year —and the same amount each year for five years—to build on the success that has been achieved to date. Central to that partnership initiative are a strong vision for the future of the cities involved, participation by all sectors of society, a clear timetable and effective delivery mechanisms.
Within the Manchester conurbation, both Manchester and Salford city councils have been invited to compete. I am to receive their detailed bids tomorrow and, whether or not either authority is successful on this occasion, there will be a further opportunity to compete next year. I have seen both areas, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows them well. The work that has already been undertaken to mount the bid has begun to mobilise the wealth of untapped talent, expertise and local pride that I know exists in the region.
My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of ERDF money. That may be a suitable way in which to support the
544
cost of the games, although Manchester will need to find the necessary capital cover from its existing allocations and secure the agreement of its partners in the Manchester, Salford and Trafford areas. To date, no such applications have been made. As I said, we shall pay careful attention to any that are made.
We are at the beginning of the process. I have tried to set out the ground, so that we are all clear about exactly where we are starting from. We shall continue to listen with considerable sympathy and—more important, I hope —with enthusiasm; we shall also maintain a practical commitment to the Manchester bid team. One of the team's challenges will be to recognise that at some point the Manchester bid may have to become the national bid, and we shall be interested to observe how the team deals with that.
Let me again congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this issue. I assure him that my ministerial colleagues and I will continue to support the bid committee's sterling efforts to bring the Olympic games to Britain—and to the north-west—in the year 2000.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Family Law
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will state the composition of the family law administration working party; and when it last met.

  The Solicitor-General
  The family law and administration working party is chaired by a senior official of the Lord Chancellor's Department and its membership consists of officials of the Department of Health, Home Office, Department of Social Security, the Treasury and the Lord Chancellor's Department. The family law and administration working party last met on 5 February 1991.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the progress being made by the family law administration working party.

  The Attorney-General
  To date the working party has been primarily concerned with the very large number of arrangements necessary for the implementation of the Children Act 1989. The main parts of that Act are to take effect on 14 October 1991. Following implementation, the working party will proceed to review the other aspects of family law, as announced by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor on the Second Reading of the Children Bill on 6 December 1988, including the role and organisation of the support services, the reform of divorce law following publication of the Law Commission report and the law relating to domestic violence.

  British National Party
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration the Director of Public Prosecutions is giving to prosecution of the British National party on grounds of incitement to racial hatred.

  The Attorney-General
  The Greater Manchester police have submitted a report to the Crown prosecution service concerning a meeting held by the British National party on 27 April 1991 at a school in Rochdale. This report is currently being considered by the Crown prosecution service with a view to determining whether any offence contrary to the Public Order Act 1986 or the Representation of the People Act 1983 has been committed by any individual.

TRANSPORT

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he intends to announce his decision to authorise investment in class 373 rolling stock to provide a daytime service from the channel tunnel beyond London;
  174
  (2) whether tenders have been received for the manufacture of class 373 rolling stock to provide a daytime service from the channel tunnel beyond London.

  Mr. Rilkind
  British Rail is discussing with the manufacturers their recent proposals for the rolling stock to form the north of London day services. It is, therefore, not yet ready to submit an investment case.

  A27
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to announce possible routes for the A27 Lewes to Polegate improvement scheme; how many options he intends to publish; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I hope that public consultation on possible routes for the A27 Lewes to Polegate improvement will begin around the end of this year. It is too early to say how many options will be published for comment.

  M62 (Junction 13)
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when junction 13 on the M62 motorway at Worsley will be reopened; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Junction 13 was reopened fully at 9 pm on Friday 28 June.

  HGV Speed Limiters
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish regulations requiring heavy goods vehicles to be fitted with speed limiters; and when he will announce firm proposals for speed limiters to be fitted to existing vehicles.

  Mr. Chope
  I have signed regulations today that require that speed limiters must be fitted to all new heavy goods vehicles of over 7·5 tonnes gross vehicle weight as from 1 August 1992.

  Consultations are also beginning on draft regulations that will require speed limiters to be fitted to certain classes of existing heavy goods vehicles first used after 1 August 1988. The regulations will apply to all vehicles that have a gross vehicle weight in excess of 16 tonnes, and, additionally in the case of rigid-bodied vehicles, where the gross train weight is more than 5 tonnes greater than the gross vehicle weight.

  The regulations for new vehicles give vehicle manufacturers and operators plenty of notice of the change; and I expect that regulations for vehicles that are already on the road will be laid before the House shortly.

  Automated Weighbridges
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has concluded his consideration of the consultants' report on automated weighbridges referred to in his answer of 27 June 1990,Official Report, column 211; if he intends to extend the installation of automated weighing systems beyond the five points which already have this facility; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 17 April 1991]: The consultants found that certain automatic, self-weigh systems worked well technically, but were largely

  175
  ineffective without the presence of enforcement officers. We have, therefore, concluded that the most effective deterrent to overloading continues to be weight checks carried out by traffic examiners.

  On the more general question of enforcement at weighbridge sites, at inland locations and at ferry ports, I have asked the vehicle inspectorate to review the Department's current programme. The review will he completed by the end of this year.

  M40
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure that the carriageways of the M40 between junction 1 and Windsor road, Gerrards cross, which are currently under repair are resurfaced with pervious macadam rather than hot rolled asphalt.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 1 July 1991]: We are not able to justify the use of pervious macadam on this section of motorway. Pervious macadam costs more than conventional road surfacing and requires more frequent renewal maintenance. Further research is continuing on the use of this type of surfacing and it is hoped that in due course the causes of the additional costs will be overcome.

  Ferry Safety
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends to take any action to impose higher standards of residual stability on existing roll on/roll off ferries using British ports as recommended by the steering committee of the roll on/roll off ferry safety research programme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 1 July 1991]: The higher standard of residual stability recommended by the steering committee of the roll on/roll off ferry safety research programme, will be applied to existing roll on/roll off ferries using British ports in accordance with procedures agreed by the International Maritime Organisation.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report tables showing for the latest two years now available and for planned expenditure in 1991–92, identifiable general Government expenditure by function in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, expressed(a) in cash terms, (b) as a percentage of United Kingdom total identifiable general Government expenditure, (c) as an amount per capita and (d) as an amount per capita expressed as an index where United Kingdom identifiable Government expenditure= 100.

  Mr. Mellor
  The data requested for the years 1988–89 and 1989–90, the latest years for which information is available, are given in tables E4 and E5 of appendix E of the "Statistical Supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement"—Cm. 1520. Corresponding data for 1991–92 are not available.

  Car Allowances
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the proportions of private cars, or car mileage as a proportion of the respective totals, where the costs incurred by the vehicles are not wholly met by the taxable income of their owners or drivers.

  Mr. Maude
  About one third of cars available for use by members of private households are either supplied by employers, or qualify for tax relief against schedule D income tax liability, or attract some allowance for business mileage.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the definition adopted by the Inland Revenue to identify large employers for the purposes of enforcing payment of remittances by the 19 of any month.

  Mr. Maude
  For the purposes of collecting PAYE and national insurance contributions remittances the Inland Revenue define large employers as those paying over £4,500 per month.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the expected additional revenue in 1991–92 from value added tax resulting from the increase from 15 to 17·5 per cent.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is published in table 1.1 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1991–92".

THE ARTS

  English National Opera
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will list for each of the last five years and for this year to date at today's prices, the amount of Government funding English National Opera has received; and if he will make a statement as to what controls his Office has over the way it is used.

  Mr. Renton
  Grants to individual arts companies are made by the Arts Council of Great Britain and the regional arts associations. Arts Council grants to English National Opera for the period in question were as follows:

  Year

  Actual grant £

  1991–92 real terms equivalent£

  1986–87

  6,626,000

  9,197,043

  1987–88

  6,748,000

  8,892,030

  1988–89

  6,917,000

  8,482,962

  1989–90

  7,056,000

  8,135,004

  1990–91

  9,104,000

  9,741,238

  1991–92

  10,432,300

  —

  I set the overall financial framework within which the Arts Council operates; the Arts Council, in turn, attaches conditions to its grants to individual companies relating to their artistic and financial performance.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Grocery Retailing
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will consider whether there are prima facie grounds for investigating whether there are scale and complex monopolies within the grocery retail sector.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Director General of Fair Trading continues to keep markets under review, but I understand that at present he has no evidence of abuse of market power that would justify a monopoly investigation of the retail grocery sector. Any evidence of abuse should be referred to the director general.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the telecommunications industry.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 3 July 1991]: Telecommunications is one of the most dynamic industries in the United Kingdom. The market has grown rapidly, stimulated by the Government's commitment to competition and increased customer choice. In mobile telephony we have the two largest cellular networks in the world. In March, I announced that we would be ending the duopoly policy in the fixed telephony market, and allowing new companies to enter the market. We have already received five formal applications for new licences and more than 20 strong expressions of interests. This is good for the industry and good for consumers.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Expenditure Shortfall
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Education and Science what reasons account for the £12 million shortfall between planned and actual spending on capital building work in voluntary aided and special agreement schools in 1990–91; and whether he expects this shortfall to be repeated in 1991–92.

  Mr. Fallon
  The underspend of £12 million on total planned expenditure of £87 million 1990–91 resulted from the failure on the part of voluntary bodies and LEAs to spend up to the level allocated on a significant number of building projects. This resulted in an underspend of grant of some £10 million, which did, however, enable the Department to meet more requests for grant for external repairs to voluntary-aided schools therefore exceeding budget provision by some £7 million.

  We hope to avoid a shortfall in 1991–92 by introducing the design list procedure whereby many of the named major projects have had preliminary plans approved and are therefore expected to progress according to schedule. None the less, the Department will be asking authorities to confirm current year expenditure plans in September so that any spare resources can be identified and reallocated.

  Nuclear Structure Facility
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will instruct the Science and Engineering Research Council to issue a correction of its report, "The Laboratories in the 1990s", in the light of its proposal to close the nuclear structure facility.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Publication of this report, presented to the SERC in July 1990, was a matter for the SERC. It is for the council to consider whether, in due course, it wishes to publish an updated report taking account of developments since that date.

  Braille (Examination Papers)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will discuss with examination boards the need for exam papers to be produced in braille;

  (2) what information he has concerning the cost of individually and mass-producing examination papers in braille.

  Mr. Eggar
  Officials from the Department have had discussions about the braille needs of visually impaired examination candidates with the Royal National Institute for the Blind, with the secretaries of the GCE examining boards for A-level and AS-examinations, and with the Joint Council for the GCSE. Figures provided by these bodies suggest that the cost of translating an average length examination paper into braille lies between £240 and £480; significant savings are possible where the same paper is used by several candidates.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his Department's policy on ensuring blind and partially sighted higher and further education students have adequate access to the examination process.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government are concerned to ensure that students with disabilities, including those who are blind or partially sighted, should have equal access to further and higher education. It is a matter for individual institutions, in consultation as appropriate with qualification awarding bodies, to ensure that suitable arrangements are made for the assessment of individual students.

  Agricultural and Food Research Council
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the names and locations of all the AFRC establishments that have been closed since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The following AFRC research establishments have closed since 1979:

  Letcombe Laboratory, Wantage

  Weed Research Organisation, Begbroke, Oxford

  Meat Research Institute, Bristol

  Unit of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh

  Unit of Invertebrate Chemistry and Physiology, Sussex

  Unit of Muscle Mechanisms and Insect Physiology, Cambridge

  The AFRC has also undertaken a programme of Institute restructuring which has involved some relocation of research establishments. This has been necessary to match the pace of scientific advance and opportunity and the shift in Government support from near-market to basic research. The concentration of AFRC's research base on to fewer sites will allow greater concentration of resources in its priority areas.
  179
  Funding to the AFRC from the science budget has increased by 37 per cent. in real terms since 1979. The AFRC continues to fund excellent work at the frontiers of science.

ENVIRONMENT

  Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether schedule 5 of the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 authorises a charge by a bailiff even where no visit has been made.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. Bailiffs cannot charge the debtor for work under schedule 5 of the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 if no visit is made. However, that does not preclude the bailiffs' charging the local authority for any work they have undertaken.

  London
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he takes to ensure that London's position is fully represented within the discussions that affect it within government.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I take all appropriate steps to ensure fair representation of London's interest. Within my Department I have a London regional office to advise me on matters directly affecting London and I consult widely, particularly with London boroughs, their associations and many other bodies with London-wide concerns.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the money raised by the uniform business rate in London is spent in London.

  Mr. Key
  In total local authorities in London received £1·5 billion from the non-domestic rates pool in 1990–91, and provisionally paid £2·7 billion into the pool during 1990–91. The latter figure does not represent the amounts of non-domestic rates raised from properties in London, because, first, properties on the central and Crown lists make payments direct to the non-domestic rates pool—it is not known how much of the total yield from these properties relates to London—and secondly, the provisional contribution made by local authorities to the non-domestic rates pool is calculated on the basis of the rateable value of properties on the local rating list as at 31 December 1989. Information about the actual rates payable in respect of 1990–91 is not likely to be available until November 1991.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the budget of each urban development corporation to cover the provision for training in each of the years 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Key
  The information is shown in the table.
  180

  UDC

  1989–90 £,000

  1990–91 £,000

  1991–92 £,000

  Black Country

  150

  400

  900

  Bristol

  nil

  nil

  nil

  C. Manchester

  7

  35

  71

  Leeds

  5

  23

  25

  London Docklands

  2,400

  3,300

  2,200

  Merseyside

  315

  315

  260

  Sheffield

  58

  67

  100

  Teesside

  148

  100

  200

  Trafford Park

  22

  184

  446

  Tyne and Wear

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish information giving details of the capital provided in the budget for all the urban development corporations for the provision of housing for the years 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Key
  The information is shown in the table.

  UDC

  1989–90 £000

  1990–91 £000

  1991–92 £000

  Black Country

  0

  0

  0

  Bristol

  0

  0

  0

  Central Manchester

  620

  3,128

  3,012

  Leeds

  0

  0

  0

  London Docklands

  51,000

  19,500

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  50

  Sheffield

  0

  0

  0

  Teesside

  716

  169

  2,752

  Trafford Park

  0

  0

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  1,057

  667

  2,012

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the initiatives promoted by each of the urban development corporations to assist tourism since their inception.

  Mr. Key
  The UDCs' programmes include a wide variety of projects which help to promote tourism. Examples are:the restoration of Albert dock in Liverpool:
  support for local festivals, such as those held in Manchester and Wolverhampton;
  visitor centres in Trafford Park and Teeside, and the Bede monastery museum in Jarrow;
  environmental works to rivers, canals and pathways in many UDCs, including Sheffield and Bristol;
  the London Docklands development corporation's six-year programme of funding for local tourist initiatives, including grants to local listed buildings such as St. Matthias church.
  the development of hotel and leisure facilities in several UDCs.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of houses provided by each of the urban development corporations for each year of operation to 31 March.

  Mr. Key
  The available information is contained in the tables.

  Housing units completed in UDC areas

  1981–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  London Docklands

  1 1,497

  901

  1,832

  2,698

  1 Cumulative figure for 1981–84.

  181

  UDC

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Black Country

  120

  168

  367

  289

  Bristol

  —

  —

  25

  97

  Central Manchester

  —

  140

  115

  173

  Leeds

  —

  0

  89

  0

  London Docklands

  1,854

  2,649

  2,019

  1,770

  Merseyside

  1 339

  233

  206

  282

  Sheffield

  —

  0

  0

  0

  Teesside

  0

  0

  241

  202

  Trafford Park

  —

  0

  0

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  0

  252

  105

  1 Cumulative figure to 1987–88.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment further to his answer to the hon. Member for Bristol, South of 10 June,Official Report, column 385, (1) what are the current arrangements with urban development corporations to fund the cost of unfinished projects;

  (2) whether suitable arrangements for the winding up of uncompleted projects begun by urban development corporations will involve the Government's meeting the full cost of completion, or part of the cost.

  Mr. Key
  Arrangements have not yet been determined.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list for each local authority the percentage of community charge uncollected at 31 March.

  Mr. Key
  I am arranging for the available information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the cost would be of abolishing the minimum 20 per cent. contribution to the poll tax.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 27 June 1991 at column 519.

  District Council Newspapers
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department's library receives copies of the Basildon district council newspaper "Basildon Link" and Thurrock borough council newspaper "Thurrock Voice".

  Mr. Heseltine
  No.

  Toxocara
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what analysis his Department carries out on the presence of toxocara canis in soil; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The matter of pet-borne infections is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. My Department has not carried out any research into the presence of toxocara canis in the soil.

  Urban Development Initiative
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria were used to decide the recent list of cities to be included in the Government's new urban development initiative programme.
  182
  Mr. Key
  City challenge is a new initiative through which local authorities are asked to provide local leadership for the regeneration of critical areas of their towns and cities. The authorities will bring together the relevant interests in their areas—the private sector, voluntary sector and local residents—to draw up plans for economic, social and environmental renewal. The initiative has been launched this year through a pilot scheme in which 15 authorities were invited to bid for 10 places as pacemaker authorities. Provided this pilot competition is successful, we intend there will be a full competition open to urban programme authorities in 1992.

  The 15 authorities invited to participate in this year's pilot exercise were chosen to represent a wide range of circumstances across the country and for their ability to work up imaginative plans quickly.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether farmers in(a) environmentally sensitive areas and (b) national parks will be eligible for payment under the countryside stewardship scheme.

  Mr. Trippier
  Countryside stewardship payments will not be available where funding is available under the ESA scheme. However, the Countryside Commission may, at its discretion, agree payment in an ESA under the stewardship scheme for items not covered by the ESA scheme, for example access. The position is made clear in the scheme literature.

  So far as national parks are concerned, farmers and other landowners and managers who have land within the landscape types targeted by the scheme may apply provided they are not receiving public funding already for work and management practices covered by the stewardship scheme.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the topics of each television advertising campaign to be carried out by his Department and any other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 1 July 1991]: My Department has no plans to use television advertising in any of its publicity work in the current financial year. We have two proposed publicity campaigns, which are estimated to cost more than £100,000. These are the joint campaign with the Department of Energy on the environment and home energy efficiency and a campaign to alert all businesses to the duty of care under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Council Tax (Exemptions)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if those exempt from poll tax because of severe mental handicap will be exempted from the council tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer, 2 July 1991]: We have proposed that people who are severely mentally impaired should be entitled to personal discounts under the council tax if they would otherwise give rise to a higher bill for the property in which they live.

  Disability Manifesto
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards the recommendations of the "Disability Manifesto: An Agenda for the 1990s", a copy of which has been sent to him, which relate to his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 3 July 1991]: My Department's policy, in respect of the relevant recommendations of the disability manifesto, is to increase opportunities for people with disabilities to participate fully in the life of the community. A major and continuing initiative is the introduction and implementation of building regulations aimed at making the built environment accessible to disabled people. On this and all other policy issues of concern to disabled people for which I have responsibility, my Department's practice is to consult with organisations representing disabled people.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 4 July.

  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.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place the official record of the briefing concerning immigration given on his behalf during the Luxembourg meetings of the European Council in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement I made in the House on 1 July, and the conclusions of the European Council, which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  (a) Charged statutory work

  109,074

  88,911

  108,032

  (b) Chargeable advice

  1,229,570

  2,554,089

  2,191,263

  (c) Non-chargeable advice

  137,705

  477,948

  560,003

  (d) Non-chargeable statutory work

  685,588

  1,283,431

  1,555,490

  Notes:

  (a) There have been structural changes in ADAS during this period. Figures are for ADAS as it was constituted at the time.

  (b) Includes hours spent on work for MAFF/Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce.

  (c) Figures for 1989–90 onwards include directly attributable overheads— training, leave, management, and so on. Figures for 1988–89 exclude overheads.

  Veterinary Investigation Centres
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the closure dates for each of the veterinary investigation centres which are due to be closed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The veterinary investigation centre at Wye will close on 31 July 1991; the Bangor centre will close on 30 September 1991. The closure dates for the Lincoln and Truro centres have not yet been finally decided. The Cambridge and Norwich centres will close when the new centre at Bury St. Edmunds is opened in 1993. The

  Disability Manifesto
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy towards the recommendations of the "Disability Manifesto: An Agenda for the 1990s", a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 3 July 1991]: The aim underlying the Government's policies for people with disabilities is to enable them to take a full part in the life of the community. Considerable progress has been made towards this goal over the past 12 years, and, while much remains to be done, we are continuing to build on these achievements.

  This Government will continue to work towards enabling people with disabilities to live independently as far as possible, and to contribute fully to all aspects of the life of the community.

  As the right hon. Member has asked similar questions of a number of my right hon. Friends, I have asked them to outline the major initiatives of their departmental programmes for people with disabilities.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Development Advisory Service
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the number of man hours spent in ADAS on(a) charged statutory work, (b) chargeable advice, (c) non-chargeable advice and (d) non-chargeable statutory work for each year since 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  ADAS began charging for services generally on 1 April 1987. Information for the years 1986–87 and 1987–88 is not available in the form requested.

  Information for the years 1988–89 to 1990–91 is as follows:

  Worcester centre will close when the new centre in Warwickshire is opened in 1993. The Reading centre will close when the Winchester centre is enhanced and the new Warwickshire centre is opened in 1993.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the counties which fall into each currently operating veterinary investigation centres catchment area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The counties and areas covered by the national network of veterinary investigation centres in England and Wales are generally defined by county boundaries but there is however a degree of flexibility to
  185
  meet local requirements. The specific counties and other areas which form the catchment areas for the currently operating veterinary investigation centres in England and Wales are:

  Bristol (Langford) VIC:
  Avon, Somerset, Dorset and parts of Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Gwent.

  Cambridge VIC:
  Essex, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and parts of Greater London, Suffolk, Northamptonshire and Hertfordshire.

  Lincoln VIC:
  North Humberside, South Humberside, Lincolnshire and parts of Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire, Leicestershire and West Yorkshire.

  Newcastle VIC:
  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, County Durham and Cleveland.

  Norwich VIC:
  Norfolk and parts of Suffolk.

  Penrith VIC:
  Cumbria and parts of North Lancashire, Northumberland and West Yorkshire.

  Preston (Barton Hall) VIC:
  Lancashire, Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Isle of Man and parts of Yorkshire, Cumbria, Staffordshire and Derbyshire.

  Reading VIC:
  Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Surrey, Guernsey, Jersey and parts of Wiltshire, Northamptonshire, Gloucestershire, Middlesex, Greater London and Hertfordshire.

  Shrewsbury VIC:
  Shropshire, Staffordshire, West Midlands Metropolitan County and parts of Cheshire, Powys, Clwyd, Warwickshire and Derbyshire.

  Starcross VIC:
  Devon and parts of Cornwall, Somerset and Dorset.

  Sutton Bonington VIC:
  Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire and parts of Staffordshire, South Yorkshire, Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire.

  Thirsk VIC:
  North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and parts or South Yorkshire, North Humberside, Cleveland and County Durham.

  Truro (Polwhele) VIC:
  Cornwall, Isle of Scilly and parts of Devon.

  Winchester VIC:
  Hampshire, Isle of Wight, West Sussex and parts of Dorset, Wiltshire and Surrey.

  Worcester VIC:
  Hereford and Worcester, Warwickshire and parts of Gwent, Gloucestershire and West Midlands.

  Wye VIC:
  Kent, East Sussex and parts of Greater London, Surrey and West Sussex.

  Aberystwyth VIC:
  Powys and parts of Dyfed and Gwynedd.

  Bangor VIC:
  Gwynedd and Clywd.
  186
  Carmarthen VIC:
  Mid Glamorgan, West Glamorgan, South Glamorgan and parts of Dyfed, Powys and Gwent.

  Countryside Premium Scheme
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to start administering the countryside premium scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  It is our intention to take over responsibility for the scheme and, subject to review and obtaining the necessary EC powers, extend it nationally. However, the final form and timing of adoption of the necessary EC proposals are uncertain.

  North York Moors Farms
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the funding his Ministry has contributed to the North York Moors national park farm scheme in each of the last three years; what plans he has for the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  This scheme is financed through the usual funding arrangements for national parks in which my Department has no involvement. However, farmers participating in the scheme may also benefit from the farm and conservation grant scheme funded by my Department. The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service is also available to offer advice and assistance in furtherance of the aims of the scheme, which has my full support.

HEALTH

  Breast Feeding
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information he has for 1990, for each social class of partner or husband, on the percentages of mothers who breastfed(a) initially and (b) when their baby had reached the age of six weeks;

  (2) what information he has about the percentage of women breastfeeding their babies (a) initially and (b) at six weeks in 1975, 1980, 1985 and 1990.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information for 1990 is unlikely to be published before next year. The table sets out the information requested for the years 1975, 1980 and 1985 in England and Wales.

  England and Wales

  1975 Percentage

  1980 Percentage

  1985 Percentage

  Birth

  51

  67

  65

  Six weeks

  24

  42

  40

  Source: OPCS surveys.

  In the recently published Green Paper "The Health of the Nation" we have proposed that we should aim to increase the rates of breast feeding at birth by 75 per cent. and six weeks by 50 per cent. by the year 2000.

  Clinical Standards Advisory Group
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what(a) financial and (b) personal resources have been allocated to support the work of the clinical standards advisory group;
  187
  (2) how often the clinical standards advisory group has met;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to publish an annual report on the work of the clinical standards advisory group;

  (4) if he will make it his policy that work done by the clinical standards advisory group should be made available to the public;

  (5) if he will make it his policy to publish a response to each report produced by the clinical standards advisory group;

  (6) how often the clinical standards advisory group will publish its findings;

  (7) if he will list the members of the clinical standards advisory group;

  (8) what authority will be given to the clinical standards advisory group to initiate its own areas of work;

  (9) when the Clinical Standards Advisory Group had its first meeting.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Clinical Standards Advisory Group comprises a chairman and 16 members as follows:

  Dr. Gordon Higginson (Chairman)

  Professor June Clark

  Professor Roy Duckworth

  Sir Terence English

  Miss Pam Hibbs

  Miss Jennifer Hunt

  Miss Rosemary Jenkins

  Miss Wilma Macpherson

  Dr. Michael O'Brien

  Professor Eurfil Rhys Davies

  Professor John Richmond

  Professor Michael Rosen

  Mr. Derek Seel

  Dr. Nuala Sterling

  Professor Victor Tindall

  Dr. Colin Waine

  Professor Sir Dillwyn Williams

  In addition, the General Medical Council, the General Dental Council, the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, the General Medical Services Committee and the Joint Consultants Committee have each nominated an observer to attend meetings.

  Under section 62 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, the CSAG will report to Health Ministers, and to NHS bodies, on the remits that each may give to the group. Health Ministers will normally publish reports made to them together with their responses. NHS bodies which commission work by the group will decide on the handling of the group's reports. Health Ministers will expect to receive and publish periodic overview reports from the group on its work at suitable intervals.

  The CSAG has no statutory authority to initiate its own areas of work. However, Health Ministers will attach importance to the views of the group on the areas of work which they might be invited to cover. Health Ministers provide administrative and professional support to the CSAG from within their Departments. In 1991–92 £900,000 has been set aside to meet secretariat and other costs arising from the group's work.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the amounts allocated by each regional health authority in 1991–92 for the(a) training of
  188
  managers in the national health service, (b) postgraduate medical education and (c) continuing medical education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 14 June at column 684.

  Occupational Therapy Service
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has issued guidance to health and local authorities on their responsibilities in providing an occupational therapy service in the community.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Guidance to health and local authorities on occupational therapy services was issued in 1985. There was further guidance in a 1988 health notice (HN(88)26), a copy of which is available in the Library, on the development of services for people with physical or sensory disabilities. A report by the social services inspectorate on local authority occupational therapy services is to be published shortly.

  Chronic Sick and Disabled Units
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued to health authorities for the relocation of people being moved from young chronic sick and disabled units.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Health circular HC(89)5, a copy of which is available in the Library, on the discharge of patients from hospital was issued in February 1989 together with an explanatory booklet about procedures to be followed.

  Dentures
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on his policy regarding the direct provision to the public of dentures by denturists.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The General Dental Council may make regulations to establish classes of dental auxiliaries who may undertake dental work. These may not, however, permit auxiliaries to fit, insert or fix dentures or artificial teeth. It is considered that only registered dental or medical practitioners are competent to recognise pathological conditions which may be caused or exacerbated by dentures.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the planned reductions and planned increases in staff by each national health service trust from which he obtained the net figure of 200 which he gave in the debate on 14 May,Official Report, column 174, specifying the planning period in each case.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No; as I said in the debate, many trusts are expanding and some are contracting. The prime responsibility of NHS trusts is to provide services and they will make their manpower plans in response to demand from health authorities and other purchasers. Therefore, the plans are likely to change over time.

  Neonatal Intensive Care
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each region and for England as a whole the number of neonatal intensive care cots.
  189
  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 15 October 1990 at columns 667–74. We expect figures for 1990–91 to be completed by the end of September.

  Ativan
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of prescriptions of Ativan in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 3 July 1991]: The information requested is as follows:

  Great Britain

  Number of prescriptions

  (thousands)

  Drug name

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Tab Lorazepam 2pt5mg

  332·9

  429·1

  382·0

  255·7

  212·9

  Tab Lorazepam 1mg

  2,148·5

  2,719·1

  2,519·6

  1,867·0

  1,529·3

  Ativan Tab 2pt5mg

  92·7

  0·2

  —

  —

  —

  Ativan Tab lmg

  543·1

  0·5

  0·1

  —

  —

  Note:

  1. Ativan was included in a list of drugs not prescribable at NHS expense from April 1985. However, its generic form, Lorazepam, remains prescribable.

  2. These figures are based on a sample of dispensed prescriptions of approximately 1 in 200 in England and Wales and 1 in 100 in Scotland.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans or proposals he has for merging or re-organising the district health authorities in Greater London.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 July 1991]: We have no plans to reorganise health authorities. Any proposal to merge district health authorities in London or elsewhere is a matter for the regional health authority concerned. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear to regional health authorities that consultation on any such proposals has to be wide and that Ministers need to be convinced that they are in the interests of local people and of the national health service generally.

  All live births

  Live births (with birthweight stated) by birthweight

  District health authority

  Number

  Percentage with birthweight not stated

  Total(birthweight stated)

  <1000g(per cent.)

  1000–1499g (per cent.)

  1500–1999g(per cent.)

  2000–2499g (per cent.)

  2500–2999g (per cent.)

  3000–3499g (per cent.)

  3500–3999g (per cent.)

  4000g and over (per cent.)

  Clwyd

  5,352

  2·2

  5,237

  0·3

  0·6

  1·6

  4·1

  16·1

  35·1

  30·1

  12·2

  East Dyfed

  2,723

  4·1

  2,616

  0·3

  0·5

  1·0

  3·5

  15·1

  37·5

  30·8

  11·3

  Pembrokeshire

  1,435

  0·4

  1,429

  0·2

  0·6

  1·0

  4·0

  15·5

  37·6

  29·4

  11·8

  Gwent

  6,404

  6·7

  6,004

  0·2

  0·5

  1·3

  4·9

  18·1

  36·2

  29·3

  9·5

  Gwynedd

  3,027

  5·0

  2,883

  0·2

  0·4

  1·2

  4·2

  14·5

  37·4

  28·7

  13·3

  Mid Glamorgan

  7,812

  1·1

  7,730

  0·4

  0·6

  1·2

  4·0

  17·7

  36·2

  29·2

  10·7

  Powys

  1,472

  6·9

  1,377

  0·1

  0·7

  0·9

  3·8

  14·6

  38·1

  31·2

  10·7

  South Glamorgan

  5,868

  0·7

  5,830

  0·4

  0·6

  1·1

  3·9

  17·0

  38·6

  27·9

  10·4

  West Glamorgan

  4,773

  7·6

  4,434

  0·2

  0·7

  1·1

  4·1

  14·6

  36·7

  30·4

  12·3

  Wales

  38,866

  3·5

  37,540

  0·3

  0·6

  1·2

  4·1

  16·4

  36·8

  29·4

  11·1

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

WALES

  Blue Ear Pig Disease
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is undertaking to prevent the spread of blue ear pig disease into Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Blue Ear Pig Disease Order 1991 was introduced in June. This order makes suspicion of the disease notifiable, allows for the declaration of infected places and infected areas by special orders and allows movement restrictions to be placed on premises exposed to infection pending a veterinary investigation.

  Fallen Animals
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the average knacker charge for the collection of(a) bovine casualties and (b) ruminant casualties in each year from 1979 onwards on the basis of 1989–90 prices in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The charging by knackers for the removal of carcases is a comparatively recent development resulting from changes in the market for animal by-products. Details of these charges are not available in the form requested, but is understood that the current average ranges of charges in Wales are as follows:

  £

  Adult cattle

  10–30

  Calves

  2–5

  Sheep

  4–8

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give for 1990 for the residents of(a) Wales and (b) each NHS district within Wales (i) the number of live births (ii) the percentage of live births with unstated birth weight (iii) the number of live births with stated birth weight and (iv) the percentages of these, which were under 1000g, 1000g to 1499g, 1500g to 1999g, 2000g to 2499g, 2500g to 2999g, 3000g to 3499g, 3500g to 3999g and 4000g and above.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information requested is given in the table and is derived from all registered births to residents of Wales:

  A44
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to improve the trunk road A44 between Rhydlydan and Llwynhowel, Ponterwyd Sir Aberteifi within the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We have no plans to carry out improvement to the A44 in that area to that time scale.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many adults with learning difficulties were undertaking employment training in Wales in each of the last five years; and how many are in training in the current year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available.

  Male and Female

  Average gross weekly earnings

  Distribution of weekly earnings percentage earning under:

  £180

  £250

  £320

  Wales

  232·1

  38·0

  64·3

  83·6

  Gwynedd, Clwyd, Powys and Dyfed1

  227·7

  40·1

  65·6

  84·6

  Gwynedd2

  225·5

  44·6

  64·9

  83·8

  Meirionnydd district

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a =Not available.

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  1 Excluding Llanelli district.

  2 Separate figures for the national park area are not available.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average gross weekly earnings as at April 1991 of male and female full-time employees by industry (sic 1980 class) in(a) Wales, (b) Gwynedd, Clwyd, Powys and Dyfed, (c) the administrative district of Snowdonia national park and (d) the district of Meirionnydd.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The latest available information by industry—standard industrial classification classes—is published in part E of the new earnings survey 1990—tables 118–121—a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Because figures for Wales are derived from a sample of full-time employees, details for some industry classes are not sufficiently reliable for publication.

  There are no reliable figures by industry class for the other areas of Wales requested but the average earnings of all make and all female full-time employees in April 1990 are, where available, given in the table:

  Average gross weekly earnings:

  Full-time employees on adult rates—pay unaffected by absence

  Male

  Female

  Wales

  258·6

  180·3

  Gwynedd, Clwyd, Powys and Dyfed1

  253·9

  178·1

  Gwynedd2

  248·4

  175·7

  Meirionnydd district

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1 Excluding Llanelli district.

  2 Separate figures for the national park area are not available.

  192
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of employment training placements for the last available financial year were in workplaces with employers; and what percentage were in project-based schemes.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The estimated percentages of ET participants on placements with employers and with projects as at 31 March 1991 were 27 and 28 per cent. respectively. Financial year information is not available.

  Earnings
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the distribution of gross weekly earnings of full-time persons in(a) Wales, (b) the counties of Gwynedd, Clwyd, Powys and Dyfed, (c) the administrative district of Snowdonia national park and (d) the district of Meirionnydd as at April 1991.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The latest available information, for April 1990, relating to the distribution of gross weekly earnings of full-time employees on adult rates whose pay was not affected by absence, is given in the table:

  Trawsfynydd Lake
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will identify the means and routes by which radioactivity has entered Trawsfynydd lake, giving comparable information for other bodies of water that are not directly connected with discharges from the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station, and account for the presence of natural radioactivity, past fall-out from Chernobyl and other nuclear-related incidents that have resulted in airborne radioactive matter entering Trawsfynydd lake; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will provide the results of any analysis undertaken by or reported to his office on the increased radiation dose, whole body and internal organs, received by the most exposed members of the public as a result of the water level of Trawsfynydd lake being lowered for investigation repairs to the dam serving to contain the waters of the lake; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will provide the level of radioactivity currently in situ in the sediments of lake Trawsfynydd, and the proportions of the overall radioactive inventory contributed by each principal radionuclide specie, stating how each radionuclide specie is distributed across the lake bottom and through the sediment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 28 June 1991]: The directorate of fisheries research of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food monitors regularly the levels of any radioactivity found in environmental materials taken from Lake Trawsfynydd. Measurements

  193
  are also made in other lakes. The results are published in the annual reports of monitoring of radioactivity in surface and coastal waters of the British Isles. Copies of the report are available in the Library of the House.

  The regular monitoring reports include analysis of the measurements in terms of both internal and external radiation doses. There is no evidence of any increase of dose to members of the public which is attributable to the lowering of the water level in the lake.

  Radioactive nuclides are regularly monitored in Lake Trawsfynydd sediments and the results published in the annual reports. More detailed investigations into the radionuclide content of sediment profiles are currently being undertaken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the results will be published.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration his Department has given to the radiological consequenced to individual members of the public of allowing the Trawsfynydd lake to be completely drained and/or abandons when the present nuclear power station located on its shores ceases to function; what conclusions he has reached in terms of the most exposed individual of the public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 28 June 1991]: When Trawsfynydd power station is to be decommissioned, full account will be taken of potential radiation exposure to members of the public from such operations. However, the presence of the recently refurbished Maentwrog hydroelectric power station will ensure the need to maintain the lake for many years to come.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the period for which the level of the lake was lowered in order to facilitate investigation and repairs to the dam containing the waters of Trawsfynydd lake, and state by how much, on average, the level of the lake was lowered and by what extent in area lake bottom sediments were exposed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 28 June 1991]: I understand from Nuclear Electric that Trawsfynydd lake level was lowered in December 1986 from a nominal
  194
  maximum of 650 ft above mean sea level—AMSL—to a nominal maximum of 642 ft AMSL to aid investigative work on the main dam structure. The level rose during early 1987 but was again reduced to 644 ft AMSL nominal maximum in May 1987 to relieve pressure on the clam structure until the new dam is completed, which is expected to be later this year.

  When the lake's maximum level is lowered, areas of the lake shore which are normally covered by water, except during the summer months, are uncovered for longer periods. The size of these exposed areas varies from one part of the lake to another, depending on the slope of the shore at any point.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which organisation is to be responsible for maintaining Trawsfynydd lake at the desired levels and in good repair in future years; for how long the lake will have to be maintained full and in good repair if any undesirable radiation exposure to any member of the public is to be avoided; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 28 June 1991]: Nuclear Electric owns the lake and is responsible for maintaining it at the required level. I understand that the primary purpose of the lake is to provide water for the Maentwrog hydro-electric scheme.

  If at any time the draining of the lake is proposed, a full assessment of any potential radiological consequences will be made beforehand so that all necessary measures can be taken, including those required to ensure public safety.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if water run off from Trawsfynydd lake enters any source of potable water supplies.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 28 June 1991]: There are no licensed potable water abstractions from Trawsfynydd lake or the Afon Prysor into which it discharges. However, records are not kept of single abstractions of less than 5 cu m or of abstractions by adjoining land owners which are permitted without licence.

SCOTLAND

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many reported cases of BSE there have been in each of the last six months; how many cattle have been killed; and from what number of farms in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information for Scotland for each of the last six available months is as follows:

  Number reported

  Number slaughtered

  Number of farms

  December 1990

  43

  40

  39

  January 1991

  76

  72

  65

  February 1991

  67

  58

  53

  March 1991

  73

  59

  59

  April 1991

  59

  53

  50

  May 1991

  48

  30

  28

  The number of farms relates to animals slaughtered. Animals reported as suspected of being affected with the disease are normally held for a time for surveillance before slaughter. Final confirmation cannot be obtained until histopathological examination of brain tissues has been completed after death.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing expenditure on(a) hospital and community health services, (b) family health services and (c) total health service spending, identifying current and capital expenditure separately and adjusted for changes in input unit costs in each year from 1978–79 to the most recent available date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 28 June 1991]: Details of gross expenditure for Scotland broken down by service from 1978–79 to 1989–90, in cash terms, and adjusted by the gross domestic product deflator, are given in the tables.

  (a) Hospital and Community Health Services

  £ million cash

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator to 1990–91 prices

  Current Expenditure

  1978–79

  627

  1,582

  1979–80

  749

  1,619

  1980–81

  964

  1,761

  1981–82

  1,083

  1,805

  1982–83

  1,156

  1,798

  1983–84

  1,227

  1,825

  1984–85

  1,306

  1,848

  1985–86

  1,381

  1,854

  1986–87

  1,465

  1,900

  1987–88

  1,598

  1,968

  1988–89

  1,776

  2,036

  1989–90

  1,906

  2,054

  Capital Expenditure

  1978–79

  51

  129

  1979–80

  58

  125

  1980–81

  59

  108

  1981–82

  84

  140

  1982–83

  92

  143

  1983–84

  99

  147

  1984–85

  107

  151

  196

  £ million cash

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator to 1990–91 prices

  1985–86

  120

  161

  1986–87

  115

  149

  1987–88

  117

  144

  1988–89

  128

  147

  1989–90

  170

  183

  (b) Family Health Services (Current)

  £ million cash

  Adjusted by the DPG deflator to 1990–91 prices

  1978–79

  167

  421

  1979–80

  197

  426

  1980–81

  246

  449

  1981–82

  281

  468

  1982–83

  322

  501

  1983–84

  349

  519

  1984–85

  382

  541

  1985–86

  402

  540

  1986–87

  440

  571

  1987–88

  485

  597

  1988–89

  545

  625

  1989–90

  583

  628

  (c) Total National Health Expenditure

  £ million cash

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator to 1990–91 prices

  Current

  1978–79

  837

  2,112

  1979–80

  999

  2,159

  1980–81

  1,276

  2,331

  1981–82

  1,436

  2,392

  1982–83

  1,556

  2,421

  1983–84

  1,665

  2,475

  1984–85

  1,782

  2,521

  1985–86

  1,882

  2,525

  1986–87

  2,017

  2,616

  1987–88

  2,199

  2,708

  1988–89

  2,449

  2,807

  1989–90

  2,633

  2,837

  Capital

  1978–79

  56

  141

  1979–80

  65

  141

  1980–81

  67

  123

  1981–82

  95

  159

  1982–83

  104

  162

  1983–84

  108

  161

  1984–85

  119

  169

  1985–86

  132

  178

  1986–87

  126

  164

  1987–88

  129

  159

  1988–89

  142

  163

  1989–90

  187

  202

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is taking to investigate(a) the uptake of family credit by the self-employed,

  197
  (b) the administration of the family credit scheme so far as self-employed claimants are involved and (c) the use of cash flow on the method of determining earnings.

  Mr. Jack
  There are around 47,000 families on family credit where the main earner is self-employed. Nearly 45 per cent. of them receive family credit of £50 or more a week. To improve further the service to self-employed customers, and to respond to the representations made by them and on their behalf, the Department has commissioned a research study into family credit for the self-employed from the social policy research unit at the university of York. The study is looking not only at the administration of the scheme and the method of determining earnings, but at a wide range of other matters including the nature of low income self-employment; incentives to work and job creation; eligibility and factors affecting take-up of family credit; and standards of living. The full report of the study is not due until 1993, but we hope to receive information on the assessment and administration elements before the end of this year.

  Johnstone Benefits Office
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent in the Johnstone office of the Benefits Agency on(a) floor coverings, (b) furnishings and (c) fabric improvements in each year since 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Expenditure incurred by this Department since 1985 has been as follows:

  Floor coverings £

  Furnishings £

  Fabric improvements (internal redecoration) £

  1985–86

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1986–87

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1987–88

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1988–89

  Nil

  Nil

  9,200

  1989–90

  21,500

  26,451

  1,000

  1990–91

  Nil

  12,021

  Nil

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent on extending or improving the Johnstone office of the Benefits Agency in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Income support

  Income support claims

  Social fund application

  Income support load

  Income support/ Social fund callers

  April 1987–88

  7,680

  18,534

  7,996

  Not available

  April 1988–89

  6,632

  17,812

  7,265

  4,355

  April 1989–90

  6,749

  17,489

  7,166

  5,332

  April 1990–91

  5,527

  23,519

  7,010

  5,732

  198
  Miss Widdecombe
  Information for the years prior to 1985–86 is not readily available.

  The amounts spent by this Department on extending or improving the Johnstone office of the Benefits Agency in each of the financial years since 1985–86 are:

  £

  1985–86

  1,821

  1986–87

  734

  1987–88

  3,501

  1988–89

  1,084

  1989–90

  48,998

  1990–91

  17,048

  Notes:

  1. Figures prior to April 1988 do not include any works projects over £2,500, which were the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.

  2. These figures do not include the amounts spent on floor coverings, furnishings and fabric improvements.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the total population eligible to use the Johnstone office of the Benefits Agency in each year since 1985; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many claimants were dealt with from the Johnstone office of the Benefits Agency in each year since 1985; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what is the effect of the Benefits Agency review on the operation of its office in Johnstone; what amendments to its operations have been made; what future proposals are intended for implementation; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Statistics were obtained from the Strathclyde regional council to aid service planning and give the projected population of the Renfrew district, considered to be the most relevant.

  In 1986 the actual figure was 203,220 with a projected change to 201,258, 200,805, 200,391, 200,008 and 199,644 in the years 1987 to 1991. The figures for 1985 are not available.

  It is impossible to say how many customers are dealt with by any office of the Benefits Agency in any year. Contact can be made by post, by telephone or by visit and detailed figures are not held. The table, covering the main benefits, gives an indication of the numbers in contact with the Johnstone office over the period. Figures prior to 1987 are not available.
  199

  Contributory benefits

  Short-term benefit/Maternity benefit claims

  Retirement pension/Widow's pension claims

  Short-term benefits load (average)

  Contributory benefit callers

  April 1987–88

  2,071

  971

  3,915

  15,569

  April 1988–89

  1,938

  900

  3,944

  14,962

  April 1989–90

  2,045

  1,001

  4,303

  14,725

  April 1990–91

  2,156

  862

  4,837

  15,997

  With the formation of the Benefits Agency, Paisley ILO and Johnstone ILO—previously separately managed independent units—were combined to form the Renfrew district. Currently at Johnstone are income support, liable relatives, direct payment, overpayments, social fund crisis loans and part of finance sections.

  Future proposals are the responsibility of Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Benefits (Wales)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals were in receipt of(a) unemployment benefit, (b) income support and income support premiums, (c) family credit, (d) national insurance retirement pensions, (e) supplementary benefit, (f) child benefit and (g) one parent benefit; and what were the average payments made in (i) Wales, (ii) the administrative districts of Gwynedd, Clwyd, Powys and Dyfed, (iii) the administrative district of Snowdonia national park and (iv) the district of Meirionnydd during the past 12 months.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The complete answer to this question is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs. This is because such statistics are collected at DSS and unemployment benefit office level and areas covered by these offices do not correspond to the administrative districts specified. Furthermore, the information that is routinely collected does not reflect the number of individuals in receipt during particular periods, it merely provides a "snapshot" of a given point in time.

  Such information as is available and relates to Wales follows:

  (a) Unemployment Benefit; in May 1991, there were 28,610 individuals in receipt.

  (b) Income Support and Income Support Premiums; in May 1989, there were 246,000 customers in receipt of whom 169,000 were in receipt of one or more premiums. The average payment was £34·83

  (c) Family Credit; in November 1990, there were 21,300 persons in receipt. The average payment was £31·02.

  (d) Retirement Pension; in April 1990 there were 518,000 in receipt.

  (e) Supplementary Benefits; no customers in receipt of a weekly allowance

  (f) Child Benefit; in 1989, there were 348,000 persons in receipt. The average weekly payment was £13·94.

  (g) One Parent Benefit; in December 1989, there were 34,000 persons in receipt. The average weekly payment was £5·60.

  Disability Benefit Regulations
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether any disability benefit regulations will be laid before the summer adjournment.
  200
  Mr. Scott
  As the first step in a further consultation process on the new disability benefits I have today laid before the House draft regulations to provide for the new Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board. This new body will provide expert advice to staff working on disability living allowance and attendance allowance, which will remain for people disabled over age 65. The membership of the board will comprise people with disabilities and others with experience in the needs of disabled people and we will be inviting organisations of and for disabled people to make suggestions for its membership.

  Over the next few weeks we shall also be issuing for comments the draft claim forms for disability living allowance and disability working allowance and the regulations which set out how the new benefits will operate in detail. We shall also be issuing the draft disability handbook which will assist the staff working on disability living allowance, and the draft regulations for the two benefits.

  As part of this strategy of consulting disabled people about the administration of benefits we have conducted a survey of consumer views of the attendance allowance medical examination. The report of this survey, which shows a high level of satisfaction with the service provided by examining doctors will be published next week.

  We have also laid before the House today a set of regulations to enable members of Her Majesty's forces to satisfy the residence test for severe disablement allowance.

  Finally, we plan to lay regulations before the end of the parliamentary Session to introduce some beneficial changes to the industrial injuries provisions. We shall be extending the prescription for occupational asthma and adding two new diseases, orf and hydatidosis, to the schedule of prescribed diseases.

EMPLOYMENT

  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on racial discrimination in employment.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government are resolutely opposed to racial discrimination and sees fair treatment between citizens regardless of race as fundamental to a healthy and balanced society. Racial discrimination is morally wrong. Moreover, in employment it makes bad business sense by potentially excluding the best person for the job.

  Progress has been made in eliminating racial discrimination. In that period from 1984 the unemployment rates for ethnic minorities came down faster than those for white people. There is also evidence that ethnic minority people have moved into higher level occupations over the past 20 years, and there has been a steady increase

  201
  in the number of ethnic minority people taking up the challenge and opportunities of self-employment. However, more remains to be done to achieve equal opportunities in employment for these groups.

  The Race Relations Act 1976, which applies to Great Britain, provides the legislative framework for the elimination of racial discrimination. The Commission for Racial Equality works to this end and has published a code of practice in employment.

  The Department—through the employment service and training and enterprise councils—seeks to ensure equality of opportunity, irrespective of race, in all its programmes and services. In addition, the Department's race relations employment advisory service provides advice and guidance to employers on the introduction and implementation of policies and practices aimed at eliminating racial discrimination in employment.

  Independent Unions Training Council
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will classify the Independent Unions Training Council as an appropriate body to approve training under paragraph 17 of the ACAS code of practice—time off for trade union duties and activities; and whether he has any plans to include the Independent Unions Training Council in paragraph 17 of subsequent editions of the code.

  Mr. Forth
  Paragraph 17 of the ACAS code of practice "Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities" consists of a restatement of statutory provisions contained in section 27 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for ACAS to amend its code of practice in the manner suggested. The Government have no present plans to amend the relevant legislation.

  Employees in Employment in the Food Industries, September 1989, by County

  Thousands

  Industries (Groups of SIC 1980)

  Food Distribution

  Food Manufacturing SIC Groups 411 to 423

  Retail SIC Groups 617

  Wholesale2SIC Group 641

  South East

  Bedfordshire

  3·6

  5·4

  2·0

  Berkshire

  5·1

  9·4

  3·4

  Buckinghamshire

  2·7

  6·9

  2·3

  East Sussex

  3·0

  8·4

  2·9

  Essex

  5·1

  19·8

  5·1

  Greater London

  34·5

  74·9

  34·2

  Hampshire1

  8·1

  22·4

  6·1

  Isle of Wight1

  Hertfordshire

  4·5

  16·6

  4·5

  Kent

  5·9

  18·8

  6·9

  Oxfordshire

  6·4

  8·2

  1·9

  Surrey

  2·5

  13·1

  4·5

  West Sussex

  3·2

  8·9

  1·8

  East Anglia

  Cambridgeshire

  7·0

  7·8

  3·2

  Norfolk

  12·4

  8·9

  5·3

  Suffolk

  13·7

  8·5

  3·1

  South West

  Avon

  6·1

  14·4

  6·6

  Cornwall

  2·2

  5·4

  2·5

  Devon

  6·6

  11·3

  5·6

  Dorset

  4·1

  8·4

  1·7

  Gloucestershire

  3·8

  6·6

  1·4

  Employment Training
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many adults with learning difficulties were undertaking employment training in each of the last five years; and how many are in training in the current year.

  Mr. Jackson
  While information is available about the overall number of trainees with disabilities entering employment training, information is not collected separately about those with learning difficulties.

  Astra Training Services
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of whether Astra Training Services Ltd. has carried out all its statutory obligations and formal undertakings to trainees and employees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  At the point of sale the Government met their undertakings to ensure that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 applied to former civil servants who transferred to the private sector, including Astra and that pension arrangements were satisfactorily covered. Astra Training Services Ltd. is now a private company and it, and not the Government, is responsible for such statutory or other obligations that fall on it.

  Food Industry
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of people employed in the food industry by county on the latest available date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jackson
  The most recent estimates of employees in employment according to industry and by county are from the September1989 census of employment. Data for the food industries are given in the table.
  203

  Thousands

  Industries (Groups of SIC 1980)

  Food Distribution

  Food Manufacturing SIC Groups 411 to 423

  Retail SIC Groups 617

  Wholesale2 SIC Group 641

  Somerset

  51

  5·7

  2·2

  Wiltshire

  6·5

  7·4

  2·4

  West Midlands

  Hereford and Worcester

  7·3

  7·5

  2·5

  Shropshire

  4·3

  5·0

  1·9

  Staffordshire

  8·4

  10·5

  3·2

  Warwickshire

  2·7

  6·0

  1·4

  West Midlands

  13·5

  26·3

  10·5

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  6·9

  9·8

  2·6

  Leicestershire

  9·9

  9·4

  3·9

  Lincolnshire

  12·0

  7·5

  4·2

  Northamptonshire

  7·7

  7·2

  3·5

  Nottinghamshire

  7·8

  11·7

  4·5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Humberside

  17·8

  11·8

  6·8

  North Yorkshire

  14·8

  9·1

  2·4

  South Yorkshire

  10·5

  13·1

  5·5

  West Yorkshire

  21·1

  24·0

  8·4

  North West

  Cheshire

  8·3

  12·2

  4·3

  Greater Manchester

  27·0

  25·5

  10·8

  Lancashire

  13·6

  15·3

  6·2

  Merseyside

  14·5

  12·8

  5·2

  North

  Cleveland

  4·2

  5·4

  1·0

  Cumbria

  7·6

  6·3

  0·9

  Durham1

  4·6

  8·2

  1·7

  Northumberland1

  Tyne and Wear

  4·9

  12·7

  3·6

  Wales

  Clwyd

  4·2

  6·1

  1·0

  Dyfed

  1·6

  3·7

  1·3

  Gwent

  3·8

  5·2

  1·0

  Gwynedd

  1·6

  3·4

  0·8

  Mid-Glamorgan1

  4·5

  7·2

  1·6

  Powys1

  South Glamorgan

  2·0

  5·1

  1·9

  West Glamorgan

  1·5

  4·3

  1·1

  Scotland (Regions)

  Borders1

  4·2

  3·6

  0·7

  Dumfries and Galloway1

  Central1

  1·9

  8·2

  1·1

  Fife1

  Grampian

  10·7

  7·6

  3·5

  Highlands

  1·3

  3·1

  0·9

  Lothian

  8·1

  9·6

  4·4

  Strathclyde

  18·3

  27·4

  8·5

  Tayside

  4·3

  6·0

  2·1

  Islands

  0·7

  0·9

  0·4

  1 Figures for these two counties are combined to avoid disclosure, directly or indirectly, of information concerning an individual firm.

  2 Includes the wholesale distribution of drink and tobacco.

  Labour and Social Affairs Council
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the outcome of the meeting of the Labour and Social Affairs Council held in Luxembourg on 25 and 26 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The Council had a useful and productive meeting. On the first day, the Council formally adopted its common position on the directive concerned with the health and safety of temporary workers and a directive to control the use of asbestos in the workplace.

  Agreement was reached on an amendment to a regulation on social security arrangements for migrant workers; on a decision relating to the PETRA programme
  204
  concerning vocational training exchanges for young people; on a directive concerning the provision of medical assistance on board ships; and on a decision on the European Year of Health and Safety.

  Agreement in principle was also reached on a proposed directive on proof of employment relationships. Formal adoption was not possible since the European Parliament had failed to deliver its opinion in time for the Council.

  A regulation to bring forward by one year to 31 December 1991 the full free movement of workers between Spain and Portugal and the rest of the Community was also adopted.

  There was a protracted discussion, in which divergent views were expressed by a large number of member states,

  205
  on one article of the proposed directive on the protection of pregnant women at work, but no agreement was reached. Almost all member states continue to have serious concerns on many aspects of the substance of this proposal.

  Contrary to a number of inaccurate newspaper and broadcast reports, there was no discussion of the proposed directive on working time.

  On the second day dealing with youth affairs, when my noble Friend Viscount Ullswater represented the United Kingdom, the Council agreed a decision on the Youth for Europe programme and a resolution on priority action in the field of youth.

  Overall, the outcome of the proceedings demonstrated once again that the United Kingdom is far from isolated on even those proposals under the social action programme which cause us the most difficulty. Many member states are now experiencing difficulties and are working to keep important and sensitive areas of employment and social policy within the bounds of national law and practice. It is to be hoped that the Commission will take heed of these developments and concentrate its efforts on bringing forward proposals which will increase employment and reduce burdens on business.

  The meeting also showed that the present treaty is perfectly adequate to enable sensible progress to be made in those areas where the Community has a proper role.

  To date the Council has reached a decision on eight of the 19 social action programme measures so far submitted by the Commission.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Baltic States
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of attacks by units of the Soviet armed forces and Ministry of the Interior troops on targets in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in May and June; and if he will make representations to the Soviet authorities to withdraw all armed forces from the Baltic republics.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received several accounts of these attacks from our embassy and other sources. We have left the Soviet authorities in no doubt of our strong feelings about them. In the conclusions of its meeting at Luxembourg on 29 June, the European Council expressed its deep concern at the continued acts of intimidation and violence which had taken place in the Baltic states since the events in January, most recently in Vilnius on 26 June. The Council appealed for serious negotiations to be engaged between the Soviet authorities and the three Baltic states to find a solution which would fulfil the legitimate aspirations of the Baltic peoples.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to provide the Government of Gibraltar with all EC documents on which future directives or other legislation will be based; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  It is already our policy to provide Gibraltar with all EC documents relevant to Gibraltar's status within the Community.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Iraqi Refugees
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Iraqi refugees are presently living in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Around 700 Iraqi nationals, including associated dependants, have been recognised as refugees in the United Kingdom since 1979. Corresponding information for earlier years is not available.

  Immigration
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the Government's policies towards immigration.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The basic principles of the Government's immigration policy remain to maintain a firm and fair immigration control which restricts the numbers coming to work or settle here from outside the European Community.

  Independent Television Franchises
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the outcome of applications for Channel 3 licences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the outcome of applications for Channel 3 licences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It will be the Independent Television Commission, and not my right hon. Friend, which announces the outcome of applications for Channel 3 licences. I understand that it hopes to make such an announcement no later than October this year.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were jailed for non-payment of uniform business rate in 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Police Authorities (Yorkshire)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will visit Yorkshire to discuss the funding of the police authorities.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have no plans to visit Yorkshire to discuss police funding.

  Youth Crime Prevention Panels
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many junior crime prevention panels have been set up in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  At the end of December 1990 there were 352 youth crime prevention panels in England and Wales, an increase of 91 over the previous 12 months.

  Regional Television Companies
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the percentage of the profits of regional television companies which are taken in levy payments.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Based on figures supplied by the ITC, which is statutorily responsible for collecting the ITV levy, it is estimated that for the 1990 calendar year the levy payable by ITV companies, including TV-am, will amount to 52 per cent. of gross profits.

  Guns
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will initiate another review of the gun licence laws.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Firearms Consultative Committee is required to keep the Firearms Acts under review. If it thinks fit, it may make recommendations to my right hon. Friend for their amendment.

  Dog Control
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he plans to take to ensure existing and future dog control legislation is enforced by the police.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We have discussed the measures in the Dangerous Dogs Bill with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Metropolitan police, who support the action that the Government are taking to tackle the problem of dangerous dogs. We shall issue guidance to the police on enforcement of the legislation when it is enacted.

  Identity Cards
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent consideration he has given to the introduction of identity cards for the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  In its report on practical police co-operation in the EC, the Home Affairs Committee recommended the introduction of a voluntary system of identity cards. In responding in January 1991, the Government said that the public demand for a voluntary identity card, and the benefits it would confer on the community, would not be commensurate with the high cost of developing and maintaining such a system. None the less, I shall continue to keep this question under review in the light of relevant developments.

  West Midlands Serious Crime Squad
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to have prepared a report on the lessons to be learnt from the disbandment of the West Midlands serious crime squad.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A full investigation of the handling of cases by the former serious crime squad of the West Midlands police is being undertaken. It is for the Police Complaints Authority to decide whether matters that have come to its notice as a result of the investigation, should be made public or should be drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention by way of a report under section 97(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

  Police Federation
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet the executive of the Police Federation to discuss recent rises in the level of crime.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend meets the executive of the Police Federation regularly to discuss a wide range of policing matters, including the level of crime.

  Fire Services (Northolt and Greenford)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the appropriate level of firefighting facilities and staff in the Northolt and Greenford area; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what proposals he has received for the reduction of the number of fire engines at Northolt fire station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is for the London fire and civil defence authority to assess the resources necessary to meet efficiently the fire risks in the Northolt and Greenford area. Any proposals to reduce the numbers of operational firefighters or firefighting appliances—and we have received none from the authority—would require my right hon. Friend's approval under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. In deciding whether to grant it, we should want to be satisfied that the London fire and civil defence authority would continue to be able to meet the nationally recommended minimum standards of fire cover.

  Sexual and Physical Violence
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how women victims of sexual and physical violence are encouraged to report the offence to the police.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Police procedures and facilities for the reception and treatment of victims of physical and sexual violence have improved greatly in recent years. We believe that the increase in reported rape over the same period is in part attributable to changes in police practice in this respect. In the light of recent Home Office guidance, many forces are now taking practical steps to provide a better service to victims of domestic violence, with a view to encouraging more women to report such incidents to them.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines there are on how victims of sexual and physical abuse should be treated by the police.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Home Office guidance to the police on the treatment of victims of rape and domestic violence was issued in 1986. A revised and expanded circular on domestic violence was produced in July 1990. Additional guidance for the police on the investigation of child sexual abuse will be issued in conjunction with the Department of Health's revised "Working Together" in the autumn. Copies of the current guidance are in the Library.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how data on women victims of sexual and physical abuse are collected; and how it is made available.
  209
  Mr. John Patten
  Statistics of recorded violent offences are collected by the police and published quarterly in a Home Office statistical bulletin and annually in Chapter 2 of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales". More detailed information on women victims of physical and sexual abuse is not collected on a regular basis but ad hoc analysis of police statistics, the British crime survey and other research studies classify offences by gender of victim. This information is made available either in ad hoc statistical bulletins such as Issue 29/86 "Violent Crime: Characteristics of victims and circumstances of recorded offences 1984", or in Home Office Research Studies such as "Personal Violence" HORS 89,"Changes in Rape Offences and Sentencing" HORS 105, "Concerns about Rape" Hors 106 and "Domestic Violence" HORS 107. Copies of all these publications are available in the Library.

  Citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Barbados and Jamaica admitted to, and refused leave to enter and removed from, the United Kingdom.

  1990

  1991

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Total admitted1

  1,150

  1,230

  1,100

  800

  1,100

  Total refused leave to enter and removed

  10

  8

  7

  13

  7

  Guyana

  Total admitted1

  400

  400

  300

  300

  400

  Total refused leave to enter and removed

  5

  8

  3

  4

  6

  Barbados

  Total admitted1

  400

  400

  400

  300

  400

  Total refused leave to enter and removed

  2

  5

  5

  3

  2

  Jamaica

  Total admitted1

  1,900

  2,080

  1,700

  1,300

  1,700

  Total refused leave to enter and removed

  52

  33

  33

  32

  37

  1 The data for January to March 1991 are provisional.

  Thames Valley Police
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on future manning levels in the Thames Valley police force.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend announced on 20 December 1990 an additional 40 police posts for Thames Valley with effect from 1 October 1991.

  The police authority has also made an application for an additional 132 police posts for 1992–93. My right hon. Friend hopes to make a decision before the end of the year.

  May Inquiry
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects Sir John May to resume his inquiry into the conviction of innocent people for the Guildford and Woolwich bombings.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I understand that Sir John May will resume his inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the convictions of the Guildford and Woolwich defendants as soon as any proceedings against officers of the Surrey police force have been concluded. I further understand that Sir John intends holding further public hearings into the Maguire case in September.

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the numbers of people seeking political asylum in the United Kingdom; and what further action he proposes to announce to control such immigration.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend made a statement on asylum on 2 July at columns 165–67.

  Immigration (Caribbean)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals of(a) Trinidad and Tobago, (b) Guyana, (c) Barbados and (c) Jamaica have (i) been admitted and (ii) refused admittance and removed each month during the period November 1990 to March 1991.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Drug Initiative Teams
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made on the establishment of drug initiative teams.

  Mr. John Patten
  Twelve local drugs prevention teams are in action under the Government's drugs prevention initiative, including one in Wolverhampton. Four further teams are in the process of being appointed or recruited. Discussions with local agencies in another four areas are taking place about the arrangements for setting up teams in those areas.

  Broadcasting Regulation
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chairman of the BBC to discuss the regulation of the broadcasting industry.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend meets the Chairman of the BBC from time to time in order to discuss a wide range of broadcasting issues. The last occasion was in May.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Passes
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will publish a list of the several categories of Palace of Westminster pass, showing the capacities for which each category applies, together with(a) the number of such passes in issue at the latest convenient date and (b) the total number of such passes in issue at any time in the latest convenient annual period.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I am arranging for the information requested to be placed in the Library of the House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Departmental Flowers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed as representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the annual cost of flowers supplied to the House; and which Departments of the House use them.

  Mr. Beith
  In the last financial year the Refreshment Department spent £8,997 on flowers for the areas under its control. Flowers are also supplied by arrangement with the Refreshment Department for private functions: but their cost is charged to the sponsoring Member's account.

  I understand that the Parliamentary Works Office has responsibility for the supply of flowers to the Speaker's state rooms and other parts of the House, including the Terrace.

DEFENCE

  The Gulf (Halons)
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the volume of halons released to the atmosphere in the Gulf region during Operation Granby/Desert Storm as a result of the in-flight refuelling of military planes of the armed forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is no evidence to suggest that any halon gases are released during the air-to-air refuelling of RAF aircraft.

  Nuclear Deterrent
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account is taken of the size of the United States and Soviet Union's arsenals in setting the size of the United Kingdom nuclear deterrent.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent is not based on any specific numerical correlation with the nuclear arsenals of others. Rather, it has long been United Kingdom policy to maintain only the minimum numbers of weapons necessary to deter aggression. In this respect the need to ensure that our nuclear deterrent remains effective against improving Soviet defences is of overriding importance when considering the size of our force.

  Trigat
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's involvement in the Trigat programme and the committed cost incurred to date.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United Kingdom is a full member of the European collaborative group procuring the Trigat systems.

  Expenditure to date has been £130 million.

  Regiments
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 733, when his noble Friend will write regarding information on individual regiments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend wrote to the hon. Member today.

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he held with his NATO counterparts about the proposed reductions in the Royal Navy under the "Options for Change" process prior to 25 July 1990.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom's proposals for changes to its defence forces in response to the changing strategic environment in Europe, including the proposed reductions for the Royal Navy, were set out in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement on "Options for Change" last summer. These proposals were carefully considered in the light of international developments and the work under way to determine the alliance's new military posture. At the time of the announcement it was made clear that the United Kingdom's proposals would be subject to consultation with our NATO allies. In common with our allies, we have since engaged in formal consultations within the alliance and with our allies about our future plans.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make it his policy to publish a statement detailing the total anticipated effect of the" Options for Change" process on(a) the procurement budget and (b) the personnel budget.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Estimates of expenditure in 1991–92 on equipment procurement and on personnel will be given in the annual defence White Paper, to be published on 9 July. It is not our policy to disclose details of our financial plans beyond the estimates year.

  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has held with companies involved in the manufacture of defence equipment concerning the formulation of Her Majesty's Government's policy "Options for Change"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on 23 May 1991 at column 613 of the Official Report.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make his policy to publish a detailed statement on the strategic rationale underlying the "Options for Change" process.
  213
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This will be covered in the annual defence White Paper to be published on 9 July.

  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what offers he has received from trade associations representing manufacturers of equipment for defence to assist in the formulation of Her Majesty's Government's policy on "Options for Change"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Discussions between Ministers and trade associations are conducted on a confidential basis.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for reducing his Department's headquarters under "Option for Change".

  Mr. Tom King
  As I made clear in my statement on 25 July 1990 on "Options for Change" my intention is to make substantial savings across the whole field of defence activities. This will involve both the armed forces and their civilian support and include the MOD headquarters which I have decided to restructure and slim down proportionately to the overall reductions.

  I plan to achieve a smaller and more cohesive central headquarters, resulting in savings of about 20 per cent. in the uniformed and civilian top structure. Generally similar reductions will be carried through the organisation as a whole. The fall in numbers in the London element of the headquarters will be proportionately greater because in addition a substantial range of functions will be relocated and will merge with existing support establishments and commands elsewhere. On current expectations staff numbers in London are expected to fall from about 14,500 by some 7,000.

  Overall under "Options for Change" the number of MOD civilian posts at home and abroad is currently expected to fall by about 20 per cent., the same proportion as the armed forces. About 20,000 posts will be saved in the United Kingdom and 15,000 abroad. This reduction will go forward at the same pace as in the armed forces overall.

  Soviet Navy
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his Soviet counterpart regarding the future programme of Soviet naval shipbuilding.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has not discussed the future programme of Soviet naval shipbuilding with his Soviet counterpart.

  Nuclear-powered Submarines
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the programmed acceptance date for the first of class for a new generation of nuclear-powered submarines envisaged in Staff Target (Sea) 7027.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The first of class submarine envisaged in Staff Target (Sea) 7027 was expected to enter service by the end of the century. The precise date is classified.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what expenditure to date has been incurred on feasibility studies into an SSN20 class of submarine.
  214
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  To date expenditure of some £44 million has been incurred on the SSN20 feasibility studies. These studies have produced valuable information which will be of use for both the studies into a batch 2 Trafalgar class and for the programme to update the Swiftsure and Trafalgar class sonar capability.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he commissioned the first feasibility studies into the SSN20 class of nuclear-powered submarines.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Feasibility studies into an SSN20 class nuclear-powered submarine were approved in February 1986.

  HMS Fearless and Intrepid
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what expenditure to date has been incurred on feasibility studies into(a) replacing HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid and (b) refurbishing HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Expenditure to date on feasibility studies into the replacement of the assault ships amounts to £4·14 million, and that into extending their lives to £161,000.

  Sandown Class Minehunters
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which companies submitted tenders last year for the supply of Sandown class minehunters; and what was the total value of these tenders.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The four companies invited to tender for the supply of Sandown class minehunters were Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd., Yarrow Shipbuilders Ltd., Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd. and Swan Hunter Shipbuilders and Engineering Ltd. The tenders covered the supply of various numbers of ships up to a maximum of seven; the value of the tenders is commercially confidential.

  Anti-air Warfare Frigate
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state when he expects to complete his studies of the design of a new anti-air warfare frigate to replace the type 42 destroyer.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 23 May,Official Report, column 615.

  Wing Commander Farquhar
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken to identify the person who removed documents and computer materials from the car left unattended by Wing Commander Farquhar in the circumstances which formed the basis of the recent court martial; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The investigation of the theft of materials from the car is a matter for the Metropolitan police. I cannot comment further.

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 should like to attend the graduation ceremony of my younger daughter in Edinburgh on Thursday 11th July. Since this is a personal matter rather than an official one, I ask, with a degree of hesitation, that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Thursday, 11th July.

ITC: Regulating Responsibilities
3.1 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the regulatory responsibilities of the Independent Television Commission under Section 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 will not take effect before January 1993.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the regulatory responsibilities of the Independent Television Commission under Section 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, which apply to all services licensed by the Independent Television Commission, came into force on 1st December 1990.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will the Minister agree that it is quite extraordinary that, although we spent 41 parliamentary days (26 days down the road and 15 days in this House) discussing the Broadcasting Bill, no one pointed out that the rules as laid down concerning due impartiality—stronger rules than were in the previous Bill—do not come into effect until 1993, long after the licences are distributed to the new people? Does he think that it would be more sensible to honour the will of both Houses of Parliament, which decided that the rules should be tightened up in that way, and to bring them into effect sooner?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, Independent Television and Channel 4 will not become licensed services until 1st January 1993. At the moment they are contractors; then they become licensees. All the proposals in the Bill refer to licensees. There are transitional arrangements, and it was made perfectly clear in Schedule 11, Part II, that the transitional arrangements end on 31st December 1992. I believe that the situation has been plain all the way along.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, as the Minister pointed out, there was never any secret about the matter. In Part II of Schedule 11 it states quite clearly the parts of the Bill that will come into force in 1993 and this is one of them. Does the Minister think that perhaps the
1102
noble Lord feels that we need more censorship, as it were, and more restrictions before that time? Does he remember that when the Government were prodded into moving the amendments on Third Reading there was a great deal of feeling all round the House that this provision was totally unnecessary? It had not been brought up in the Commons and the Minister responsible for the Broadcasting Bill thought that the matter of due impartiality should be left as it was.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not prepared to answer the noble Baroness's middle question as to whether I think that my noble friend believes that more censorship is necessary. That is entirely a matter for him and something on which I am not prepared to speculate. The noble Baroness is quite right to bring up the point. The existing television companies are operating under contracts which do not expire until the end of 1992. That fact was known when we discussed the Bill. All the arrangements that we inserted refer to the new conditions which will take effect when operators become licensees which, in the case of television companies, happens in 1993.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend explain why both he and Mr. Mellor in another place said that, if the codes did not conform with the Bill, one could ask for judicial review? Will he comment on the fact that, after having taken expensive advice from counsel, it now appears that one cannot appeal to judicial review and one has to act under the words of the 1981 statute, which are so woolly as to be totally ineffective, as the IBA discovered to its dismay?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is perfectly possible to take the Independent Television Commission to judicial review. If it is done before 1993 it will have to be under the 1981 Act because that is the Act under which the television companies operate until 1993. After 1993, when they become licensees, it will be possible to take the independent television companies to judicial review under the new Act. I re-emphasise that nobody was misled at all. All the provisions of the Act related to what would happen after 1993 as regards television companies.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many noble Lords believe that, had the Independent Television Commission possessed the powers which the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, would like it to have, it would not have thought of invoking those powers in relation to the Channel 4 programme on the Gulf, about which the freedom associations expressed such anxiety? Bearing in mind the coverage of all channels on the complicated matter of the Gulf, does he agree that Channel 4 did a notable service for broadcasting by ventilating certain aspects of that complicated problem which hitherto had perhaps been neglected?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not prepared to comment on my views or anyone else's views on a particular programme. To those who thought that the Channel 4 programme was not impartial, I can only

1103
say that it is up to the Independent Television Commission to work out what is impartial and what is not and take any necessary action that it sees fit.

Book Industry: Pricing
3.7 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to disallow the exemption which the Net Book Agreement provides under the Resale Prices Act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, under the Resale Prices Act 1976 review of the Net Book Agreement is a matter for the Restrictive Practices Court, on application by the Director General of Fair Trading or a publisher. The Net Book Agreement does not oblige publishers to set the retail price for all books.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which was not wholly informative. Is he aware that in the past decade the retail price of books has far outstripped the retail prices index, despite great improvements in printing technology? Furthermore does he agree that that seems to indicate that a cartel, approved by Her Majesty's Government, is operating against the interests of consumers?
Lord Reay: My Lords, in 1962 the Restrictive Practices Court made an order exempting the Net Book Agreement from the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 and upheld that decision in 1968 in relation to the Resale Prices Act 1964. The court concluded that the Net Book Agreement was in the public interest since its abolition would lead to fewer and less well equipped stock-holding bookshops, higher prices for books and fewer titles being available to the public. Ministers have no power to intervene under the present law. It is for the Director General of Fair Trading to come to his own decisions based upon investigation of the relevant circumstances in the book industry.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, if the Net Book Agreement were abolished, it would have an adverse effect on smaller booksellers, particularly those in outlying and rural areas?
Lord Reay: My Lords, there must be strong reasons for supposing that most book prices would come down if the Net Book Agreement were to be abolished, as competitive price cutting was permitted between booksellers. In turn, that could be expected to lead to the sale of more books.
On the other hand, that development would put pressure on the smaller specialist booksellers. The price of more specialist books might also rise as an opportunity for cross-subsidy was removed and that might lead overall to fewer titles being published. But that is a matter of speculation.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, am I right in thinking that until fairly recently the Government had proposed to bring forward legislation on restrictive practices? The Net Book Agreement is certainly a restrictive practice. What has happened to the Government's commitment to legislate on restrictive practices?
Lord Reay: My Lords, no place has yet been found in the legislative programme for a Bill. However, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State confirmed in his speech to the Law Society as recently as 12th June, the Government remain committed to strengthening legislation in that field, in particular in so far as it concerns the director general's investigatory powers and sanctions.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is difficult to make a living as a private bookseller and that small, privately-owned bookshops are closing down already? Is he aware that if the protection of the existing legislation were removed the continued existence of the small private bookseller would be in jeopardy?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I acknowledged that pressure would be put on smaller specialist booksellers by the abolition of the NBA. The higher prices that some specialist bookshops charge may well be justified by the services that they offer, their ambience and the personal attention, which they would be able to continue to give.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that whatever the effect of the abolition of the Net Book Agreement might have upon booksellers, it would have an extremely beneficial effect upon small authors?
Lord Reay: My Lords, many interests are represented in this House. I take note of the noble Lord's remarks.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of his predecessors as Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry have come to the Dispatch Box and given the same reply to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, as the Minister gave today about restrictive trade practice legislation? Is it not clear that the Net Book Agreement is one example of an agreement that needs at least to be considered again and updated? That can only be done if the Government find legislative time to implement the proposals in their excellent White Paper of 1989. When will that happen?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I said, we intend to legislate. However, it depends on time being available. One of the matters that any new legislation has to address is the treatment of agreements upheld by the restrictive practices court.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the argument that abolition of retail price maintenance would act against the public interest is precisely the same argument as was employed by retailers and manufacturers in the 1960s when Mr.

1105
Edward Heath was in the process of abolishing retail price maintenance on most items? Did that not turn out to be a false argument? Are books in a different category?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I pointed out earlier, under the Resale Prices Act it is generally unlawful for suppliers of goods to impose minimum resale prices. However, Section 14 of the Act provides for individual classes of goods to be exempted if it can be shown that that would best serve the public interest.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that books are very different from other items? They were held to be such by the restrictive practices court long ago. That is why the exemption was granted. Does he agree that that would not prevent a review of the situation some 12 years later?
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is indeed the case that the only other current exemption to the Act is in relation to certain pharmaceutical products.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord undertake to maintain the net book agreement until my book is published?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I would do quite a lot to try to placate the noble Lord.

Hospital Closures
3.15 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many hospitals have been closed in the last three years, what have been the consequent job losses and how many jobs will be lost due to hospital closures currently planned.
The. Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the relevant information is the number of patients treated. That is the information that we collect. It shows that more patients are being treated nationally than ever before. Hospital closures and related staff reductions, if any, are not a good indicator of levels of service in the National Health Service; nor do they take account of the many new facilities being built.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that the National Health Service associations know full well what the real answer is? Far too many people are being sent home far too early. That puts a massive strain on health visitors and on home helps who have been trained in some form of medicine to help people who ought to have remained in hospital for another three or four weeks. Perhaps I may quote from the Central Consultative Specialist Committee of the BMA. Two months ago it stated that 3,247 beds were cleared away, 20,000 operations were cancelled and 300,000 were delayed. I read the figures because they are important. I do not overstate any figure.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Molloy: Those are the figures from the Central Consultative Specialist Committee of the BMA. Is not what is happening to our once famous National Health Service an awful shame?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I wish that I could share the confidence of the noble Lord in the source of his statistics. The fact remains that increased activity in patient care results from a number of factors. They include shorter hospital stays, to which the noble Lord has referred, less invasive procedures, increased day care, increased out-patient care and the fact that many GPs are developing health teams and in many cases performing minor surgery. With reference to bed use, in 1989–90, 28 cases were treated per available bed, whereas only 17 cases were treated in 1975. I am sure that the noble Lord welcomes the increased bed use.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is some link between the number of beds that have been closed and the fact that the waiting lists are at their all-time highest since the National Health Service began? Does she deny the report of two or three days ago that the Government are considering stopping publication of waiting lists and not making that information available?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the reason why there are more people on the waiting lists is that more people are being treated. The important aspect to tackle, which is what the Government are tackling, is to reduce the length of waiting time, and we have had considerable success.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the most valuable developments in recent years has been the increased speed in treatment, which has resulted in a large number of cases being treated now as day cases so that the patients can return home the same day? Nothing pleases them more. Treatments generally now require a shorter stay in hospital and an earlier return home, the patient having recovered and not requiring further treatment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. He at least is moving with the times. There is no simple relationship between the number of beds, the number of patients treated and the number awaiting treatment. Between March 1989 and March 1990, the latest data available, the number of available beds fell by 4.6 per cent; that I can agree. However, the number of patients treated rose by 4.4 per cent. I hope that all noble Lords will welcome that fact.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it not obvious that because we are all growing older and living longer there are more patients in hospital? Why is the noble Baroness unconcerned about the numbers of those who wait, often one or two years, to have their treatment?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I should be interested to have a little more information as to why the noble Lord believes that I am unconcerned about the length of waiting times.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Baroness stated so.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I did not. I replied clearly that the Government have tackled the issue and are having considerable success in slashing waiting list times.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that we could cheer up the doom and gloom merchants on the Benches opposite with the good news that the Sydenham Children's Hospital has recently been successfully moved to Lewisham Hospital into purpose-built accommodation which is much better than the accommodation provided in the original hospital? That has been done without any compulsory redundancies.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as always, I welcome the good news put forward by my noble friend. Also I should like to mention the case of the North Middlesex Trust, which plans to make 15 administrative staff redundant. The savings from that will go into direct patient care. The aim of this Government is to have more people in post providing direct patient care. That is what we have achieved.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, from the replies so far of the noble Baroness are we to take it that that she does not know how many hospitals have been closed in the past three years? If she knows, will she tell the House how many hospitals have been closed in the past three years?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said, the question of how many hospitals have been closed is not relevant to what should be our main interest. Our main interest must be in the number of people being treated, which has increased by 25 per cent. since 1979.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will the Minister take comfort from the fact that on this side of the House, and I believe in all quarters of the House, we greatly respect my noble friend and resent the suggestion that she is unconcerned by human suffering?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if the noble Baroness answered the Question there would be no difficulty. Why does she not answer it?
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Baroness cheer us further by telling us that there have been no redundancies among nurses and doctors who have been trained by the National Health Service? Can she tell the House that none of them has been forced out of the National Health Service into private practice because there are no jobs available for them in the health service?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as well as the increase in the number of doctors, there have been increases in the number of nurses and midwives in the National Health Service. The figure rose to 398,460 in 1989 and has increased further since then. What is particularly interesting is the number of general practice nurses in
1108
England and Wales who are involved in primary health care. Their numbers increased by 350 per cent. between 1979 and 1989.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that apart from hospital closures there is the question of closures within existing hospitals which is causing enormous delay and inconvenience to many people? My opinion, if the noble Baroness wants it, is that at present the health service is in one hell of a mess.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord is not better informed on the subject. I have been trying my best. I should be surprised if he persists in believing that hardware, beds and hospitals are the important statistics and not the number of people being treated.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, despite the Question on the Order Paper the noble Baroness obviously cannot give me the information today, but will she tell us how many closures are anticipated? She challenged my figures. I challenge her to ask the BMA, which is now wisely considering talking with the department, to verify the figures which I have given. Is she prepared also to talk to the Royal College of Nursing and the Confederation of Health Service Employees, some of whose members say they are at their wits end to know what is happening in the NHS? Following the lead which has been given by the BMA, is it not about time that the Royal Colleges and the Confederation of Health Service Employees met with senior Ministers in the department to learn precisely what the policy of this Government is?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have an ongoing dialogue with all the bodies referred to by the noble Lord. We are delighted at the new constructive approach by the British Medical Association and we certainly hope to move forward further to improve our National Health Service for the benefit of patients.

Surplus Food and Famine Relief
3.24 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, before I ask the Question in my name on the Order Paper, I apologise to the Minister because I should have been here on Tuesday when this matter was discussed. However, unfortunately—and I am not making a point about this—I had to have my eyes tested. I went to Moorfields Eye Hospital at quarter past ten and I left at quarter past two.
The Question was as follows:
Why surplus food is put into intervention stores rather than being used to counter the immediate threat of famine.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, through my dimming eyes, I am so glad that the noble Lord was treated on the same day on which he had trouble. Intervention stocks are being used for famine relief. Most of the food in surplus is unsuitable for use as food aid, although intervention stocks are

1109
drawn on from time to time in response to emergency situations. However, diverting surplus food can provide no lasting solution to the problem of hunger.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree with the various bodies, such as Oxfam, FAO, Christian Aid and War on Want, that there are something like 400 million people starving in the world today, and that up to 40 million of those are in Africa? If she agrees with that, does she not think that there should be better organisation? In spite of what the noble Baroness says about stocks, there are some 20 million tonnes of wheat, barley and cereals in stock and a lot of other food which, if it was properly organised, need not go into intervention at all? I make that point because any amount of that food is wasted in intervention. That food could make a considerable contribution to the amount of food which is required by the 400 million people.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, while food aid is an appropriate and necessary measure in the short term, providing food from the West is no lasting solution, as I said before, to the problem of famine in the third world. That view is shared by all the main aid organisations. The noble Lord asked me about intervention. In principle intervention takes surpluses off thy: market at times of glut and puts them back on the market when stocks are short. That is not a new principle. Joseph made his name running the ancient Egyptian intervention agency.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not part of the difficulty in implementing the suggestion made by the noble Lord opposite that it is no use whatever exporting stocks of wheat to countries—and they are the countries with the worst shortages—which depend on maize?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, suitability of food is very important. We export wheat to various countries. At any one time some 200,000 tonnes of food aid are in the pipeline en route to developing countries as part of the international community's regular food aid programmes. In effect, that creates a large stock of fresh food which can be and is diverted and drawn on in cases of emergency.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that notwithstanding the information she has been good enough to give the House, there are still considerable amounts of food in intervention storage which are at this time suitable for the purposes outlined in the Question? Is she further aware that storage costs of holding food in intervention are much greater than the amounts which are paid out by means of export restitution? On financial as well as humanitarian grounds, the move out of intervention stocks into those famine-stricken areas is desirable.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, "desirable" is quite the wrong word. When people are starving they need help. To the best of our ability we give it. There is always room for improvement but we have a proud
1110
record. With regard to current stock levels, a table showing the levels of intervention stocks is deposited each month in the Libraries of both Houses. Current UK stocks of wheat, the main commodity used for food aid, total only 1,000 tonnes. I have the other detailed figures and they are on display each month in the Lords Library. I can give the noble Lord the figures for the cost of storage and disposal of surplus food in the European Community. However, I see that we have already taken 28 minutes on Questions and that would take too long.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are two serious but different problems? They both require a solution. A solution cannot be found by making an artificial link between two disparate problems.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, yes. I believe in the role of fishing rods, not fish.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the UK initiative, along with that of Germany, announced in this House and the other place on 1st July, to improve the co-ordination of disaster relief in the United Nations system will be wide enough in its scope to deal with the whole question of the threat of famine?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, yes. My noble friend Lord Caithness said that on 2nd July.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Baroness gave the British figure. I was quoting the EC figure, which indicates that there are 20 million tonnes of wheat in store. The British figure does not come into the picture. It is the EC figure that is important.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have the figures and I will give them to the noble Lord.

Business
3.33 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.15 p.m., my noble friend Lord Caithness will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on Hong Kong.

Birmingham City Council Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Sunday Entertainments (Video Supply) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Smoke Detectors Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill
3.35 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Establishment of review body to consider statutory conditions of employment of school teachers]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, after ("body)") insert ("whose membership shall include persons with relevant knowledge or experience as specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1, which is a paving amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7. The amendment asks that the Prime Minister shall appoint as members of the review body not fewer than two persons having the relevant knowledge or experience in education. It recognises that the review body will play a similar role to that of the interim advisory committee which was established under the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987. Indeed, the amendment to Schedule 1 is similar to the wording set out in Section 2(2) of the 1987 Act.
It was as a result of the wording of the 1987 Act that the interim advisory committee included people with the required knowledge and experience to enable it to give good, well-informed advice to the Secretary of State. Those committee members had a good understanding of the vital role of teachers in the education service. The Bill's proposed review body should also include people with detailed knowledge and experience on the provision of the education service.
At Committee stage in another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that the amendment was unnecessary and would be out of line with the arrangements which operate for other review bodies where membership is not dependent on relevant experience. He suggested that the Prime Minister would be constrained by his choice if the proposal in the amendment was carried. He claimed also that the membership of the other review bodies was not constrained in that way.
The proposed review body for teachers will be different from the other review bodies in a number of crucial ways. By far the most important difference is that the review body for school teachers will cover teachers' statutory conditions of employment; in other words, those conditions which relate to their professional duties and working time. Those statutory conditions are contained in a school teachers' pay and conditions document. Anyone who has referred to that document, as I have, will appreciate the complex nature of the detailed provisions relating both to professional duties and working time. The review body's deliberations on those detailed and complex
1112
provisions will be greatly facilitated if it has within its membership people with the relevant knowledge, expertise and experience.
The second way in which this review body differs from others is that it is to be established through primary legislation. To my knowledge no other review body has been set up on that basis. The legislative process gives the opportunity to lay down broad safeguards that appropriate persons will be appointed. Thirdly, unlike other review bodies, this review body covers non-governmental employees: people who are employed by the local authorities.
In many respects it is a continuation of the interim advisory committee. That was confirmed by the Minister of State at Committee stage in another place when he stressed the Government's intention of giving the review body the same kind of latitude to make recommendations across the whole range of teachers' statutory pay and conditions, as has been given to the IAC. We should note that the IAC had two former head teachers among its seven members.
The amendment simply asks for the acceptance of commonsense. It is surely commonsense to include people with some expertise on a review body concerned with conditions of service. In the Minister's response to the Second Reading debate I thought I detected agreement that he shared this view. I hope that my interpretation was correct and that we shall not be disappointed by his response. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: The noble Baroness is right when she says that it is commonsense that there should be two people with knowledge or experience of education on a review body of this kind, which is to consist of not fewer than five and not more than nine members. So much is it commonsense that I cannot imagine that the Prime Minister will fail to appoint two such people.
I suggest that it is not necessary to write that provision into the Bill because it could be dangerous. We are up against the well-established rule of interpretation of statutes: that if we specify one factor, we are deemed to have excluded others. We do not want to reach a position in which having specified knowledge or experience of education, we shall be deemed to have excluded other valuable experience on the review body. For example, it might be a great advantage to have a retired civil servant on the body who had no direct experience of education. It might be a great advantage to have someone with experience in the arts, sport, industrial relations and even business if one may dare to say so. Although I have great sympathy with the aim of the noble Baroness, I do not believe that it is necessary to amend the Bill in the way that she has suggested in order to achieve that aim.
Baroness Young: The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, mentioned to me last week that she was thinking of tabling an amendment on these lines. When I saw it on the Marshalled List I considered it very carefully because, like the noble Baroness, having read the debate at Second Reading, I was not sure what line the Minister intended to take on the matter. However, I have considered it very carefully in the ensuing days. I cannot support the amendment. One of the reasons is that which my noble friend Lord

1113
Renton has just given. I find it very difficult to believe that there will not be anyone on the review body with the qualities referred to. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
I have looked at some of the subsequent amendments on the Marshalled List. The noble Baroness has moved Amendment No. 1 and spoken to Amendment No. 7. The amendments imply that we are to have representatives of specific groups of people. I believe that to be the one situation that we want to get away from in this legislation because it will be unhelpful to education generally if we returned to something that looked like Burnham Mark II. The new body has to be different. I feel quite certain that my noble friend the Minister will argue, as his colleague did in another place, that no other review body has had a specific representative introduced in this way. For all these reasons, I cannot support the amendment. I can understand exactly what lies behind it, but: it is unnecessary and unhelpful in the present circumstances.
Lord Rochester: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. My name is included against the amendment on the Marshalled List. I always listen with great respect to both the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on these matters. As regards the noble Lord, Lord Renton, it is fair to say that there is need for an amendment of this kind if only because, as he probably knows, concerning the health service review bodies, people with knowledge or experience of the health service are specifically excluded from membership. As concerns the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I deny that the amendment involves having on the body representatives of different interests. That was one of the factors which attracted me to the amendment. It does not say, and it does not necessarily mean, that there must be local authority or union representatives, for example. All that is asked for in the amendment is that educationally—in the well—worn phrase-the people on the body should "know their stuff".
For me the conclusive pointer in favour of the amendment is that, unlike all other review bodies, this one will be concerned not only with the remuneration of school teachers but with those employment conditions which, in the words of Clause 1(2),
"relate to their professional duties and working time".
I have no direct experience of teaching in schools, but I have enough experience of education and training generally to appreciate that the review body's deliberations on provisions relating to the professional duties and working time of teachers will be detailed and sometimes complex. Therefore, the body will benefit greatly if, in considering those provisions, its members include people with relevant knowledge or experience.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: I support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. For some reason teachers have never had true status such as that enjoyed by other professions. I am trying to envisage a review body concerning accountants' pay and
1114
conditions. Of course there would have to be accountants on the body. My favourite people are barristers and one can envisage a review body concerned with their pay and conditions. It is fairly obvious that they never have a review body and that is why they get such good pay. The situation is insulting to teachers—I put it as strongly as that—if one does not consider that they have enough intelligence and knowledge of the outside world.
I am speaking not only as an ex-teacher, but also for all the teachers with whom I am in contact. They feel that they have been badly treated. They are totally demoralised. In that respect, they are second only to employees in the health service. I hope that when they get the opportunity to vote, they will remember the way in which they have been treated by the Government.
This is a very simple and straightforward matter. Pay and conditions are best understood by the people who have to submit to the pay and conditions. It is not suggested that the review body should be made up of all teachers. However, of the number of persons sitting on the body, it is not unreasonable to say that two of them should be professionals who are concerned with the matter. For heaven's sake, for once let us behave as if teachers are what they are—that is to say, highly responsible, very intelligent and very useful people in the community!
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I apologise for not being present at Second Reading of the Bill. Regrettably, I had to be absent from the Chamber on that occasion. The regrets are very much mine because I have had the privilege to serve on three of the four interim advisory committees. They were chaired by my noble friend Lord Chilver. I believe that over the years we and our colleagues gained the confidence of the teachers, whose commitment and achievement we came to admire very much. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, in her remarks about the high standards which teachers maintain. We learnt that the perception of teachers' skills was less than the actual fact. Unfortunately, we came across teachers who undervalued themselves.
Therefore, I am delighted that a review body is proposed which recognises that teaching is a valued profession. However, my experience leads me to speak against the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, requesting that the review body has at least two persons on it with relevant knowledge or experience of education. That may sound extremely strange as we had two very able people on the IAC from that world. For me, it highlighted the potential difficulties. As has already been said, there are so many interests in education and each feels somewhat threatened by the others. To specifically appoint in that area increases the discontent. Moreover, should the report come out with benefit to those parties whose knowledge has been present, then the review itself may be at risk.
It was very obvious when taking evidence that organisations felt that with the involved members, even though retired, that they had a friend at court and addressed us accordingly. It is a tribute to those two people on the interim advisory committee that

1115
credibility was retained; but it was not without a possible complication. I fear that we could not count on always being able to reach people of such ability. I suggest that the review body will take its responsibilities extremely seriously and that all the necessary experience and advice will be called on. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Desai: Like the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, I too should like to apologise for my absence at Second Reading.
I am somewhat surprised by the reactions of some Members of the Committee opposite. The amendment states:
"relevant knowledge or experience".
It does not state "union representatives" or "persons representing narrow interests". For some time people have thought that teaching is something on which almost anybody, except teachers, can give advice. That is not so. Although I have not been a school teacher, I have served on many school governing bodies and have begun to appreciate what a complex and hard task teaching is. What is more, in relation to the future of the country and the quality of its people, it is the most important job that one can do. It is very important that, in relation to teachers' pay and conditions, we have on this body not necessarily teachers but people with the relevant knowledge or experience. I think that the composition of the body is being drawn too narrowly. I urge the Committee to support the amendment which is broad-based and sensible.
Baroness Cumberlege: I too should like to apologise for not being present for the Second Reading debate. I actually missed the debate by a whisker, a badger's whisker—the following debate was on badgers and I was present for that.
I am not a teacher but I have some quite detailed knowledge of the workings of two of this country's review bodies: the doctors and dentists review body and the nurses and midwives review body. Although I appreciate that there are differences, as has already been said in this debate in those two bodies, the professions are actually excluded from membership. Between 1979 and 1990 doctors' and dentists' pay increased by 243 per cent. against an increase in the retail prices index of 152 per cent. This year the increase has been 10.2 per cent. against a fall in the retail prices index. A study of what has happened with regard to nurses and midwives is perhaps more appropriate in terms of levels of pay and the numbers in the country. Between 1984 and 1990 their pay increased by 77 per cent. against an increase in the retail prices index of 42 per cent. This year nurses have had an increase of 9.7 per cent. against a falling retail prices index. So one could say that monetarily they have done very well indeed.
The argument has been put today that this review body is a different concept in that it includes working times and other aspects of the professional duties undertaken by teachers. I have weighed up that argument. I think that the dangers of including representation outweigh the advantages. There are
1116
four disadvantages in including teachers on these bodies. First, I fear that we shall see the re-emergence of confrontational negotiations, which in turn lead to entrenched positions, and the need for those who perceive themselves as taking part to win their side of the argument. That is divisive. Secondly, those who are appointed and believe that they represent their members or the profession generally feel they have a duty to keep their members informed. We know that the quickest and most effective way of doing that is through the use of the Media. That immediately gives the whole negotiation a totally different feel. It politicises matters, and what should be a managerial negotiation then loses the stability that it needs.
Thirdly, impartial reviews are much more likely to reflect what is reasonable and needed in order to win the support of the general public, who have been very anguished by some of the strife that has taken place in the past. Fourthly, teachers are much more likely to do better monetarily and enjoy a much more needed enhancement in public esteem if they are not directly party to these negotiations. I should like to oppose this amendment.
Lord Belstead: The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, seeks to put a statutory requirement on the face of the Bill that the Prime Minister, in appointing members to the review body for teachers' pay, should have members with relevant knowledge or experience in education.
The establishment of this review body will put the teaching profession on the same footing as other groups whose pay is already determined in this way, including health service professionals, the armed forces, senior civil servants and members of the judiciary. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, knows a great deal about the education world at first hand. She said what a great pity it has been that over the years the teaching profession has not been recognised by having a review body. I must say that, from listening to the recital of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege concerning the beneficial way in which those who have had review bodies have been treated, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, was absolutely right. However, the whole point of this Bill is to meet the point made by the noble Baroness opposite.
In setting up this review body, I think it is right to look to the example of the other review bodies mentioned by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege when considering what the membership of the body should be. The intention is that the Prime Minister should appoint to this review body the people he considers best fitted to give him independent advice, just as he is committed to doing in respect of the existing review bodies. I would remind your Lordships that, in making appointments to those bodies, my right honourable friend is not constrained in the way that this amendment seeks to constrain him. The health service review body specifically excludes from membership representatives of professions whose pay it determines. It does not fall foul of the unwritten rule, of which my noble friend Lord Renton reminded us, because that review body along with other review bodies is not put on the face of statute. I am not aware of any doubts about the competence or independence

1117
of the other review bodies which are composed in the way that I have just mentioned; on the contrary, they and the other review bodies command the respect of the professions with which they deal.
The noble Baroness in moving this amendment said there is a further very important point. This is a review body which will be different. Because it will consider professional duties as well as remuneration, the Prime Minister should be obliged to appoint certain kinds of people to serve on it. With respect, I still do not agree. Of course this is not to say that the review body should not include certain members with knowledge or experience of education—how right my noble friend Lord Renton was to make that point—only that personal qualities and abilities of the individuals concerned ought to be of paramount importance. I know that this is a tedious repetition, but let us remember that that is the way in which the Prime Minister makes appointments to the existing review bodies, and I believe that this is the way that the appointments to this review body should be made.
Nonetheless, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, whose name is also down to the amendment, said that the review body will be dealing with detailed and complex matters in looking at professional duties. That is precisely why those appointed to serve on this body should be of the very highest calibre. They will be served—and this point has not been mentioned in this short debate—by a highly professional secretariat provided by the Office of Manpower Economics which already has expertise in the area of conditions of service through providing the secretariat for the police negotiating board. The secretariat will be able to commission any independent research should it conclude that to be necessary.
There is one further criticism which I have from this side of the House and which, very briefly, I shall deploy. It has been picked up already by my noble friends Lady Young, Lady Denton and Lady Cumberlege and is that, if Amendment No. 7 were to be put on the face of the Bill, we should run into the danger of having a body with a representative element. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, was absolutely correct in pointing out that the amendment as it is drafted does not require representation. All I can say is that if the amendment went on to the statute book and if the people who were chosen were not in some way representative, the larger teacher unions would have something to say about that. Indeed one only has to look at the very next amendment on the Marshalled List—Amendment No. 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester—to see that the noble Lord's intention is to try to import onto the review body representatives of local education authorities and teachers; that is, two out of the three composite elements which used to form the old Burnham Committee. But the demise of the Burnham Committee was greeted with a sigh of relief all round. That is the reason that we are debating this particular Bill.
Having said that, perhaps I may give the Committee an assurance this afternoon. Of course, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be ready to consider people with knowledge and
1118
experience of education when considering the appointments of those best fitted for the school teachers' review body. However, let us not, for goodness sake, put it on the face of the Bill. If we do, I believe that we shall run into the danger to which my noble friend Lord Renton referred. In any event, the other review bodies —for reasons which I think are good reasons—do not have that requirement. Like them, I believe that we should rest assured that the main concern of my right honourable friend is to appoint the best people for the job. That means not agreeing to this amendment.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I must say that I am disappointed with the Minister's reply and somewhat puzzled by some of the contributions from the other side of the Committee. There seems to be some disagreement on the matter from that side. It appears that some Members of the Committee think that it is a good idea to have people with knowledge and experience on the review body, but a bad idea to put it on the face of the Bill. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, represented that view; others seem to think that it is a bad idea altogether. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, put forward that view.
However, perhaps I may deal first with one misunderstanding which was especially apparent in the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. A review body is not about negotiation. With the abandonment of Burnham, we abandoned the process of negotiation between the teachers' union and the employers. Therefore, the whole idea that this would lead to confrontational negotiations seems to me to be totally misleading. Similarly, the amendment is not about keeping people informed. I believe that that suggestion also came from the other side of the Committee. A review body does not play that role. It is certainly not the intention of this amendment to accept representatives from the teachers unions or indeed the local authorities or any other interested group.
The purpose of the amendment is to try to ensure that the process of reaching decisions on teachers' conditions in particular should be facilitated by having people on the review body who have knowledge and experience in this area. It is interesting to note that the 1987 Act—and I repeat this fact—makes it absolutely clear that such people should have been members of the interim advisory committee. From the Minister's reply, I begin to wonder whether he feels that those people who were appointed on that basis did not play an independent and thoughtful role or that they were in some way incompetent. If that is not so, why have the Government changed their position?
Lord Belstead: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness. I do not think anything of the sort. However, I do think that we are in the business of setting up a review body and not another interim advisory committee.
Baroness Blackstone: I have already quoted the remarks of the Minister of State in another place. He admitted that the task of the review body would be very similar to that of the interim advisory committee and that in practice there would be very little difference in their actual functions. Should the amendment be accepted, can it really be said that it would be a constraint on the Prime Minister if he intends to have such people on the review body in any event?
Finally, perhaps I may return to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He said that it was common sense to have such people on a review body of this kind, but that it should not be written on the face of the Bill. If the noble Lord is right, there are many other aspects of the Bill which are common sense, including a great deal of the content of Clause 2. Therefore, should all of that come out of the Bill? Of course, in some senses this provision does not have to be included in the Bill; but it is a safeguard to ensure that people with the right kind of knowledge and expertise are appointed to carry out what will inevitably be a difficult job. However, it is a job which should be done with both independence and competence. In the light of the Government's response to this amendment, I feel that I must test the opinion of the Committee.
4.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 128.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Kagan, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Blackstone, B.

Listowel, E.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Molloy, L.

Carter, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ogmore, L.

Desai, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Phillips, B.

Falkland, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Fitt, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Galpern, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Rochester, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hanworth, V.

Seear, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Serota, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Shackleton, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Stallard, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

1120

Tordoff, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Varley, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Huntly, M.

Aldington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Jeffreys, L.

Ampthill, L.

Joseph, L.

Arran, E.

Killearn, L.

Astor, V.

Kimball, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Atholl, D.

Knollys, V.

Attlee, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Beloff, L.

Layton, L.

Belstead, L.

Liverpool, E.

Blake, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Ardbreknish, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Mancroft, L.

Bridges, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Marsh, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Morris, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mottistone, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mountevans, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Moyne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Munster, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nelson, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Newall, L.

Dudley, B.

Norrie, L.

Eccles, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elibank, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pender, L.

Elton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Erroll, E.

Quinton, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Faithfull, B.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renton, L.

Flather, B.

Renwick, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rodney, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Savile, L.

Gainford, L.

Shannon, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Grantchester, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Greenway, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gridley, L.

Terrington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Teviot, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thurlow, L.

Hastings, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Waddington, L.

Holderness, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hood, V.

Wise, L.

Hooper, B.

Young, B.

Howe, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly
Lord Cavendish of Furness:I beg to move that the House do now resume
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Hong Kong Airport Project
4.13 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"The British and Chinese Governments this morning issued a joint statement about the result of intensive discussions over the last few months on a new airport for Hong Kong. Sir Percy Cradock, the Prime Minister's Personal Adviser on Foreign Policy, visited Peking from 27th to 30th June for meetings with Chinese leaders and officials. Agreement was reached on the Hong Kong airport project, and the two sides initialled a Memorandum of Understanding. This will provide a firm basis for building a modern airport to serve the expanding needs of Hong Kong and the future Special Administrative Region. The Chinese and British Governments confirm their wish to deepen their co-operation over Hong Kong within the framework of the joint Declaration and the confidence in the future of the territory as an international economic, financial and trading centre.
"The statement was released this morning because of the time difference with Hong Kong.
"The text of the Memorandum of Understanding concerning the construction of the new airport in Hong Kong and related questions has been placed in the Library of the House. The Chinese Government have invited the Prime Minister to visit China, and he looks forward to doing so soon and to signing the Understanding on that occasion. It will come into effect on signature. In the meantime the Chinese Government have assured us that they will raise no objection to the Hong Kong Government proceeding with the most urgent work relating to the airport.
"Much work remains to be done if we are to ensure a smooth transition in 1997 and to give the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region the best possible basis for success thereafter. The Chinese Foreign Minister has agreed to the proposal which I made in April that in future we should meet twice yearly to discuss Hong Kong and other questions. The meetings between the Governor and Mr. Lu Ping, the senior Chinese official dealing with Hong Kong in Peking, are also being put on a regular basis. We hope that this will provide a new impetus to effective co-operation.
"The conclusion of this Understanding ends months of uncertainty about Hong Kong's airport project and settles a difficult problem in our relations with China. Moreover, the Chinese Government have expressed in the clearest possible terms their support for the airport project and have undertaken to provide clear assurances to investors.
"I am grateful for the invaluable advice which the Governor of Hong Kong and his advisers in the
1122
Executive Council have provided throughout the discussions. The Government believe that the outcome will be generally welcomed in this House, in Hong Kong and more widely. It should provide a fresh impetus to international confidence in Hong Kong's continuing success."
That concludes the Statement.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement about Hong Kong. We know that there is a real need for the new airport in Hong Kong and that the future prosperity and stability of that great city depend upon it. We therefore warmly welcome the announcement that agreement has been reached between the Government and the Government of the People's Republic of China, who will now support the construction of a new airport. That has important implications for Hong Kong after 1st July 1997. I shall be grateful if the Minister will tell the House what are the consequences of the agreement for Hong Kong and for relations between the United Kingdom and China?
Will the Minister further tell the House whether there are any prospects for British companies that may compete for airport-related projects? Further, will he say whether the Chinese have now finally agreed to Chep Lap Kok as a site for the new airport? Are the Government satisfied that the financial arrangements made with China are on a firm footing upon which we can depend?
We appreciate the contribution made by Sir Percy Cradock and the Governor of Hong Kong. The Minister too has played his own part in those negotiations over a period of time. I congratulate them all on this significant achievement.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we too on these Benches warmly welcome the agreement. We feel that Sir Percy Cradock and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, deserve congratulations on its successful conclusion. The regularisation of the meetings between the Secretary of State and the Governor and their opposite numbers tend towards permitting the Chinese Government a share of responsibility for administration before 1997. That is always a source of some anxiety. I hope that when the Prime Minister visits China to sign the agreement he will bring home to the Chinese Government the anxiety felt here and in Hong Kong about the future of democracy in Hong Kong after 1997.
I ask for an assurance from the Minister that the agreement is in no way linked with any new assurance about the financial reserves that will be left in Hong Kong in 1997.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the warm welcome given to the Statement by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. It is a good understanding that will be much to the benefit of Hong Kong, China, the future SARG, which will take over in the middle of 1997, and to Britain.

1123
The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asked about the consequences for Hong Kong. The important point is that the Understanding now gives certainty. Any commercial trading entity—and Hong Kong is certainly one of those; it has a fabulous historical record—needs certainty in which to trade. It now has that certainty as a result of the initialling of the Memorandum of Understanding. It will help relations between Britain and China. We have had good relations but, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear, it is important to our future relations that settlement be reached on the issue. We are both members of the P5 and the agreement that we have achieved on this bodes well for future agreements in other parts of the world.
This will lead to opportunities for British business, but it cannot expect to be given contracts on a plate. It will have to compete on a fair and equal basis, and I am sure that the House wishes British industry well in this regard. It must remain competitive.
The Chinese Government have left it up to the Hong Kong Government to decide exactly where the airport will be sited. It will be at Chep Lap Kok, and that is why part of the airport core project is the building of the bridge on to Lantau Island. I can confirm from the information we have received from the Hong Kong Government that the financial arrangements are sound and the executive committee has supported the governor on them.
I am also grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. I take issue with him when he says that because there are regular meetings between the Governor, Mr. Lu Ping, the Secretary of State and his opposite number, it means that there is a share in the administration between China and the Hong Kong Government. He is wrong on that. As the Joint Declaration clearly states in paragraph 4, the effective running of Hong Kong will be under the Hong Kong Government. We give our full support to the governor and to the Hong Kong Government at the moment.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I join in the congratulations to my noble friend for his contribution to the successful outcome of the negotiations which he has appropriately himself reported to your Lordships' House.
I did not quite follow in the Statement whether the broad plan for the airport now agreed is the same as that which was discussed a few months ago and in respect of which, as my noble friend will recall, the Chinese Government were unhappy at the likely effect on the financial reserves of Hong Kong. Is it the same scheme or has it been modified? Can my noble friend also say whether it is expected that the airport will be completed before the hand-over to China in 1997 and whether it will continue at that time?
Finally, I wish on a personal note to add what an enormous relief it will be when the airport is completed. One will no longer have the alarming experience of landing at the present terrifying airport.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that arriving at Kai Tak airport is an interesting experience. It is rather different from the approach to Heathrow.
I am grateful too for my noble friend's personal comments. An enormous tribute is due not only to the Governor and the officials in Hong Kong but also to the Hong Kong Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. They have all burned the midnight oil. I am grateful to each and every one of them for the enormous amount of hard work that they have put in.
On the financial arrangements, it was of concern to China that sovereignty should not be returned to it in the middle of 1997 with the financial state of Hong Kong in a parlous way. That was also very much our concern. That is why it is agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding that a certain amount will be left in the financial reserves. It will be £25 million, which the Hong Kong Government feel is a prudent amount, and it shows our good faith that we wish to hand over an ongoing and positively functioning concern at that time.
One other point which my noble friend mentioned is completion of the airport. We have highlighted what we consider to be the airport core programme. It is the best intention of the Hong Kong Government to complete that by 1st July 1997. That will be the first runway, the ancillary services to go with it and the terminal. We hope to get the airport up and running by 1st July 1997. If there are to be further extensions such as a second runway they will have to be agreed with the Chinese in the normal way.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. I congratulate the Government and the noble Earl personally, as well as Sir Percy Cradock and the Governor of Hong Kong, on this welcome development. It had become absolutely inescapable that without Chinese support we could not finance the building of the airport. It was therefore highly realistic to come to an agreement along the lines which have been set out in the Statement in order to secure support. I hope that the Government will deal robustly with the inevitable cries of "weakness" and "kowtow" that will be made. It was entirely right to try to make an agreement of this kind, and make it work, rather than to leave Hong Kong and abandon our obligations to its people without the modern airport that is essential to their prosperity.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am particularly grateful for the words of the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch. No other noble Lord is perhaps as acquainted with Hong Kong as he is. His support for the understanding between the British and Chinese Governments is extremely welcome. Some people will take what I consider to be a blinkered view, saying that one must not agree anything with China and if one does it is kowtowing. That is totally unrealistic and impractical. The welcome that the Understanding has already received in Hong Kong shows that those who take that view do not have the true interests of Hong Kong at heart.

1125
We wish to have closer relationships with China; it is in the annex to the Joint Declaration that we must work for closer co-operation between the two sides. What we want to do in 1997 is to hand back the sovereignty of Hong Kong as a going concern in a prosperous and exciting part of the world, which is what it is at the moment.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I join in the thanks to my noble friend for repeating the Statement and I join unreservedly in the compliments and congratulations to him, his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and particularly to Sir Percy Cradock and Sir David Wilson. The latter has worked under extremely difficult circumstances in Hong Kong and he is to be warmly congratulated.
The building of the new airport is essential to Hong Kong, not least for the one and only vital ingredient for the territory—confidence. The announcement must make an enormous difference to the confidence of people in Hong Kong. As I have said in your Lordships' House on more than one occasion, that is the vital element.
I apologise if I did not hear the Statement correctly, but will my noble friend be kind enough to say concerning the reserves whether the 25 million was pounds? I have two further questions. Whatever the figure, is it effectively a guarantee by the Hong Kong Government that that amount will be left as a minimum in the reserves? My second question is somewhat pedantic. If it is pounds, is the amount £25 million or the Hong Kong dollar equivalent of £25 million? The amounts could well be different by 1997.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, they are different now. I apologise if I said £25 million. What I should have said, and I hope I did say, is that 25 billion Hong Kong dollars will be left. I obviously did not make that clear and I apologise to the House for not doing so. In answer to my noble friend's second question, no, it is not a guarantee. Perhaps I may read paragraph E of the Memorandum of Understanding. It is in the Library and is worth repeating:
"On the basis of the above understandings the Hong Kong Government will plan its finances with the firm objective that the fiscal reserves on 30th June 1997 to be left for the use of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government will not be less than HK dollars 25 billion".
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, in warmly welcoming the agreement I asked the noble Earl whether there was a link of any kind between this agreement and a fresh understanding about the amount of reserves that would be left in Hong Kong in 1997. He did not answer that question, but in reply to his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter he implied that that was the case. It may be a good thing or a bad thing. I should not like to pronounce upon it, but would it not have been appropriate to put that important fact into the Statement that he originally read?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it could be put into the Statement, just as the whole of the Memorandum of Understanding could have been read out as part of the Statement, but I am sure that your Lordships would not have wished me to do so. It amounts to some five pages and it is in the Library.
1126
The noble Lord refers to an important point, but there are many other important points in the Memorandum of Understanding.

School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill
4.30 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert ("Before doing so he shall consider any names put forward by bodies representing local education authorities, school teachers or other interested parties for appointment as members of the review body.").
The noble Lord said: This must be just about the most modest amendment there could be. At Report stage of the Bill in another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State resisted an amendment aimed at requiring the Prime Minister to consult those representing the interests of local education authorities, school teachers and governors before appointing the review body. The Minister did so on the grounds that such consultation would be contrary to the principle of an independent review body. However, he said at that time:
"The amendment may be intended to ensure that the interested parties can put forward names for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to consider. If that is the case, I hope that the hon. Gentleman"—
it was my honourable friend Mr. Simon Hughes—
"will be reassured to learn that they will be free to do that". —[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/91; col. 440.]
Just now the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, appeared almost to reproach me for introducing the amendment. He appeared to find it in some way inconsistent with my support for the first amendment, but I emphasise that the words that I have just quoted are not my words. They are the words of the Minister responsible. It follows from his statement in another place that inclusion in the Bill of the words proposed in the amendment would be entirely in keeping with what the Government have in mind. By accepting the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, can demonstrate at this early stage in our proceedings that the Government are willing as far as possible to join with noble Lords on this side of the Chamber in establishing a consensus in our discussions. I hope that he will do just that. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: I should like to support the amendment, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, is extremely modest. I should like also to correct a point that I believe the Minister made in the debate on the previous amendment. He suggested that the amendment implies that the local authorities or the teachers' unions would nominate representatives. That is not the purpose of the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is simply to put the Prime Minister under some obligation to consider names submitted for his consideration by the local education authorities, the teachers' associations or any other interested parties. Those names would have been chosen by the various bodies concerned on the grounds that they have knowledge and expertise in

1127
education, not that they should represent those interests. From these Benches, we therefore support the amendment.
Lord Belstead: The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, about what was said in another place are right. It was made clear in another place that it would be open for names to be proposed for membership of the review body. As I sought to explain, it is intended that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will make the appointments to the review body just as he does to the other review bodies. He will choose the people whom he considers best fitted to give independent advice on the pay and conditions of school teachers and he will naturally look at the names that have been suggested.
Perhaps I may now deal with a point upon which I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. If we incorporate the amendment in the Bill, we shall run into the danger of having a representative element. After all—I realise that I am repeating myself, but I must reiterate this point—the two bodies specifically mentioned in the amendment—the local education authorities and the teachers—were two of the three elements that comprised the old Burnham Committee. It is fair to say that that committee suffered from having representation on it. It achieved only three negotiated settlements in a period of some 20 years. We are trying to get away from that by setting up a review body which we believe will be good for the teaching profession and which we believe the teaching profession believes will be good.
As I said, the Prime Minister will consider names connected with the education world, but I hope that, for the reasons that I have given, there will be no pressure to incorporate the amendment in the Bill. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord may feel that it is right to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rochester: I am disappointed in what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said. If he fears that there is a danger of bringing representative elements onto the review body—the Government are aware of that danger—I should have thought it evident that it was a move that they could resist if they so choose. As I see it, the Government have nothing to lose by accepting the amendment, but it is a matter on which I am effectively in the hands of the Minister. It is not a matter on which I should press the Committee to a Division, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) After the establishment of any further education councils that may later be constituted in England and Wales, the review body shall continue to examine and report on the statutory conditions of employment of teachers who occupy posts which, when section 1 of this Act comes into force are posts held by school teachers within the meaning of section 5 below.").
The noble Lord said: As I see it, this amendment is of a very different order from the previous one. It deals with the question of how the pay and conditions of
1128
sixth form college teachers should be determined in the long term. For the immediate future, their position is plain. Under Clause 5 of the Bill, they are deemed to be school teachers and will therefore be covered by the review body. However, from the Government's recently published White Paper, Education and Training for the 21st Century, it is equally clear that, with effect from April 1993, responsibility for the funding of sixth form colleges in England and Wales is to be transferred from local authorities to the new central councils that the Government propose to establish.
On Second Reading, I observed that, to say the least, that places the teachers involved in an invidious position. I added that, in terms of career development alone, there are at present strong links between teachers in sixth form colleges and those in secondary schools and suggested that we should think carefully before allowing those links to be broken. If the employment conditions of teachers in primary, secondary and grant-maintained schools are in future to be determined by a statutory review body, I cannot see what justification there is for excluding sixth form college teachers from the same treatment.
In my view the same considerations extend to colleges of further and higher education, polytechnics and universities. I appreciate that those institutions do not fall within the Long Title of the Bill and they do not therefore feature in the amendment. I further appreciate that to establish review bodies for teachers in further education colleges would be at variance with a key part of the Government's White Paper. Nevertheless, I venture to observe in passing that for the purpose of pay determination the various components of education should be treated in the same way. If the Government persist in dealing with them differently they may well come to regret their action. However, for the moment I am concerned only with teachers in sixth form colleges.
The amendment could hardly be more explicit in tackling head-on the inconsistency to which I have referred. It aims to ensure that after the control of sixth form colleges is transferred in April 1993 from local education authorities to the new councils the statutory conditions of employment defined in subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill of teachers occupying posts in sixth form colleges will continue to be determined by the school teachers' review body. There would thus be a common pay structure for teachers in sixth form colleges and those teaching in sixth forms in secondary schools. That would seem to me to be eminently desirable as the work undertaken by teachers at the relevant level in both types of establishment is essentially the same.
A further basic principle is involved. I live in Cheshire, a county providing an education service which for years has been regarded as one of the finest in the land. Its director of education has told me that when the principals of the county's three sixth form colleges first learnt of the Government's proposal to place their colleges, without any prior consultation and for all purposes, including funding, outside the control of the local education authority they were

1129
shell-shocked. I am glad to say that they have now recovered and show every sign of putting up a spirited defence.
This week I spoke to the principal of the highly regarded sixth form college in my own home town, Northwich. It was formerly a grammar school and was established as long as ago as 1553. It is still called after its Elizabethan founder, Sir John Deane. For some years now the college has been over-subscribed by 50 or 60 students annually. The principal told me that he greatly values the support that he has received from the local education authority and much regrets that no role is envisaged for it in the new sector which is to operate from April 1993. Indeed, he finds the references in the White Paper to LEAs perverse. The departure from local accountability involved in transferring control of sixth form colleges to the new councils is, for him, a matter of great concern. I stress to the Committee that my informant is a leader in the front line of education who has to deal as best he can on the ground with what we as politicians decide.
The councils' advisory committees will have to cover areas far larger than counties and cannot possibly respond adequately to local needs or understand the role now played by each college. That applies especially to the employment conditions of sixth form college teachers which relate not only to what are called in the Bill their professional duties and working time but also to responsibilities which they now willingly accept and which are much wider than those involved in their teaching commitments. The decisions of the councils will necessarily be arbitrary. Through their regional committees they will have to employ large numbers of staff to develop a comprehensive local network and thus put in place yet another bureaucracy. The Government are forever talking of the need for more local accountability but in their actions handing more and more over to central control. The time has come to call them to account.
As I have said, two fundamental principles are at stake. I hope that the Committee will now consider very carefully the way in which the amendment proposes that those principles should be dealt with. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: In offering my support for the amendment, to which I have added my name, I too am making my first contribution to your Lordships' deliberations on the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill. My name was down to speak at Second Reading. I had intended to reply to the debate on behalf of the Opposition, but since there was no debate there was nothing for me to reply to and I decided not to waste your Lordships' time. I am extremely annoyed with the noble Baronesses, Lady Cumberlege and Lady Denton, because if they had spoken I should have had an opportunity to speak.
I assume that the Government have thought about the subject. Having suggested in the White Paper that sixth form colleges will become part of the further education sector and therefore will come under the further education funding councils in due course, they must have seen the logical problem which the noble
1130
Lord, Lord Rochester, has put to the Committee. I also assume, and look to the Government for reassurance, that sixth form colleges are expected to remain in existence. I raise that matter because perhaps the problem could be solved by having no sixth form colleges. Therefore, I should like the Minister to make some remarks on that point.
If we have both sixth form colleges and sixth forms, and I assume that we shall, logically we ought to accept that we should treat like with like. We have the old cliché of the level playing field: teachers ought to be paid on the same basis. The amendment states that they ought to be treated in that way under the Bill. Further, it states that the problem has to be solved one way or another. One of the questions which troubles me is that further education councils are called funding councils and will therefore be expected to be involved in matters with which the review body is involved.
The problem arises from government initiatives, which may be good or may be open to criticism. The issue cannot be left hanging. This is the only Bill we have dealing with school teachers' pay and conditions and the matter must therefore be raised under this heading. In supporting what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said I am not telling the Government that there is a problem, but I should like enlightenment as to how they propose to solve the problem.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may add a word or two before the Minister replies. I am a governor of a sixth form college. We have had a meeting since the White Paper was published and I have therefore heard a great deal about the anxieties of staff in such colleges. Unlike my noble friend Lord Peston, I doubt very much whether the Government thought very much about the position of sixth form colleges and their staff before the White Paper was published.
Staff in the colleges work under school regulations. Presumably after 1993 that will change. Obviously there has been no consultation because the staff are very uncertain as to what their position will be and how it will change. Their colleagues in sixth forms in schools will continue to work under the same regulations as now. I should very much like to ask the Government whether they have thought about that aspect and to say a little more about their plans for sixth form colleges in the future.
Certainly when I was there the staff were uncertain about what their future would be. They had not made up their minds because they had not had time to have a great many discussions about what was wanted for the future. The arrangement in the White Paper seems to me very peculiar. I hope that a good deal of further thought will be given to it. In the meantime I hope that this amendment can be accepted, or at least that the Government will agree to look at it.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and other noble Lords are concerned about the status of teachers in sixth form colleges—and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that sixth form colleges will remain—following the Government's reorganisation of further education. I should perhaps give notice here that, with respect, I

1131
suspect that we have found some technical deficiencies in this amendment, and I shall come to them later. I shall deal, first, with the framework of the Bill.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, went further and challenged the policy of sixth form colleges moving into a new sector. The Committee will be aware of the Government's proposal to establish a new framework for the education and training for the 16 to 19 age group. The aim is to bring coherence to an area of education vital for the future both of the nation and of the students themselves. The Government therefore intend to create a unified FE sector incorporating both colleges of further education and sixth form and tertiary colleges. If we are to bring about the improvements which we seek, it is important that this whole new sector should be permitted to develop as a coherent whole. Separate arrangements for determining the pay and conditions of a minority of the teaching staff would perpetuate divisions no longer relevant.
The effect of this amendment would be that the teaching staff in former sixth form colleges would continue to fall within the scope of the review body, while those in colleges of further education would have their pay and conditions determined by the arrangements which emerge. That would not be right. As the White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century—to which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred—makes clear, the best way forward for all colleges in the new sector is for pay and conditions to be settled through negotiations between employer and employee. We believe there should be the maximum freedom for institutions to determine such matters in response to their own needs and circumstances. The detailed arrangements will of course need to be considered by the colleges themselves, with the staff concerned and with the Government.
We believe that students in this age group will be better served by self-governing institutions which are responsive to student demand and to the needs of the labour market. Sixth form colleges are large institutions which have a great deal in common with colleges of further education. They should enjoy the same freedom.
How will the transfer work? Staff in both colleges of further education and sixth form and tertiary colleges will initially be transferred to the employment of the institutions in the new sector on their existing pay and conditions. At the point of transfer the statutory pay and conditions arrangements which apply to school teachers, and hence to teachers in sixth form colleges, would cease to apply to those staff because at that moment those institutions cease to be schools. After transfer it will be for the teachers themselves and their future employers, the governing bodies of sixth form colleges, to decide on future pay and conditions.
In the future, as now, there will be a schools sector and an FE sector. There is of course room for argument about where the dividing line should be. This is where we have given it a lot of thought. I have explained that the Government firmly believe that
1132
sixth form colleges have more in common with FE colleges than they do with the schools sector, and that, in effect, the line should be repositioned. The noble Lord, in suggesting that there is a contradiction between asking the review body to make recommendations on the statutory conditions of service of sixth form teachers in schools, and requiring teachers in sixth form colleges to become part of the new FE sector, is in effect suggesting a different positioning of the line.
I said that I would speak about the technical deficiencies, and I can see that this would be a difficult amendment to draft. In speaking in the debate noble Lords have made clear that they want teachers in what are now sixth form colleges to continue to have their statutory conditions of employment determined on the basis of recommendations of the school teachers' review body. I have already indicated that I do not think that that would be desirable. I am not even sure whether this amendment would achieve that.
First, it speaks in terms of posts which are created, varied and removed by LEAs or governing bodies from time to time. Secondly, teachers in sixth form colleges would be protected only if the college's change in status was to follow the establishment of the bodies referred to, necessarily in rather a general way, in this amendment. But the very generality of these words leaves unclear precisely what new arrangements would fall within them.
Your Lordships' Committee rightly rejects the practice of dismissing proposed amendments simply because the drafting is not faultless. If the spirit is right, the right drafting will follow. In this case, however, the technical difficulties are rather of the essence of the problem. In seeking to put sixth form colleges and teachers, after they have in fact left the school sector, within the ambit of the school teachers' review body, this amendment would treat as school teachers a group of people who would plainly be something else in common sense as well as in statutory definition.
The Government's objectives are to improve standards and efficiency and to raise the status of education. Our policies for school teachers and for the FE sector will, in their different ways, do precisely that. But the two sectors have different structures and different needs. The mechanisms to raise standards and efficiency reflect those differences. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may add one point. We should bear in mind the Long Title to the Bill. It says:
"An Act to make provision with respect to the remuneration and other conditions of employment of school teachers".
As my noble friend Lord Cavendish has pointed out, this would bring within the competence of the review body the wages and conditions of people who technically under the Bill are not to be regarded as school teachers at all.
As I understand it, therefore, this amendment could not be made without altering the Long Title. That is borne out by a reference in the amendment to Clause 5 where a school teacher is defined as,

1133
"a teacher employed by—

(a) a local education authority, or

(b) the governing body of a voluntary or grant-maintained school,

in the provision of primary or secondary education".
It does not include further education at all.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I would say to my noble friend that I cannot give him a definitive answer, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has acknowledged the point that the Long Title would need to be altered.
Lord Renton: I am sorry. I did not hear that.
Lord Peston: The key fact is that sixth form college teachers are school teachers. They come fully within the Long Title of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, in misunderstanding the nature of the Bill, does not realise the logical consequence of this and other bits. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, he has not faced up to the logical problem here. I am not seeking to get involved in a debate on where we ought to draw the line between further education arid the schools or to ask (although I could disagree with him on another occasion) whether the sixth Form colleges have more in common with the FE sector than with the school sector. We can debate that at some time. The key point is that the noble Lord acknowledged that in, say, three years' time, there will be sixth form colleges and there will be sixth forms.
I understand that the Government, and certainly we, favour both sorts of institution. We also believe that they both do what is called sixth form work, if I may define that. I think it follows—and this is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, led us to — that there must be a great deal in common (indeed, I would go further and say that there must be identity) between the remuneration and conditions of employment of the two sorts of people: one lot in sixth form colleges and the other lot in schools.
I should like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, says about how well our amendment was drafted, because I am not in that business, as the noble Lord himself is not. However, we have a point here of great importance. Let us suppose that the review body awards a particular award for the sixth form teachers and that is different from what would then be the sixth form colleges. Either the former is better than the latter and the latter will have difficulty in recruitment, or it is worse than the latter and the former will have difficulty in recruitment. One or other will not be able to operate properly in terms of the labour market. Therefore, they have to be the same. If the statutory body fixes the remuneration of sixth form teachers, they will determine the remuneration of sixth form college staff. That is the nature and logic of the problem. All we are asking at this stage is whether the DES will tell us how the problem is to be solved. I am sorry to intervene a second time, but that is the answer I was looking for.
5 p.m.
Lord Rochester: I should like to thank those who have taken part in this short debate, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who has saved me the
1134
trouble of responding to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was in his place at the time, but I said in my opening speech that for the purposes of Clause 5 of the Bill, sixth form college teachers were school teachers. There may be a difference of view; but it is upon that that I have based the amendment.
Lord Renton: I was in my place when the noble Lord started to move the amendment, but I did not hear him say (perhaps it was sotto voce) that the Long Title would have to be amended.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: In response to Lord Peston, it is not a question of how one draws the line. The line is not being drawn for the convenience of the Government; it is a matter of policy that we want to have sixth form colleges in a new sector. Furthermore, we take the view that in large measure the people teaching in both do different things. Of course there will be arguments saying that in large measure they do the same things because in many sixth forms of schools they will be teaching younger people and taking part in other school activities. It has not simply been a matter of trying to find a convenient way of doing it; it is deliberate policy.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps the noble Lord speaking for the Government can clarify whether he is saying it is the Government's definitive view that teachers in sixth form colleges do quite different things from teachers in sixth forms. If that is the Government's position, I am extremely surprised because I do not believe it to be the fact.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I acknowledge that many of the things are the same; but it must also be self-evident that teachers in sixth form colleges do different things from teachers of sixth forms in schools.
Lord Rochester: I am disappointed but not surprised by the response of the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness. When I referred to the Long Title it was to say that I appreciated colleges of further and higher education education and universities did not come within it and were therefore not included in the amendment. For the purpose of moving the amendment, I see no reason to alter the Long Title of the Bill. I am satisfied, as is the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that sixth form college teachers come within the Long Title of the Bill as at present constituted.
In moving the amendment, I made plain that acceptance of it by the Government would involve them in changing course on two major matters of principle in a way which would mean that all teachers at secondary schools and sixth form colleges would continue indefinitely to have their pay and other statutory conditions of employment determined in the same way, and that the funding of sixth form colleges for this purpose would not be handed over to the new central councils which the Government propose to set up.
The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, talked about there being a difference between the Government's view and that expressed on this side of the Committee

1135
as to where the line should be drawn. I hope I made it plain in passing when moving the amendment that I knew very well in my own mind where the line should be drawn. Indeed, there should be no line at all in the sense that for the purpose of pay determination it still seems to me that all elements of education should be treated in the same way and if a pay review body is good for one set (in this instance school teachers) it should be good for others as well.
The ground has been well covered in the debate and I do not propose to go over it again. Major principles are involved, and there is clearly a sharp difference of view between the Government and those on this side of the Committee as to how those principles should be dealt with. Despite the technical deficiencies which the amendment may have we are dealing with the principles of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said. I judge that there are at least two basic principles involved, and in those circumstances I feel I have no alternative but to divide the Committee.
5.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 102.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Aylestone, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Blackstone, B.

Nicol, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ogmore, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Peston, L.

Carter, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Rea, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Redesdale, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Richard, L.

David, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rochester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seear, B.

Ezra, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Underhill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Whaddon, L.

Hollick, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Lockwood, B.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Aldington, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Ampthill, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Arran, E.

Butterworth, L.

Astor, V.

Caithness, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L

Attlee, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Beloff, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Belstead, L.

Craigavon, V.

Blatch, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Blyth, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

1136

Denham, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Morris, L.

Elibank, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mountevans, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elton, L.

Moyne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Flather, B.

Nelson, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Newall, L.

Grantchester, L.

Norrie, L.

Gray, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gridley, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Orkney, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Haslam, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Hastings, L.

Pender, L.

Henley, L.

Quinton, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Hives, L.

Reay, L.

Holderness, L.

Renton, L.

Hooper, B.

Renwick, L.

Howe, E.

Rodney, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Savile, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Joseph, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Knollys, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

Lawrence, L.

Sudeley, L.

Long, V.

Swansea, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trumpington, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Ullswater, V.

Mancroft, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Marlesford, L.

Vinson, L.

Marsh, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Young, B.

Mersey, V.

Resolved in the negative, disagreed to accordingly.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 18, after ("considerations") insert ("(not including financial constraints)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. It is the first explicit move into the area of finance. I hasten to tell the Minister that the purpose of the amendment is to draw out the Government in order to give some explanation of what they have in mind by what I call the financial side to the Secretary of State's directions to the review body.
I understand the nature of the problem. On the one hand, we want to have a review body which will be independent, which means that it would be pointless for the Secretary of State to tell it what it had to report or to constrain it in such a way that it had no choice about what it reported. At the other extreme, a review body which did not take account of what I might call the facts of life would be quite useless and the Secretary of State would again have to take over the role.
I understand that some directions have to be given, and parameters—the rules of the game or whatever —have to be laid down. I am trying to discover what the Secretary of State intends, bearing in mind that hanging over all our deliberations on these matters is the interim advisory committee. We have had several years' experience of that committee. This is not the

1137
interim advisory committee, but I assume that lessons have been learnt from that committee, which was distinctly financially constrained.
As I understand it, the Secretary of State has said that he will not impose a financial constraint—those are the exact words. I did not hear him speak, so I did not hear which of the words he emphasised. My guess is that he emphasised the word "constraint" rather than ally other. In other words, he had some intention of calling to the attention of local authorities what I have called the facts of life. He must be willing or intend to ask them to consider what can be afforded.
I want to know what the Secretary of State will do and what he will offer to the review body as guidance or parameters. I assume that he will also guide them to matters other than financial considerations. Presumably he will draw attention to problems relating to recruitment of teachers, to fairness and so on. But what will he in fact say?
The wording of the amendment has been chosen to reflect the fact that we understand that the Secretary of Stale has said that he will not lay down financial constraints. That is why we have chosen that wording to put in the Bill. Our purpose is not so much to have the words inserted in the Bill as to know what he will say to the review body.
In that connection, I should like to raise the technical point of how the review body will work. It must harmonise with the rest of the Government's education policy; and a very important aspect of that education policy is the fact that many schools—in due course perhaps almost all schools—will have delegated bodies, and the school governing body will be the relevant body, as it is called technically. The LEA will then be under a duty to act upon the governing body's decision and make appropriate payments to the teachers concerned.
There seems to be a lack of connection between the parameters laid down under the pay and conditions order, that the review body will have made its recommendations in the light of the guidance of the Secretary of State in terms of what is affordable, and that there will be schools with delegated budgets which have to be in a position to do what they want to do, bearing in mind their assessment of their needs. To make again the logical point: if schools are not to be free to make their own decisions, why have we delegated budgets to them in the first place?
I ask for enlightenment. I do not say that the problem has not been solved. I assume that the DES has locked at the problem and can tell us the solution. But I want to know how the whole financial structure will operate. I have used the amendment as a peg, as has the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. The phrase "not including financial constraints" is useful. I should like education for myself and other noble Lords on what the Secretary of State has in mind.
Lord Rochester: Having put my name to the amendment, perhaps I may say a few words in support of the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
In Standing Committee in another place there was interminable argument, as there often is, concerning the distinctions to be drawn between "directions", "considerations" and "constraints". The Government
1138
insisted that, whereas under the 1987 Act the Secretary of State could impose financial constraints on the interim advisory committee, there was nothing in the Bill providing for such constraints. Under the Bill the Minister could only direct the review body to have regard to certain considerations.
At col. 60, the Minister of State, Mr. Eggar, said:
"A constraint is binding … The review body will be required only to have regard to a consideration—then, having had regard to that, it would form its judgement and recommend whatever it thought fit. It will not he bound by a cash limit or by any other constraint. It will be what we have always said that it would be—a review body".
He stated that the critical word was "considerations". That is the word on which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, seeks elaboration from the Government.
I support the amendment. It seeks to take the Government at their word and to cut through the doubts and different interpretations to which the word "considerations", and others, give rise. It seeks to make absolutely plain on the face of the Bill that in its deliberations the review body will not be bound by any financial constraints. If the Government mean what they say, they should be happy to accept the amendment, as I hope they will.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: We do not wish to accept the amendment. The Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 gives the Secretary of State the power to impose a financial constraint on the interim advisory committee. The Bill gives the Secretary of State no such power in respect of the school teachers' review body. That is perhaps the most important difference between the Act and the legislation which the Government propose to put in its place. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, accepts that. Indeed, from what he said in the debate, he acknowledges the clear distinction between the "constraints" of the 1987 Act and the "considerations" to which, under the Bill, the Secretary of State may direct the review body to have regard.
Perhaps I may quote from my right honourable friend's Statement on 17th April. He said:
"These considerations will include, as now, the Government's view that the school teachers' pay should be such as to recruit, retain and motivate sufficient staff of the appropriate calibre within what can be afforded, as expressed at present in the level of education standard spending set by the Government". [Official Report, Commons, 17/4/91; col. 434]
The noble Lord accepts that the financial constraint on the IAC was binding, whereas the review body will simply be required to "have regard to" a consideration. Having done so, it will form its own judgment on the matter in question and recommend precisely as it thinks fit.
However, the noble Lord appears to need reassurance. His amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from giving the review body a direction that it is to have regard to a financial constraint. I suspect that this is in fact a contradiction in terms.
Be that as it may, I hope I can reassure him on the substance of his concern. As it is now drafted—even without the noble Lord's amendment—"constraints" of any kind are ruled out. I am not asking him to accept that the Secretary of State has a power which

1139
he will either never use, or use only benevolently. My right honourable friend cannot choose whether or not to impose a constraint on the review body. He does not have the power even to make that choice. In the absence of that power under this Bill my right honourable friend simply may not "constrain" the review body as he is able to constrain the IAC. Any attempt to do so could simply be ignored by the review body. By its very silence on the matter the Bill gives the noble Lord precisely the assurance which he seeks.
One of the considerations to which the review body will have regard is affordability, as expressed in the level of education standard spending. I do not believe that the noble Lord would wish otherwise. Most teachers are paid for by local education authorities. The resources at the disposal of those local authorities will be one consideration that the review body will need to bear in mind. However, that is not the same as financial constraint, as the noble Lord's amendment acknowledges.
With that education, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord for his answer. I ask for one additional clarification. I understand that the Secretary of State cannot say categorically to the review body, "You are constrained to do this". I give an example. The Secretary of State can either say to the review body, "Compared with last year's pay settlement you are constrained by not being able to make a recommendation this year that will cost more than last year plus the rate of inflation". There are two logical interpretations. The first interpretation is that the Bill says that he must not say that. The second is that the Secretary of State can say that to the review body but it does not have to take notice of it because he ought not to do so. I am not anxious either way but I should like clarification. Can the Secretary of State not constrain the review body; or, if he tries to constrain it, should it behave as though he had not tried to do so? Can the noble Lord assist me? He knows that I shall not pursue the matter. However, it interests me to know the department's interpretation.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am quite sure that my right honourable friend can ask the review body "to have regard". I am absolutely certain that the review body can then go its own way. I repeat a sentence that is on the record. Constraints of any kind are ruled out.
Lord Peston: That is an extremely helpful reply. I am glad to have it on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) The review body may also examine and report on such matters relating to the statutory conditions of employment of school teachers in England and Wales as they think fit.").
The noble Lord said: I too must add my apologies for not having been able to be present at the Second Reading. The proposed review body is the Government's final response to the plight of the
1140
teachers who for four years have been without negotiating powers, and who prior to that had a system which did not work—the Burnham machinery. It is therefore of the utmost importance that all matters of pay and conditions of work should be able to be discussed, including matters raised by the teachers themselves. I stress "conditions" because, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, pointed out at Second Reading, it will be the only review body which deals with conditions as well as pay.
We are somewhat anxious that Clause 1(4) implies that the only matters which may be considered by the review body are those which have been referred to it by the Secretary of State.
Perhaps I may just remind your Lordships that the clause states:
"With respect to matters referred to the review body by him, the Secretary of State may give directions to the review body as to considerations to which they are to have regard and as to the time within which they are to report; and any such directions may be varied or revoked by further directions under this section".
We know that it is the Government's intention that there should be free discussion within the review body because we have the assurances which the Minister, Mr. Eggar, gave in the Commons Standing Committee. He pointed out that Clause 1(1) of the present Bill follows Section 2(1) of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill 1987 which set up the interim advisory committee. That committee had been totally free to discuss any matter which it thought fit.
At the first sitting of the Standing Committee Mr. Eggar said that it was the Government's intention to give the review body:
"exactly the same latitude to make recommendations across the whole range of teachers' statutory pay and conditions as has been given to the IAC. The review body will be able to work to its own agenda".
We also have the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on Second Reading. He said:
"Can the Secretary of State prevent the review body from considering any matter? Again it is important for me to say that from my reading he cannot. Clause 1 defines the review body's duty to make recommendations on any specific matter referred to it and to report within a set time. But its report will be able to range more widely if it considers that to be appropriate".
He went on to say:
"my right honourable friend would expect to invite the review body to address any matter concerned with school teachers' statutory conditions of employment as it thinks fit. In fact, a review body would not need such an invitation. When it has been asked to report on any matter, it would be able to recommend any other matter if it thinks fit. The Bill does not preclude that".—[Official Report, 21/6/91; cols. 361–2.]
That being the case, why should the latitude granted to the review body not be expressed on the face of the Bill? My argument is the usual one—that government assurances do not outlast governments. May it not be the case that another government, of whatever political complexion, would view the matter differently and ignore all recommendations from the review body which were not strictly in response to their own directions?
I should have liked to take the matter further by tabling an amendment which would ensure that machinery was in place to enable teachers and their representatives to suggest issues for consideration by

1141
the review body. As far as I can tell, there is no mention of such an allowance explicit or implicit in the Bill.
However, again we have the words of the Minister in Standing Committee. He said:
"teachers associations and employers in submitting their evidence, will be able to suggest issues that they believe that the review body should consider".
Again that is a useful assurance.
However, at present I confine my plea to the inclusion of the words of the amendment as it stands for the reasons I have given; namely, that government assurances are not the same as having the matter written onto the statute book. For that reason we should like to see it included on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I support the amendment. We wish to stress the independence of the review body. Indeed, that was underlined on Report in another place when Mr. Eggar confirmed that the secretariat would be provided by the Office of Manpower Economics. That was the subject of an amendment in Committee which was turned down. However, that assurance was given on Report and there will be an independent secretariat. We wish to stress that total independence of the review body and that it can consider all matters which it believes to be relevant. If the words of the amendment can be added, that will make the position clearer I support what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, said.
Lord Renton: It seems to me that there are two quite separate issues. First, whose initiative is it to be to get the review body to consider matters within the ambit of the Bill? The Bill makes it quite clear that at present it must be the initiative of the Secretary of State. Clause 1(1) states:
"such matters relating to the statutory conditions of employment … as may from time to time be referred to the review body by the Secretary of State".
Here it is suggested that teachers or their representative bodies should use their own initiative, irrespective of what the Secretary of State considers should be referred to the review body. I have grave doubts about that. I should have thought that the right thing to do—and it can be done within the scope of the Bill—is for any teachers who feel that a particular matter relating to pay and conditions of employment should be considered by the review body should ask the Secretary of State to consider it. That puts the matter into proper order rather than confusing the situation.
Similarly, if the review body wished to use an initiative, it should be required to ask the Secretary of State. After all, the Secretary of State is given the responsibility by Parliament to administer this new scheme. He can be questioned by Parliament as to what he does. However, there is no suggestion that members of the review body who use their own initiative or teachers' organisations which use their own initiative could be questioned in Parliament; they could not. It is best to focus responsibility upon the Secretary of State because he can then be challenged by Parliament on what he does.
1142
I turn from the initiative of getting matters considered by the review body to the separate issue of what matters they should be. Under the amendment it is suggested that they should be such matters relating to school teachers "as they think fit". That is ambiguous. I do not know whether it refers to the review body or the teachers. The amendment does not make that clear. I do not believe that we have been told about that.
On Page 1, line 21, there is less ambiguity. It refers to the review body being given the opportunity to choose matters. As regards what the matters should be, do we really need to go beyond what is stated in Clause 1(2) under the definition of "statutory conditions of employment" because that is fairly wide? In relation to school teachers it means their remuneration—that is plain enough—and:
"such of their other conditions of employment as relate to their professional duties and working time".
"Professional duties" embrace a very wide range of possibilities. I should not have thought it reasonable that the review body should be required or enabled to consider matters which go beyond remuneration, professional duties and working time. Therefore I would not expect my noble friend on the Front Bench to accept the amendment. Indeed, I go further; I hope that he does not.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, for exploring this area. The noble Lord expressed anxiety that the review body might be prevented from making recommendations on matters which it would otherwise have wished to address. He suggests that that is the implication of Clause 1(1), which requires the Prime Minister to appoint a review body to examine and report,
"on such matters as may from time to time be referred to it",
by the Secretary of State. That concern lies behind this amendment, the effect of which would be to specify on the face of the Bill that the review body had the power to consider and to make recommendations on such matters relating to statutory conditions as it thinks fit.
The amendment is unnecessary simply because the review body can decide to address matters other than those specifically referred to it by the Secretary of State; it would in fact require a specific provision in the Bill to remove or constrain it in the way that the noble Lord fears might happen. The Bill defines duties. In this case the Prime Minister's duty is to set up the school teachers' review body for this purpose, and the review body's duty is to examine and report on the matters referred to it within a specified time.
The review body will be able to work to its own agenda. It does not require an amendment to the Bill to be able to do so. It can address issues suggested to it by teacher associations and employers, when they submit their evidence, if that seems right. It will certainly be open to the Secretary of State to make a more limited reference to the review body on, say, a specific conditions of employment matter that needs immediate attention. It has been the frequent practice of some of the health service review bodies to work to a limited reference and to make a supplementary

1143
report restricted to that limited area. It is sensible to allow for similar references to be made to the teachers' review body.
In regard to regular references, existing review bodies are invited to report on a regular basis. But it would be open to the Prime Minister in any specific year to request a report by a different date from that in previous years. Indeed, a few years ago my right honourable friend the then Prime Minister asked the review bodies to report in January rather than, as had been previous practice, some two months later. There might equally be a good reason for asking it to report a month or two later. It is sensible for the Secretary of State to have the same kind of flexibility in respect of the school teachers' review body. But, as I have said, and as right honourable and honourable friends made absolutely clear in another place, references to the review body will be made on a regular basis.
I hope that I have given some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, and that he will now feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I do not doubt the good faith of Her Majesty's Government in their assurances that the review body will have the maximum freedom to discuss all that it feels it should and can. But I also take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that there are two aspects to the situation. One is the matter of initiating issues to be discussed; how that can and should be done; whether it should be done, as he suggests, via the Secretary of State, and if not that way, what other way. The other matter is the question of whether it has total freedom to discuss matters of its own concern.
I do not believe that the position is sufficiently clear in the Bill as it stands. I am also not satisfied that my proposed amendment makes the position any clearer. In those circumstances I shall think again about the matter and come back at Report stage with perhaps a more carefully thought-through suggestion. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The review body]:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 8, line 8, after ("body") insert ("shall be that number of members which is equivalent to a simple majority of its full membership at the time concerned").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendment No. 8 is to ensure that a reasonable number of members of the review body are involved in agreeing recommendations to the Secretary of State. The amendment provides for a variable quorum of between three, where the minimum five members have been appointed, and five where there are the full nine members.
As presently drafted, Schedule 1 states that,
"The review body shall consist of not less than five and not more than nine members".
It states also that,
1144
"The quorum of the review body … shall be such as the review body may determine".
The combination of the provision for a membership of as few as five and the review body being able to set its own quorum may mean that two individual members of the review body can agree on recommendations to go forward to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. Our view is that that would be unsatisfactory and more specific arrangements in regard to the review body's quorum should be included on the face of the Bill.
In Committee in another place Mr. Fallon said,
"Amendment No. 31 is unnecessary. I agree that some ground rules about how the review body is to operate must be set out in the statute but those need not include detailed 'housekeeping arrangements"'—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A, 14/5/91; col. 85.]
To refer to the issue of minimum membership requirements in the quorum of the review body as merely a discussion on "housekeeping arrangements" seems very curious. It belittles the serious intent of the original amendment and ignores the fact that it is considered an important enough subject to have specific reference in Schedule 1, paragraph 4, of the Bill.
The matter is surely more important than, for example, the expenses for the chairman and members, for which provision is carefully made in the Bill in Schedule paragraph 3. The arguments in support of the amendment are similar to those in support of the amendment which called for the review body to include within its membership people with the relevant knowledge and experience of education. That was not accepted by the Committee.
Essentially, it is argued that without proper safeguards as envisaged by the amendment it would be possible for a small number of people, which may not include any one with relevant knowledge and experience, to make recommendations to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State on significant and wide-ranging changes to both pay and the statutory conditions of employment of school teachers. We want Schedule 1, paragraph 4, of the Bill to read,
"The quorum of the review body shall he that number of members which is equivalent to a simple majority of its full membership at the time concerned".
Further, it should state,
"arrangements relating to their meetings shall be such as the review body may determine".
That is eminently reasonable.
Because the nature of the review body of school teachers is so different from that of other review bodies, we believe that the minimum requirement for its operating quorum should be included within the provisions of the Bill. Mr. Fallon's statement omitted to say what the Government's proposed arrangements for the review body's operation were. Amendment No. 8 provides a further opportunity for the Government to say what their thoughts are on the matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I want to support Amendment No. 8, to which I added my name, from the point of view of my experience of sitting as a member of a review body for a number of years. A great many matters arise of a technical or semi-technical nature. That is why, included as members, there must be a wide

1145
variety of people with a wide range of experience between them, not only carrying out the work, but making recommendations. I regret that we did not accept the recommendation to include two people with educational experience.
Preparing a review body report is an extremely technical job. It needs a wide range of knowledge to produce a good report. If the key people are not there because too small a quorum has been allowed, we are apt to obtain a much worse report than would otherwise be the case.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Perhaps I may comment briefly on the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that the quorum for a review body be defined by a simple majority of the full body. I fear that that would handicap the chairman in his ability to deliver the best possible report, and on time—the latter being of particular importance to the teachers.
We all brought different skills, strengths and knowledge to the interim advisory committee. We were effective because these were directed efficiently. In the final resort it was not just the majority of the committee but the whole committee that met, discussed and was responsible for the report. No one joins such a body lightly. It is an honour and a privilege to be invited to serve. But each individual also has responsibilities to the employer, the employees, the family and not least the bank manager. I believe that it would be very wrong to try to direct how to manage the contribution which is brought to the body. The review body should have freedom in that matter.
Lord Renton: The Bill follows a precedent which has been used dozens of times in our statute law; namely, to allow a quango or any statutory body which we establish to try to choose what its own quorum should be and to do so from time to time. There, Are several good reasons for that precedent. The first is that we expect distinguished and responsible people to be appointed. We should not try to lay down in too much detail the way in which they conduct their proceedings.
I hope that the second reason too is regarded by Members of the Committee as a sound one. There should be limits to the amount of detail that we go into of a purely administrative kind when we enact legislation. Our primary and even our secondary legislation is far more detailed than that found in other European countries. For us to try to depart from precedent for the reasons that I have given is neither necessary nor desirable in this case.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I was going to reply to the amendment in very much the same terms as my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Fallon, and say that it is unnecessary. I accept entirely the sincere wish of the noble Baroness, Lady David, to improve the workings of the Bill. We shall be relying on the review body to make recommendations for the pay and conditions of over 400,000 teachers. Its recommendations will play a crucial role in securing
1146
high quality education for the nation's children. I am sure that we shall also be relying on the review body to decide how many of its members need to be present at every meeting, perhaps making different provision for meetings serving different purposes. It is exactly that kind of flexibility that this amendment would remove.
I do not believe that the noble Baroness wants to put the review body into too much of a straitjacket. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and to my noble friend Lady Denton for giving the Committee the benefit of their experience. I am also grateful for the wisdom of my noble friend Lord Renton. I tend to the view of my noble friend Lady Denton, and particularly so when the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, refers to technical matters. That reinforces the view that the body might have to split up and deal with different things at different times.
The existing review bodies agree their programme of meetings many months in advance. Most meetings are concerned with considering written or oral evidence. It may not be necessary for even half of the members of the review body to attend all such meetings. As my noble friend said, the review bodies consist of many people of different talents. The review bodies are free to set up sub-committees if that seems sensible. Records of all meetings are circulated to all members, who have the opportunity to comment. Drafts of the final report are circulated in a similar way. My noble friend Lady Denton made the point that the report itself, in the final analysis, is the work of the whole review body. With those remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for her support. I am slightly amused in that we have two members of review bodies who take directly opposite views of the amendment, one believing that it is important that there should be a majority and the other not. I do not see how it would handicap the chairman by having the provision. One hopes that if responsible people are appointed to this extremely important body they will not accept the appointment unless they are able to attend most of the meetings. All we are asking for is a simple majority.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, spoke of not putting too much detail into legislation. Asking for a simple majority does not seem to be a small detail. I suggest to him that there is already a great deal of detail in Schedule 1 to the Bill. He may find that there is too much detail. I should like to consult about the matter and read carefully what the noble Lord has said. I may well come back to it at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 9:
Before Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Statement on Resources
.—(1) Section 2(1) and (5) below shall have effect subject to the provisions of this section.
(2) The Secretary of State shall in making or issuing any order under section 2(1) or (5) below in respect of the remuneration of teachers lay before Parliament a statement

1147
that he is satisfied that the resources available to local education authorities in the financial year concerned (whether from locally raised revenue, revenue support grant or fees) are (or, in the case of a subsequent financial year, will be) adequate to enable each such authority without consequential diminishment of resources available to it for other expenditure to make payment to school teachers in the financial year concerned in accordance with section 2(6) (a) below.
(3) Where an order in respect of the remuneration of teachers made in accordance with section 2(1) or (5) below has effect in more than one financial year, the Secretary of State shall before the start of each such year lay before Parliament a statement in accordance with subsection (2) above in respect of that year.").
The noble Baroness said: The new clause proposed in the amendment requires the Secretary of State to make public a statement which can then be debated in Parliament as to the availability of resources in each year to fund an award. The provision does not of itself guarantee funding and neither does it pre-empt resources from other sources. It does not in any way seek to direct public expenditure or create any form of specific grant or hypothecated expenditure as regards teachers' salaries. Under the amendment there would be an examination on an annual basis on whether from the various sources available to them local authorities will have enough money to pay an award made by the Secretary of State without diverting expenditure from other services.
The amendment is not saying that the Secretary of State should necessarily provide additional revenue support grant for the amount of any real increase in pay because local authorities may be able to obtain more revenue through local taxation. However, there are two constraints on authorities' abilities to raise money via the community charge or in future the council tax. The first is capping and the second is the gearing ratio, as it is known in the trade. As to the first, the Secretary of State would need to be able to say either that there had been no capping or that the limits in each case were high enough to enable each authority to fund its award without affecting other services. As to the second, the gearing ratio is currently 4:1 on average under the community charge and 6:1 on average on the projected council tax.
The gearing ratio shows the amount by which local taxation increases or decreases in proportion to an increase in expenditure. Thus in that context a 1 per cent. increase in overall spending to fund the gap in a pay award would produce under the community charge a 4 per cent. increase or a 6 per cent. increase in relation to the council tax. It would then be a matter for Parliament, in debating the Secretary of State's statement, to take a view on the practicability of expecting authorities to levy quite high increases of that kind while at the same time retaining confidence locally in the quality of the local authority administration.
The amendment also requires the Secretary of State to lay a statement in each year where a payment is made over more than a year.
Unfortunately, the Government have left the authorities, as employers, in a rather difficult position in recent years. For example, in 1991–92 the standard spending assessments saw a 7.1 per cent. Increase
1148
overall, with education receiving an 8.8 per cent. increase above budget. However, the interim advisory committee proposed an overall teachers' pay increase of 11.3 per cent. This was not implemented in full by the Government, in that pay was increased in two stages resulting in an overall increase of 8.6 per cent. This still left a £420 million shortfall in 1991–92 compared to the local authorities' estimates of need. In effect, almost the whole of the standard spending assessment increase for education would have been swallowed up by the shortfall in government funding for the teachers' pay increase. Only 0.2 per cent. of the increase would remain for spending on other areas within education budgets where, as I am sure all Members of the Committee will agree, there are clearly very many pressing needs.
At Report stage in another place the Secretary of State said that he would normally expect the standard spending assessments to cover the increase. This is a step in the right direction. What is more worrying was his remedy when the increase would not cover the pay award. He proposed increased efficiency savings, or phasing the award, which is what he did in 1991–92. However, because teachers' pay is such a big chunk of local authority spending, it seems rather unlikely that efficiency savings elsewhere could cover such a shortfall. What in practice would happen is that other services would be cut. Phasing, I am afraid to say, meets neither the needs of teachers who are being denied the full increase recommended by the interim advisory committee, nor the needs of the local authorities and the schools which have an interest in retaining a well motivated, committed and experienced workforce that is not demoralised by low pay. Phasing appears to be the means by which the Government implement recommendations on pay while in practice short-changing the employees concerned. When there is a tight financial situation, it is easier for authorities in the short term to fund a phased award. The long-term interests of the education service, however, lie in fair and properly funded awards which this amendment seeks to reflect.
Unrealistic assumptions, when coupled with pay awards for school teachers arising from the recommendations of a review body, will have a direct impact on the provision of all local authority services. The new clause seeks to address this problem by putting the onus on the Secretary of State to ensure the adequate resourcing of school teachers' pay awards without diminishing the resources available for other things.
It is essential that the recommendations of the review body are properly funded by the Government. Without this commitment there would be the prospect not only of reductions in educational provision and other local authority services in order to pay for a substantial increase in teachers' pay, but also the possibility that teachers may be made redundant so that the local authorities can cover the pay award. I am sure that this is not a consequence which the Government would want to see occurring. The Explanatory and Financial memorandum to the Bill states:

1149
"The expenditure of local authorities on teachers' pay will continue to be taken into account"—
I think those are the words—
"for the purpose of determining revenue support grant";
whereas:
"The expenditure of grant-maintained schools on teachers' pay will continue to be covered by the grants paid to them under section 79 of the Education Reform Act 1988".
The suggestion of different treatment between the LEAs and grant-maintained schools for funding purposes is really quite unacceptable.
In conclusion, statements by the Secretary of State in another place that in certain circumstances the Government may make extra funding available, are reassuring. However, everyone involved in education would be more reassured if this amendment were accepted and put on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I support the amendment. I am sure it will be argued that this is treating the teachers' position in quite an exceptional way. That is not done for other groups which could reasonably be compared with teachers. However, that is the whole point. I do not think that any Members of the Committee will deny that right across the country and across all parties there is acute anxiety about the level of education. The matter must be treated, for a time at any rare, in a quite separate way. Parliament on all sides is very anxious to see that this should be done; it wants to keep a watch on it. It is for that reason that the matter should be reported to Parliament. It gives the opportunity for the great anxieties that have been expressed already to be voiced by parliamentarians and for them to watch. After all, that is one of their major tasks—to watch what the Government are doing in this area of quite exceptional importance.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Perhaps I may make an observation. This is a very important matter and probably the trickiest amendment on the Marshalled List. I do not know whether it fulfils its purpose, which is clear enough: that is, how the findings of the review body Are to work downwards to the teachers themselves in the new and varied circumstances in which t hey will be placed. Up until now the teachers have been given salary scales with increments, very much like civil servants and others in semiprofessional occupations, and where traditionally, if not in any other way, there are long-term expectations of employment. No civil servant regards his incremental scale as something he loses. The scale is there he knows he will get there, subject to efficiency. Therefore he can build his expectations upon the conventions of his vocation.
I understand the heads of schools are now going to have an allocation of the budget of the local education authority. The heads of schools are going to be turned into accountants as well as head teachers. I understand that they are to be given an allocation for their school, based presumably on estimates made to the local education authority on what resources are needed for that school. In these circumstances the differences in the cost of teachers will be important. After all to employ a teacher at the top of the scale will be rather more expensive than to employ somebody at the bottom unless, overall, the staff of schools are to
1150
have a sort of median position and the changes in incremental positions will not substantially affect the overall cost. If head teachers are going to say, "I should like you to come, but you are an expensive teacher and I could manage with a cheaper one", then we have a new factor in the payment of teachers. May it be then, that in these circumstances they are not as secure as they thought they were, either as regards pay or employment?
I do not know what is happening at the present time which can give teachers any assurances on these matters. The review body can look at the profession as a whole. It can prescribe for those in post, for those who expect to be there, and so on. But if, marginally, all over the country there is a certain amount of manipulation of local school budgets, some teachers may find that their jobs disappear. I am not sure whether they can expect completely secure employment. What effect will these new provisions for financing schools and for making heads responsible for the budgets of their schools have on conditions of employment? If some teachers in the same grade are more expensive than others, the unions concerned may say, "It is about time that we had more uniform rates which do not contain this length of incremental progression".
I do not know what the answer may be. Perhaps the Minister can comment on this problem. Does it exist? Is it a fear or is it a reality? What assurances will teachers have that the recommendations of the review body will apply to all teachers in post, and that teachers will not be pushed out of post because of expenditure considerations at a local level?
The findings of the review body must be subject to the overriding decision of Government in any exceptional economic circumstances. However, I am assuming that a review body will be watching that point very carefully and will not make recommendations which it fears the Government will not be able to implement. Review bodies have to be realistic. I should like a reply to that point. Will this be a complexity in the adjustment of teachers' pay under the new reforms? Have the new reforms stabilised to a sufficient extent to enable us to judge possible consequences of that kind?
Lord Belstead: The Committee may be aware that the amendment follows very closely on an amendment tabled by the Opposition in another place. The amendment there was not put to the vote but the honourable Member who moved it explained that the amendment had been tabled because of the need to discover the Government's intentions. It seemed to me that the noble Baroness went perhaps a little more towards the heart of the matter on this occasion.
I shall try to answer the points raised by the noble Baroness and other Members of the Committee. The amendment requires that a statement should be made about affordability. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made the position very clear. At the risk of being tedious, perhaps I may repeat it. If the school teachers' review body recommends, and the Government accept, a pay settlement which would imply expenditure greater than that assumed in education standard spending, then the Government

1151
must consider three options. The Government might conclude that the cost of the pay award could be abated; they might judge that it was reasonable to expect that savings could be found elsewhere; or they might indeed conclude that extra funding should be made available. That would be for the Government to decide at the time in the light of all the relevant circumstances.
In that context, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, suggested that local education authorities should most certainly not be expected to look for efficiency savings. The amendment would in effect remove any pressure for them to do so. It is not right to assume that there is never scope to improve efficiency in education spending without cutting front line provision such as books, removing surplus places or getting the benefits of competitive tendering. I am surprised that the noble Baroness sees these matters differently. No government who see themselves as responsible stewards of public funds would be ready to give a blank cheque. That is basically what the amendment does. Having said that, I believe that the present Government have been ready to meet the review body recommendations. We have a good record.
I also draw attention to what the noble Baroness said in criticism of government funding of teachers' pay. She referred to a shortfall. This year's education standard spending total is some £17,486 million compared with last year's £15,083 million, which represents an extra £2.4 billion more in cash or a 16 per cent. increase. That is a vast amount. Within the assumptions that led to that 16 per cent. increase were three elements relating to teachers' pay; a pay award reflecting the remit given to the IAC last September, the follow-through costs of last year's award and an element for pay discretion. It is the case that the local education authorities say that they cannot afford an award higher than the increases in 1991–92 total standard spending over their 1990–91 budgets. I find that difficult to accept. Let us look at the figures for education alone. The increase in the 1991–92 education standard spending over the 1990–91 budgets is actually around 9 per cent. against the expected cost of the teachers' pay settlement this year of 8.3 per cent. Even that does not give the true picture because it assumes that budgets are the right starting point for making such comparisons. As we all know, they are not.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked about the effect of local management of schools on the remit of the review body. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on that point. But it is a misapprehension to assume that the setting up of the review body and the setting out of its remit will in some way clash with the discretion of local managers of schools to decide on the numbers of teachers whom they employ. That may or may not happen; but in this debate I do not think that I can gallop down that road after the noble Lord.
I noticed that the noble Baroness was careful to explain the wide variations between local authorities in their ability to absorb the costs of additional recommended pay awards through raising local
1152
revenue or through having a greater margin between budgets and standard spending assessments. That illustrates precisely the difficulty that my right honourable friend would face in deciding whether he could meet the terms of this amendment; namely, whether he could reasonably make the statement which he is required to make under Amendment No. 9.
Having said that, I believe that this has been a useful debate. It has given the opportunity for the Government to show that they have a record on education spending of which they can be proud. At the same time it has given me an opportunity to disagree fundamentally with the noble Baroness in the sense that, when one comes down to it, the amendment would mean the writing of blank cheques. That is something to which the Government could not agree.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Of course I am not in favour of blank cheques being written. However, I am concerned to ensure that, where the new pay review body makes clear recommendations which are acceptable to the Government, and indeed to all the parties, there should be adequate funds to make sure that the recommendations can be implemented without other services being cut.
Moreover, if I may say so, it is not the case that I said that local authorities should not seek efficiency savings. Of course they should do so wherever they can. Having worked as a senior official in a local education authority, where my job was to allocate the resources of a very large budget, I was constantly preoccupied with attempts to secure efficiency savings. I said that I thought it was unlikely, as efficiency savings take some time to come through, that, within one year—which is, after all, what we are talking about—there would be enough such savings to fund the kind of shortfall which we may experience in the foreseeable future if there is a recommendation for a substantial pay increase and no matching substantial increase in the revenue funding to local authorities.
If cuts in services were to lead to shortages such as fewer books in libraries, or even the taking of empty places out of the system through school closures, the impact would vary. I am sure that everyone would agree that to reduce the number of books available to children would be an undesirable cut, but that taking empty places out of the system is a desirable and sensible efficiency. However, I must point out that the Government have made it much more difficult for local authorities to close schools as a result of their arrangements for opting out. Any school which is threatened with closure simply goes down that route. If a school's application to be grant maintained is acceptable to the Secretary of State, the local authority cannot reduce the number of places.
The Minister did not say very much about the problem of the phasing of awards—a matter which I raised and which is covered by the amendment. It seems to me that if we are to resort constantly to the phasing of awards, we shall find ourselves in the position where the recommendations of the review body are frequently not being met. It will be most

1153
helpful if, at some point, the Government will explain what their attitude is likely to be to the use of the phasing of awards on a frequent basis.
However, having said that, I do not wish on this occasion to divide the Committee on the matter. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Orders relating to statutory conditions of employment]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 10:
Page: 2, line 35, at beginning insert ("and subject to subsection (1A) below").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 11. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the Secretary of State modifies the review body's recommendations only when he has "clear and compelling reasons" to do so and to make it necessary for him, when he does so, to state his reasons in both Houses of Parliament. It is important that the powers of the Secretary of State to modify recommendations are only used when there are demonstrably good reasons for so doing. Indeed, in his announcement on 17th April about the Government's intentions to legislate the establishment of a review body, the Secretary of State said:
"The Government, for their part, will undertake, as in the case of other review bodies, to implement the review body's recommendations unless there are clear and compelling reasons to the contrary". [Official Report, Commons, 17/4/91; col. 433.]
The Secretary of State's stated intention to implement the recommendations of the review body unless there are such clear and compelling reasons not to do so has not been carried through to the wording of the Bill. It is true that on Second Reading of the Bill in another place the Secretary of State said:
"The Government will be committed to implementing the recommendations of the review body unless there are clear and compelling reasons to the contrary". [Official Report, Commons, 29/4/91; col. 43.]
The amendment would make that the only basis upon which the Secretary of State would be able to modify materially the review body's recommendations. In such circumstances, it would require him to state his reasons to both Houses of Parliament.
As the Secretary of State has used those words on two occasions in another place in stating his intentions, I should have thought that the Government would have little difficulty in accepting the amendment. It must surely be right for him to obtain the approval of both Houses of Parliament when he wishes to make major modifications. Therefore, the onus would be put on the Secretary of State to take the necessary time to consider seriously and objectively whether his reasons for wanting to modify the recommendations of the review body are truly—in his own words—"clear and compelling", in the knowledge that such reasons would be subject to public scrutiny through full debate in Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: As my name is attached to it, I should like to say a few words about the amendment, although I have very little to add to the remarks just
1154
made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. It seems that, thus far, the Government have failed to give any convincing reasons—at least, they have not convinced many of us—as to why they are unwilling to have included on the face of the Bill the clear verbal assurances which they have given, as the noble Baroness said, that they will implement the review body's findings, unless there are "clear and compelling reasons" why they should not do so.
We must remember that the Bill is not for our benefit; it is for the benefit of teachers in the field. It follows, therefore, that the powers to be given to the review body should have the support of as many teachers as possible. For our part, we may be prepared to accept the Secretary of State's assurances, but some teachers may be reluctant to do so. That is entirely understandable, when they know that it is only a few months since the same Secretary of State was assuring them that the first Bill of this kind unquestionably provided the best way forward. But look what happened to that Bill.
The amendment would also oblige the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament the reasons which he regards as being so clear and compelling that he is justified in overturning the findings of the review body. By definition, that should not present him with any great difficulty. Moreover, it is also in keeping with Amendment No. 15, with which we shall deal shortly. Having said that, I am glad to be able to express my support for the amendment.
Lord Belstead: I believe that there is little or no disagreement between the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the Government, that the Government should be able to have the final word on whether a recommended settlement should be implemented. It is fair to say that the spokesman for the official Opposition made that clear in another place. The Government's commitment has been clarified in a way which has generally been recognised as helpful. I refer to the commitment that the recommendations of the review body will be implemented unless there are,
"clear and compelling reasons to the contrary".
That commitment clarifies the way in which the Government would exercise their responsibilities.
That is not the kind of assurance that it would be practical or realistic to enshrine in statute. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said that he could not understand why. We have review bodies for doctors, dentists, the judiciary, the health service, and so on. They have had undertakings given to them by successive Prime Ministers over the years that recommendations will be implemented unless there are clear and compelling reasons for not doing so. Such undertakings have not been put in statute for any of those review bodies. Therefore, I throw the ball back to the noble Lord and ask him why he wishes in this case to put such an undertaking on the face of the Bill. That is what the amendment seeks to do, and it runs into difficulties.
As the amendment recognises, it is the Secretary of State who must judge whether there are clear and compelling reasons for doing other than accept the review body's recommendations. It follows, that

1155
writing the clear and compelling commitment onto the face of the Bill would not require the court to consider the merit of the Secretary of State's judgment and, if necessary, to substitute its own. That is not the way the amendment is drafted. I do not believe that the court should be asked to act in that way. It is not its role. The court would consider only whether the Secretary of State's decision was one which a reasonable Minister, properly considering the matter, would reach.
My right honourable friend's undertaking is clear and firm. It is the same commitment that successive Prime Ministers have made over the years regarding review body recommendations. The amendment would not in practice strengthen that commitment. For that reason, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I cannot resist pointing out to the Minister that during the whole of the 13 years that I was on the Top Salaries Review Body—my memory may be failing me—I cannot remember one occasion when all recommendations were accepted. There were always compelling reasons not to do so. We were summoned to No. 10 and had the compelling reasons explained to us in great detail. One cannot be confident that the remark about compelling reasons will mean that people will receive anything like what the review body recommends.
Lord Belstead: I do not want to cross swords with the noble Baroness about what has happened in the past. My understanding of review body recommendations has always been that they have, over the past 12 years, been accepted, although staged, except in the case of the very highly paid, where alterations have been made, usually at the margins. I shall not sour relations this evening by reminding the Committee of the one occasion 20 years ago that I can remember when a review body recommendation was refused. That led to a great deal of mayhem.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I feel that I should intervene because I have worked under a system similar to the one that is being considered. Over the years Governments have committed themselves to accepting review body recommendations. When the recommendations are made they then find that there is some compelling reason for not meeting them, or they meet them and decide to phase the recommendation, or, in the case of the health service—this is much worse—they agree to meet the recommendation and then expect the cost to be met to some extent from savings. That is a relevant point which is why I want to raise it now.
If the same is done in the case of education, there will be serious consequences for our schools and children. We have had the consequences in the health service. One of the problems caused by the underfunding of the health service has been that, while governments regularly accept review body recommendations for increases, they pay only a proportion of the increase. They require the rest to be met from
1156
savings. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government are committed never to do that. If it is done in respect of education, it will have a deleterious effect on education in the same way as it has had a deleterious effect on the NHS.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord has departed a long way from what the Opposition Front Bench spokesman in another place has said. On Second Reading in another place, the honourable gentleman Mr. Straw said that Opposition right honourable gentlemen and honourable gentlemen did not resile from the fact that, on the basis of clear and compelling grounds, the Government should be able to change or phase in a review body recommendation. I believe that that is a fair resume of what he said. So to put to me that to have the option of phasing in a recommendation, if necessary, is inconceivable, is something that I could not go along with on behalf of the Government.
Lord Rochester: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, replies to the debate perhaps I may respond to what the Minister said to me. I accept that the assurances given by the Secretary of State in respect of this review body are the same as those given by successive governments in respect of other review bodies; but I am sure that the Minister will agree that this review body is unique in that it will be a statutory review body. It is therefore not unreasonable to include within that statute an assurance of the kind sought.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I agree with him that the Government must have the last word on such a matter and that there may be clear and compelling reasons why the Government would want to reject some aspects of the review body's recommendations. However, I am a little surprised that the Government do not want to make a gesture in favour of the teachers by accepting the amendment to make it clear that, unless there are such clear and compelling reasons, the Government will accept the review body's recommendations.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, this review body is different from others because it is a statutory review body, and therefore the proposal contained in the amendment, that where the recommendation is not accepted the Secretary of State should come back to Parliament, is desirable. There may be technical difficulties with the amendment. I am happy to accept that. I should like to consider the matter further and decide later whether to raise it again on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): In calling Amendment No. 12, I should point out that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 15, leave out from first ("employment") to end of line 17 and insert ("a school teacher's contract of employment shall have, or continue to have, effect only so far as consistent with subsection (6) (a) and (b) above").
The noble Lord said: This is another example of an amendment which arises from my concern that the Government have not thought through this legislation as much as they should have done. I shall start with what is obvious: teachers' contracts of employment must be consistent with all the matters covered by an order. There can be no doubt that if there is an order, the contracts must be consistent with it. We do not seek to deny that.
While remaining consistent with the order that the Secretary of State will make when the Bill becomes an Act, it should be possible to build on the basis of the order to take account of local circumstances. That is what we have in mind in the amendment. Such local flexibility already exists under the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987, as any reasonable person would expect. It is puzzling that from the way that the Bill is drafted—I shall return to that point later because there is a complication—it appears that there is no room for manoeuvre.
I shall give an example of flexibility under the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987. The Department of Education and Science made two documents available to me today. One is called School Teachers' Pay and Conditions, the other is a circular called School Teachers' Pay and Conditions of Employment. On head teachers, the document lays down various specific requirements for conditions of employment—namely, that they must be subject to the Education Acts from 1944 to 1988. It then makes clear, using the words that we have in mind,
"and, to the extent to which they are not inconsistent with these conditions"—
that is all the conditions they lay down—
"a school which has a delegated budget",
can lay down additional rules and regulations to take account of the circumstances in which the school finds itself. I can find similar wording on the local authority. Therefore, the concept that such flexibility should exist is clearly acceptable to the Government, as it would be to any reasonable person.
There is a second aspect to the flexibility which we have not debated today; that is everything that comes under Clause 3 of the Bill which relates to grant-maintained schools' governing bodies simply being able to give notice to the Secretary of State that they wish to opt out of the whole pay review structure. We have not debated that today.
En passant, I wonder whether the Treasury has fully understood what it seems the DES is trying to get away with here. I understand that the Prime Minister himself recently said that he would like to see all schools become grant maintained. It would then look as though all schools would become grant maintained according to the Prime Minister. They would all opt out of the school teachers' review body in order to gain flexibility. The whole pay structure would fall apart. That may not worry extreme decentralisers, but if I ware still in the Treasury I would regard it as an economic disaster in the making. That is why I ask whether the Government have understood the Bill they put before us at all.
The key point is that, having pulled the Government's tail on the subject, I assume that the case for grant-maintained schools opting out must be
1158
so that they can fine-tune their requirements to their needs. Therefore, it seems to me that what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and I have put down must be philosophically acceptable to the Government. It must be what they have in mind.
There may be a way out of this. It may be that when the Minister replies he will explain that this is the solution to the problem. Clause 2(4) on page 3 of the Bill states that:
"A pay and conditions order may—
I emphasise "may"—
"(a) confer discretion on the local education authority".
I shall not bore the Committee with the rest of the sentence. Perhaps the noble Lord is about to say that that paragraph covers the flexibility that the noble Baroness and I had in mind. If it does, I prefer the word "shall" to "may", but I throw in the suggestion in case that is the area under which flexibility will appear.
To summarise, it seems to me that the order having been laid down, it would clearly be in the Government's interests, because it would be in the interests of the schools and the local authorities, for them to go on to say, "We shall not infringe the order at all. We will meet the requirements, but we can see ways of building on the requirements to meet our specific needs". That is the point of the amendment and I hope that, even if the Government cannot accept it, they can show a sympathetic response and say that they would like to consider the matter further and perhaps come back to your Lordships. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Like other Members of the Committee, I apologise for speaking now when I did not do so at Second Reading. I make this intervention because I have been talking recently to officials of the Professional Association of Teachers and have been discussing various aspects of the Bill. That association is a teaching union which is perhaps rather generous about its name. Since it has a rule which prevents its members from going on strike, it could perhaps claim the title "Association of Professional Teachers". Be that as it may, the PAT speaks for 37,000 members. Its officials put a question to me which I could not answer with certainty, so I wish to put it to the Minister for clarification. I suspect that the matter interests other teaching unions too.
I ask my noble friend therefore whether the Government expect the review body to recognise all six national teachers' associations as bodies representing school teachers. Is it the Government's view that such recognition should lead to consultation over non-statutory conditions of service and over any discretionary elements contained in a pay and conditions document determined as a result of deliberations of the review body? I should be grateful to my noble friend for clarification.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The structure of the Bill is clear and logical. The review body will make recommendations on statutory conditions of employment; that is, pay, duties and working time. the Secretary of State will then make a pay and conditions order. Once that order comes into force, teachers must

1159
be paid in accordance with the order; the non-pay provisions in the order take effect as terms of their contracts of employment. Their contracts may not then contain any extra provisions on pay, professional duties and working time.
It is important to remember that a distinction is drawn in Clause 1(2) of the Bill between those conditions of service which are statutory, namely remuneration and provisions relating to professional duties and working time, and those which are not. The Bill does not bite on the latter. Furthermore, it contains an important provision, Clause 5(3), which permits particular matters to be defined by order as "statutory" or "non-statutory", thus permitting a very clear line to be drawn between issues which are to be the subject of recommendations by the school teachers' review body, and thus applying uniformly to teachers in the maintained sector covered by a pay and conditions order, and those which can be settled directly between teachers and their employers, locally or nationally as the case may be.
The provisions in the 1987 Act are different in one important respect, in that they give authorities the opportunity to introduce extra conditions of service in the areas of pay, duties and working time, provided that they do not conflict with the statutory provisions. The change reflects the fact that since the 1987 Act was passed we have seen fundamental changes in the way in which our schools are run. Where schools have delegated budgets, the important decisions are taken by the governing bodies. Allowing local authorities to include supplementary provisions in teachers' contracts in the key areas of duties and working time would strike directly at governing bodies' right and duty to manage their schools—to decide for themselves, within the statutory framework, how resources, including staff resources, are to be used to best effect.
Perhaps we may take as an example a local agreement incorporated into teachers' contracts of employment which has the effect of guaranteeing classroom teachers a certain amount of non-contact time during the pupil day. This may accord very well with a governing body's priorities for its staff. But, alternatively, a governing body may have other priorities—say, a greater use of discretionary payments —and might not have wished to adopt the approach decided upon by the LEA.
Another governing body might have wanted to devote some or all of the budget which the authority assumed would be spent on casual supply teachers to increasing the staff complement and thereby reducing class sizes. In recognition of this lighter teaching load through smaller classes the teaching staff might have been prepared to agree that casual supply teachers should be called upon less frequently. Obviously the school would benefit in a number of different ways: fewer lessons would be taught by casual supply teachers who did not know the pupils and much less administrative time would have been wasted in searching for supply teachers from outside the school to cover for absent staff.
1160
Such an arrangement is perfectly possible under the school teachers' pay and conditions document. Those kinds of arrangements already operate in a good many well-managed schools with delegated budgets. However, an arrangement of that kind—the exercise by a governing body of its managerial responsibilities —would be difficult or impossible to operate if, at the behest of the LEA, teachers' contracts guaranteed a fixed amount of non-contact time. Giving teachers more non-contact time is an admirable objective, but, where a school has a delegated budget, it should be for the governing bodies to weigh that against its other objectives for its staff and its pupils.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to Clause 2(4) (a) which allows a pay document to allow an LEA or a school to decide how many incentive allowances to award. The Government have every intention of allowing the LEAs and governors to continue to take such decisions.
Worry has been expressed that some matters which are presently covered in the Burgundy Book of national non-statutory conditions of service might be caught by the definition of statutory conditions of employment and therefore brought within the ambit of a pay and conditions order. It is not the Government's intention that that should necessarily be the case. I have already referred to the power under Clause 5(3) to provide that a particular matter should or should not be regarded as remuneration, or as falling within the professional duties and working time of school teachers, for the purposes of a pay and conditions order. It may indeed be appropriate to make an order under Clause 5(3) which has the effect of ensuring that all matters presently addressed in the Burgundy Book are in future defined as non-statutory conditions of employment, and therefore remain matters for employers and employees to determine. The Government are in principle sympathetic to that proposition, but will need to give careful thought to precisely what matters an order under Clause 5(3) should address.
My noble friend Lord Pearson asked me about the Professional Association of Teachers. The Government consult the association on a wide variety of matters. They will certainly consult the association when they are required, under Clause 2(1), to consult teachers' associations and others about the review body's recommendations. The Bill also requires the review body to afford such bodies representing school teachers as appear to them to be concerned a reasonable opportunity of submitting evidence and of making representations. I have no doubt that the review body, like the IAC, will consult all the main teachers' associations, including the Professional Association of Teachers.
The Bill does not refer by name to any representative body, whether of teachers or employers. It would clearly be inappropriate to single out any one such body for special treatment. Equally, any attempt to include a comprehensive list could act against the interests of a body that came into being or changed its name after the legislation came into force, but I am sure that the Professional Association of Teachers will be among that number.

1161
Non-statutory conditions of employment will continue to be a matter for teachers and employers to decide. It is for the LEAs and the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools to decide which associations to recognise for the purpose of determining non-statutory conditions of service. However, we would naturally expect all six main teaching associations to be parties to local or national negotiations on non-statutory conditions of service such as those at present contained in the Burgundy Book or any matter relating to statutory conditions which are to be decided between employers and teachers under Clause 2(4) of the Bill.
I apologise for having spoken at length on this amendment. I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. If ever there were a case in which one had to say, "I must read what the Minister has said before making a decision", this is it. I do not understand 90 per cent. of what he has just said. If the Professional Association of Teachers understands the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, it will certainly rise considerably in my esteem. It seems to me that the Minister's briefing goes 100 per cent. in the wrong direction. The aim of the amendment is to remove the restrictions that the Bill lays down and to give flexibility. The answer that the Minister gave is exactly the reverse. He is under the impression that there is flexibility once the order is in operation, but Clause 2(7) states:
"the contract of employment of a school teacher shall contain no terms other than those which have effect by virtue of a pay and conditions order".
In other words, the anxiety of the Professional Association of Teachers and of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and myself stems precisely from the terms of that sentence.
Perhaps I may turn to Clause 2(4) (a) which has nothing to do with incentive allowances. It is to do with flexibility. I am worried about the way in which the noble Lord interpreted it. He does not even see that as a way out of the restrictive problem. I certainly intend to read what he has said in great detail and think about it. I shall not be quite as nasty as I am normally by suggesting that he reads his own speech when he has a little more time, but I hope that he will at least give further thought to the matter because it is extremely important. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 16, after ("shall") insert ("(with the exception of any terms not inconsistent with the order in respect of teacher appraisal)").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, which are grouped together, are a continuation and elaboration of the arguments put forward by my noble friend with regard to the previous amendment requating greater local flexibility and using two specific examples. Like my noble friend, I believe that the Minister may have answered some of the questions, but I shall certainly have to read his
1162
answers carefully. I do not know whether he will read out the same answers or whether he will give us different information and advice. I shall give these examples to see whether we shall obtain a little more clarification.
As my noble friend said, Clauses 2(6) and 2(7) do not allow any local variations to be built into teachers' contracts of employment which have a bearing on statutory conditions of service. As the Bill stands, it would prevent local development of issues covered by statutory conditions deriving from, say, appraisal regulations or race or sex discrimination law from being expressed in the contract if there were any provision in the statutory document on the same issue. That cannot be intended. The purpose must be to require the contract, in so far as it deals with matters covered by an order, to include no terms which are inconsistent with the terms of the order. If it were intended to mean what the drafting states, it would he impossible for a local education authority to develop locally any issue covered by statutory conditions.
The wording used in the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987, which established the IAC, allows teachers' contracts of employment to include duties and rights which complement but do not override those covered by statute. The amendment recognises that the review body is in many ways a continuation of the system set up for the IAC procedure and uses the wording in the 1987 Act. As my noble friend said, one wonders how carefully the Bill has been thought through before being presented to another place.
Perhaps I may take the specific example of appraisal. Included in the new 1991 school teachers' pay and conditions documents, under the conditions of employment of head teachers, is a requirement for them to supervise and participate:
"in arrangements made in accordance with regulations made under Section 49 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 for the appraisal of the performance of teachers in the school".
Head teachers are also required under those regulations to:
"participate in arrangements made for the appraisal of his performance as head teacher, and that of other head teachers".
Similar requirements are laid down for school teachers on the standard scale and for deputy head teachers.
The regulations are due to be published shortly and will cover such areas as the aims of appraisal, the appraisal cycle, the appraisal procedures and the use and retention of appraisal records. The regulations will be accompanied by a detailed guidance circular from the Department of Education and Science. That is the statutory framework. If that were to be replaced by the terms of an order the new framework would have to be abandoned.
At Committee stage in another place on 14th May Mr. Fallon said:
"It is, I believe, widely accepted that the review body should consider pay, duties and working time in the round. It follows that recommendations that are accepted by the Government should take effect without gloss or addition…Allowing local authority employers to include supplementary provisions in teachers' contracts in the key areas of duties and working time strikes directly at the governing body's right and duty to manage its school, and to decide for itself within the

1163
statutory framework how to best use resources and how to deploy and manage staff".—[0fficial Report, Commons; Standing Committee A, 14/5/91; col. 105.]
Mr. Fallon attempted to introduce a red herring. The Government's own appraisal regulations, which establish a national framework to be applied at local level by the "appraising body", make that body the LEA. In the future that role of the LEA may well include its own detailed arrangements as a further gloss on the statutory provisions brought in by way of a pay and conditions order.
Mr. Fallon's view that allowing local authority employers to include supplementary provisions in teachers' contracts in the key areas of duties and working time strikes directly at a governing body's right and duty to manage its school is irrelevant in the context of appraisal. Except in the case of grant-maintained schools appraisal is specifically a duty of the LEA.
Amendment No. 14 argues for a specific exemption for local statutory conditions giving effect to provisions of race or sex discrimination legislation. The amendment also follows on from the more general amendment, which seeks to give local authorities more scope. Amendment No. 14 seeks to ensure that local LEA policies deriving from race or sex discrimination legislation would not be rendered unlawful because they overlap with statutory conditions introduced by way of a pay and conditions order.
If, at some future date, statutory conditions relating to race or sex discrimination were to be introduced by way of a pay and conditions order, any existing orders or regulations issued under race or sex discrimination legislation might well overlap with the terms of the new pay and conditions order. LEAs may already have developed local issues deriving from legislation.
As presently worded, the Bill states that:
"so far as concerns his statutory conditions of employment, the contract of employment of a school teacher shall contain no terms other than those which have effect by virtue of a pay and conditions order".
If that wording is retained it would presumably be impossible for LEAs to implement local arrangements arising from orders and regulations issued under race or sex discrimination legislation where a pay and conditions order covers the same ground.
I should like a little more reassurance. I hope that the noble Lord will not have to repeat all of his last speech, but we need clarification on those subjects. I hope that the examples which I have given will help the Minister to clarify the position. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I support the amendment. I share the general confusion about the Government's policy in this regard. I always understood that the whole point of local financial management, enhanced powers for governors and parents and all the rest of the worthy measures which have been introduced was to give greater flexibility. Are we wrong in thinking that the Bill as it stands greatly reduces flexibility? If it does, what is the point?
1164
I am genuinely confused and am not trying to score a point. Are we moving towards greater flexibility and greater opportunities for parents and governors to make decisions suited to their schools, or are we not? If we are, are we wrong in thinking that the Bill as it stands prevents that from happening? We should be delighted to be told that we are wrong.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I shall not read the speech I made earlier. I, too, shall have to do some rather careful reading because this is not a simple subject. In this case I shall give two answers, and they will be different.
In moving the amendment relating to appraisal. the noble Baroness argued that local education authorities need to be able to oblige their teachers, through their contracts of employment, to participate in local arrangements for the appraisal of school teachers. I understand that that is a matter which the local authority employers have already raised with Ministers.
Perhaps I may explain a little of the background. There is, I believe, general agreement in this Chamber, and in another place, that a national system of teacher appraisal should be introduced. It is generally recognised that appraisal will help teachers to realise their potential and to carry out their duties more effectively. Accordingly, the Government will shortly lay regulations before this Chamber which require LEAs and governing bodies of grant-maintained schools to ensure that the performance of all school teachers is appraised. The intention is that LEAs and governing bodies of grant-maintained schools should have the scope within the parameters set by the regulations to introduce their own local arrangements. Concern has been expressed that the effect of Clause 1(7) of the Bill will be that LEAs will be unable to include in teachers' contracts the duty to comply with those local arrangements.
I believe that that concern is unfounded, and I hope that I can reassure the Committee. The present school teachers' pay and conditions document lists the present statutory professional duties of school teachers. One of those duties is:
"participating in arrangements made in accordance with regulations made under section 49 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 for the appraisal of his performance and that of other teachers".
It is thus a contractual duty for every school teacher to participate in the arrangements which the LEA has made under the regulations. In other words, an LEA can put in place local arrangements and require its teachers to abide by them, provided that the arrangements are consistent with the national framework of appraisal which will soon be put in place by the regulations.
There is therefore no contradiction between the structure of the Bill and the powers and responsibilities of LEAs under the forthcoming appraisal regulations.
I turn now to the subject of race and sex discrimination. The noble Baroness has raised an important point, and I am very grateful to her for

1165
doing so. She asked me whether we had thought everything through, and perhaps I may concede a little here.
The Government believe, for the reasons I have explained, that so far as concerns pay, duties and working time the contracts of employment of school teachers should not contain terms other than those which have effect by virtue of a pay and conditions order. The noble Baroness has drawn attention to the fact that both the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which impose duties and responsibilities upon the employers of teachers, provide that an act committed by an employee is treated for the purpose of those Acts as if it were done by his employer whether or not it was done with the employer's knowledge and approval. In other words, if a teacher in discharging his or her professional duties commits an act which, if done by his or her employer, would contravene the provisions of either the Race Relations Act or the Sex Discrimination Act, the teacher's employer will be held responsible.
It is true that an order made two years ago under Section 222 of the Education Reform Act provides that, where a governing body of a school with a delegated budget is exercising its staffing powers and is not itself the employer of the staff concerned, that governing body, rather than the local education authority, is treated for the purpose of those acts as if it were the employer. However, I accept that it is in the legitimate interests of both the LEA and the governing body to ensure that the contracts of employment of individual teachers include the duty not to act in a way which would amount to discrimination by their employer under existing legislation on race and sex discrimination. As matters stand, the employers would be unable to do that.
That said, I do not believe that an amendment of the kind proposed by the noble Baroness is the best way to achieve that purpose. When the Bill was drafted it was envisaged that there might be matters which, although falling within the definition of statutory conditions of employment, it would be quite right to regard as exceptions to the general principle set out in Clause 2(7). That is one of the purposes for which Clause 5(3) was included in the Bill. As the noble Baroness is aware, that clause gives the Secretary of State the power to provide that a particular matter is, or is not to be regarded as a statutory condition of employment. That would enable the Secretary of State, by defining the matters in question as not being statutory conditions of employment, to ensure that employers could still include in teachers' contracts the necessary provisions with respect to sex and race discrimination.
But I believe that there are likely to be other matters requiring to be similarly excluded. The precise scope of each exclusion will need further detailed consideration in consultation with those concerned. I therefore believe that Clause 5(3) provides a better way of addressing the problem that the noble Baroness has identified than attempting to do so through an amendment or, if the list of exceptions is to be exhaustive, a series of amendments to the Bill itself. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for
1166
raising this important point. I can assure her that the Government will consider most carefully how the effect of what she intends can be best achieved through a Clause 5(3) order.
Baroness Seear: Forgive my stupidity over this, but I am afraid that I am not understanding. I am not particularly concerned in this context with the bits about race and sex discrimination, or about appraisal. Is it, or is it not, going to be the case that, if you are in an inner city school, unable to recruit and experiencing the most frightful problems of getting and retaining staff, you still have to provide exactly the same sort of pay and conditions for your teachers as if you were in, say, Harrogate?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I shall have to come back to the noble Baroness on that, if she does not mind. I do not have an answer to that to hand.
Lord Rochester: Before the noble Baroness replies, may I intervene briefly? In the light of his doubts, is the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, prepared on behalf of the Government to look at this again with a view to perhaps himself bringing forward something at the next stage which would help to meet the anxieties expressed by both the noble Baroness, Lady David, and my noble friend Lady Seear?
Baroness David: I am exceptionally pleased that I brought forward these amendments and that my noble friend Lord Peston brought forward Amendment No. 12. It seems that there is uncertainty on the part of the Government as well as the rest of us about what the Bill intends in all this. I hope that the Minister will do what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked. I think that the Minister has admitted that there is a lack of clarity about this matter and that it needs looking at again.
Would the noble Lord agree to look at the whole of this again and possibly come forward with a government amendment, or at any rate write to us in the meantime to tell us the Government's thinking? In the meantime we shall read extremely carefully, with towels round our heads, what the Minister has said and try to understand it, make sense of it, and look again at the part of the Bill he has quoted. May I ask him to respond to that?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I shall certainly look at the debate and see what has been said. I shall do what I can to be helpful. But it must always be borne in mind, and I must repeat, that there have been changes, and that since 1987 the way things are run has altered. Where schools have delegated budgets and the governing bodies are making important decisions, we are keen to see that go forward. Against that background I shall look at it. I am sure that the noble Baroness accepts that it is firmly our policy to give the school governing bodies with delegated budgets their head.
Baroness David: Yes, but that has not quite answered my question. Will the noble Lord have another look at this amendment and either come back

1167
with another amendment or write to us so that we know how best to pursue the matter? It clearly needs pursuing, and it will be pursued at Report stage.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am conscious that there is unfinished business here. I am not prepared to commit myself about what exactly I am going to do, but I wish to be helpful in the matter.
Baroness Seear: If our interpretation is right this is a tremendously important point. For example, perhaps the noble Lord can sort this out. Supposing you are somewhere like a bad inner city area, where you cannot get people because of the most ghastly housing conditions. Is it going to be quite improper for the school governors to offer housing assistance to someone to get him into that area because that is not in the terms and conditions?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: What I am really saying is that under the arrangements we are proposing problems such as those which the noble Baroness has raised are going to be eased. However, I want to study this and I shall certainly be writing to the noble Baronesses.
Baroness David: If the Minister says that he wants to study this, that satisfies me and I am grateful for what he has said. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 30, leave out from ("case") to end of line 32 and insert ("no such order shall be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I regard this as one of the most important amendments that we have to discuss. The arguments are clear cut. It is plain from Clause 2(9) that if the Secretary of state decides to make,
"any material modification to recommendations of the review body",
his decision will be subject to annulment only by a negative resolution of either House of Parliament. We feel strongly that a decision to reject the review body's findings should be validated by an affirmative resolution in both Houses. I was going to say that that is not simply because we are here talking about an annual pay bill of around £10 billion. I may not have heard the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, correctly but I think he said at an earlier stage that we are talking about a pay bill considerably higher than that.
However that may be, in responding at Second Reading on 21st June to the arguments advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and myself on this matter, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said at col. 366:
"The use of the negative resolution procedure is parallel with the procedure used by other review bodies."
He said that indeed in some cases there was no parliamentary procedure at all.
I understand that. But the review body for school teachers, unlike all others, as a number of us have had
1168
occasion to say before, is to be a statutory body set up by Parliament. It is therefore Parliament that should positively take responsibility if the body's recommendations are to be rejected by the executive. That is the procedure now operative under the 1987 Act, which established the interim advisory committee, and it was in fact last used in this House under that Act only two weeks ago.
I shall not again remind the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, of the precise words he used in support of that procedure when the interim advisory committee was being set up in 1987. At Second Reading he said that in quoting his earlier words I was for once perhaps being rather less than fair in that I was not comparing like with like. I am sorry that he should have felt that, and readily acknowledge that Parliament was earlier providing only for interim arrangements and that now an independent review body is being established.
But it is—and I cannot emphasise this too strongly, and the noble Lord will understand that it is a general feeling on this side of the Committee—precisely because this is to be a statutory body that the issue is of such concern to us. It is in the belief that that view is shared by other noble Lords that I commend this amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: I should like to support this amendment. Indeed, I put my name to it. I have little to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has said, and I do not want to take up the time of the Committee in echoing him. He put it extremely well. This seems to us to be an important constitutional safeguard. It was one that existed in the 1987 Act, and we think that it ought to go into this Bill too.
Lord Belstead: With respect to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, I think that this amendment, which would require a pay and conditions order to be subject to affirmative resolution if it materially modified the review body's recommendations, overlooks to a considerable extent the procedures that are followed in implementing settlements in other public sector pay groups. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said that there was a difference: one was a statutory matter, and the other was not. Perhaps I may remind the House that, for example, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, makes regulations on police pay subject only to the negative resolution procedure. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland can reject the decisions of arbitrators on teachers' pay by negative resolution and substitute his own views without any reference to Parliament. Perhaps the most significant point is that both the pay and conditions of staff in the National Health Service, whose remuneration is the subject of recommendations by two review bodies, are simply approved by the Secretary of State for Health without any parliamentary procedures at all.
Baroness Blackstone: I apologise for interrupting the Minister. But would he not agree that the circumstances are different in this case? In the case of the other review bodies the Government are both the paymaster and the ultimate employer. In this case the

1169
position is quite different because the Government are imposing a decision on a quite different employer—that is, local authorities.
Lord Belstead: I recognise that it is different. If the noble Baroness will forgive my saying so, it is a little bit simplistic in the sense that the Government share the costs with the employers. There is a major factor (which I will come to in a moment) which to my mind makes clear that the procedures under the Bill compare very favourably with the examples I have given and therefore emphasise the case for not agreeing with the amendment.
Perhaps I may deal in passing with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, made about the 1987 Act. The noble Baroness has mentioned the same one. When I was dealing with the Bill in 1987 I referred in approving terms to the need for an affirmative resolution; but we were setting up an interim advisory committee, not a review body. I believe that the precedents for a review body which I have just mentioned are a formidable argument.
It is important to make the point that under the Bill the review body is subject to a wealth of consultation. Under Clause 1(5) the review body is under a duty to give notice of matters referred to it, and of any directions from the Secretary of State, to all interested parties—local authorities, voluntary schools, grant-maintained schools and teachers' organisations. That means matters are brought entirely into the open. Under Clause 2(1) the Secretary of State is required to consult interested bodies before giving effect to the recommendations. Here, I believe that lines 35 to 38 of page 2 of the Bill are crucial, for they mean that the Secretary of State's own reference to the review body will constrain what he is able to put into effect. If the review body decides to make recommendations outside the matters referred to, it can do so under the Bill. However, according to the wording of lines 35 to 38 or. page 2 the Secretary of State cannot possibly make up things of his own volition outside his own original reference to the review body. If at the end of that wealth of consultation the Secretary of State decides to implement the majority of the recommendations in full but makes one or two changes at the margins—perhaps in response to points made in the consultations—I question the desirability of having to resort to an affirmative resolution.
I believe that here is a case in the Bill where the affirmative resolution desired by noble Lords opposite does not take account of other review body procedures or the provisions of the Bill which would set up a review body with a wealth of consultation. I have reached the conclusion that the parliamentary procedures provided for in the Bill (of which, incidentally, I notice the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is availing herself in two orders against which she is praying on Friday week) are the right way forward. For those reasons, I ask the Committee not to agree to the amendment.
Lord Rochester: I do not think that I and my noble friends are altogether satisfied by what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead has said. This is a special case and should be treated accordingly; but if this matter is to
1170
be pressed, it should be done at a time when there is a more representative number of noble Lords present. I undertake to do the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, the courtesy of carefully reading what he has said; but I give notice that we may well return to this at a later stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Special provisions as to grant-maintained schools.]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 35, after ("school") insert ("of the relevant size").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 3 deals with special provisions as to grant-maintained schools. I should like to make it clear that the amendments to Clause 3 which we put down do not suggest any change in our attitude to grant-maintained schools. We still intend to abolish them when we come to power. In the meantime, we have to do the best we can for teachers in those schools and we have put down a series of amendments. The first one is No. 16, which is grouped with No. 17. I speak to both amendments.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that only schools of a reasonable size are eligible to opt out of the national pay review body. At present, it will be possible for any grant-maintained school to opt out of the national pay review body and conduct its own negotiations with teachers. Since the Secretary of State recently changed the criterion for the opting out of primary schools to allow those with fewer than 300 pupils to apply, even very small schools can potentially opt out of the national pay review body. The Bill allows the Secretary of State no scope to refuse such applications. This amendment would limit those eligible to opt out of the LEA and apply for grant-maintained status to the larger primary schools of over 300 pupils, which were the only ones eligible when the ERA was first introduced. Under this amendment secondary schools would also need to have more than 300 pupils, but very few secondary schools have fewer than that number. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I could not anticipate the reasoning behind the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David. If I understand it correctly, it relates to the principle that big is beautiful. I find that principle difficult to accept. It is unfair to schools whose size does not meet this criterion; in particular, it is unfair to primary schools. If I read it correctly, I share common ground with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in believing that perhaps in the past the focus on this sector has not been as great as deserved. Some of the best teaching, governing and teamwork goes on in primary schools, and to take away from them the decision-making process given to larger schools would be unfortunate. My experience on the IAC was that many teachers saw LMS as a threat; but in those schools where it had been introduced, we found that the freedoms were welcomed and used by head teachers to benefit both teachers and pupils. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would have been pleased to know that rather than

1171
losing teachers, teachers had more time to teach and support was given to them. More discretion to manage given to those who manage must be for the good. To restrict it by size, often generated by geographical and not academic factors, would seem to me not to be desirable.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I could interject briefly to refer to the private sector. I hope that it will not cause the noble Baroness too much irritation. There are a number of prep. schools, many with fewer than 300 pupils, which manage their affairs financially and otherwise with great success, producing a very good education. I think that "small is beautiful" may apply here too.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I hope that the noble Baroness will not think me discourteous when I say that, with her customary clarity and eloquence, she said that there was no change in the policy of the party opposite so far as concerns grant-maintained schools. Having had a quick look at the Marshalled List, I was not surprised to hear her say that. We have not reached Amendments Nos. 21 and 23, but the first of those amendments has the almost breathtaking effect of making it possible for the Secretary of State just like that quite simply to prevent a grant-maintained school from opting out of the national pay arrangements; and Amendment No. 23 would allow the Secretary of State to revoke an order which permitted a grant-maintained school to opt out of the national pay arrangements, if it were said to:
"be conducive to the development of the education service in the area concerned".
I have spent the past 25 years of my life debating across the Floor of this Chamber whether a mixed provision of education in any particular area is or is not conducive to a good education service. I see clearly from the amendments which have not yet been discussed that yes, indeed, the view of the party opposite towards grant-maintained schools has not changed. The policy is to do away with them if, as the noble Baroness said, it ever has the chance to do so. I only hope that it will not get the chance because I believe that grant-maintained schools are a thoroughly good idea. I am absolutely delighted that the numbers are constantly going up.
Having said that, the logic of this amendment is difficult to grasp. As the Committee knows, it is now possible for any primary or secondary school to apply for grant-maintained status. I agree with my noble friend Lady Denton, who made the very valid point that this amendment would create an unfair divide between small grant-maintained schools and the rest, the implication being that the governing bodies of small schools are not capable of operating local pay and conditions arrangements.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will forgive me when I say that we, on this side of the Chamber, cannot go along with that. Once a school of whatever size has obtained grant-maintained status there is no justification for withholding the flexibility allowed to other schools in the sector. If a governing body is
1172
capable of dealing with a whole range of other responsibilities that it will assume when the school becomes grant-maintained—and the Secretary of State will not agree to a proposal unless he is confident that it is capable—I can see no reason why it should be prevented from applying to make its own arrangements for pay and conditions if it wishes to do so.
There may well be an occasion when a governing body does not want to take on the additional responsibility of local pay determination or feels that the national arrangements are sufficiently flexible to meet its needs. Then it will not make an application to the Secretary of State. But, speaking for this side of the Chamber, I believe that it is right that schools which can become grant-maintained should be allowed to avail themselves of the opting-out provisions in this Bill if they wish to do so.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Before the noble Lord sits down I wonder whether I may press him a little on his statement—I think I use his words—that the number of grant-maintained schools is constantly going up. I understand him to have said that. In fact, the whole business of opting out is a complete failure by any standard. I wonder whether he has with him figures on the number of schools that have been given grant-maintained status. Perhaps he could tell us the number that is in the pipeline—when I ask questions on this point, I am always given the number "in the pipeline".
Perhaps he could compare that figure with the thousands of schools which are eligible to apply for grant-maintained status. I think that after all this time, all the publicity and all the pressures from the Government about how good the scheme is, he will probably find that the figure for schools is something of the order of 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. Does he concur with that view or will he say a little more about it?
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord is quite right to throw that question at me. My memory is that about a year to a year and a half ago the figure was around the 50 mark. I think I am right in saying that today between 70 and 80 schools have opted out. Hence I used the expression that the numbers are constantly going up. I believe that that is true for the past 18 months and I stick by that.
Perhaps I may make just one other point. I took the precaution of visiting grant-maintained schools. I know that there is absolutely no question about it. Of course in the best and indeed many good local education authorities, schools are proud and pleased to be part of the maintained system. Nevertheless, there are occasions when schools are benefiting for the good of their children from becoming grant-maintained.
Baroness Blackstone: Does the Minister agree that an increase of 20 over a year is hardly a huge number? To suggest that numbers are going up seems to be a little exaggerated in my view, if one considers that figure as a proportion of the total number of schools in the country. Indeed, is it not the case that yesterday

1173
the Prime Minister had to make a speech exhorting more schools to opt out and proposing new measures to encourage them to do so?
Lord Belstead: No, I stick by what I said. I said that the numbers are constantly going up and they are. Perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness that when the Education Reform Act was passing through this Chamber, although the Government first resisted, the House wrote consultation procedures into the Bill. Those consultation procedures take time. Meanwhile the numbers climb.
Baroness David: I shall not go into that argument at the moment. My amendment seems to have caused some surprise. The assumption of the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, is wrong. I do not think that big is necessarily beautiful. It seems to me that for a very small grant-maintained primary school to go into the system is rather stupid. Probably the governors would not want it. Let us hope that if they do not wish it, they will not have to do so. I certainly do not disagree with what she said about primary schools and the teaching in them. Some of the best of our schools are primary schools. Some absolutely excellent practices start there I am entirely in agreement with her on that point.
Private schools are not part of the national system and I do not believe that they need come into our discussion at all. I shall consider the matter. Certainly I shall withdraw the amendment at this time. It is quite interesting, however, to have had the discussion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line 42, leave out ("consult") and insert ("allow a period of not less than two months for consultation with").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is easily explained. At present, under subsection (2) of Clause 3 the governing body of a grant-maintained school is under a duty merely to consult its teachers before applying for exemption from a pay and conditions order The governing body is not obliged to allow a minimum period of time for such consultation.
The amendment suggests that if proper consultation is to be ensured—the Government have agreed to the principle—a governing body should allow for a period of not less than two months in which consultation can take place. The Government do not have a good record concerning the time that they have allowed for consultation before making major changes in education. For example, in preparing for the introduction of the Education Reform Bill in autumn 1987, they decreed that the consultation process should take place during the period of the summer holidays when schools were closed and governing bodies did not meet. I know from what happened in Cheshire that that was deeply resented at the time. The amendment suggests that teachers—and, if the next amendment is agreed, parents too—shall be permitted a reasonable period in which to respond to a proposal from a governing body to make an application for exemption from a pay and conditions order. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord is right. Clause 3(2) requires governing bodies to consult their teachers before making an application to opt out, a change that has been made to the Bill since it started in another place. It is true that the Bill does not specify any of the details required for consultation. However, it is clear from case law that in order for consultation to be genuine sufficient time must be allowed to enable those being consulted to make informed representation. But precisely how long that will be will depend on the circumstances of the case.
For example, I should imagine that the length of time needed to carry out a meaningful consultation in a small primary school would be rather less than in a large secondary school with many staff and perhaps based at more than one site. Governing bodies will always have to act in accordance with the requirements of administrative law. Beyond that, the nature of the consultation—including the length of time it takes—is, rightly, a matter for individual governing bodies to decide.
It is inconceivable that governing bodies of grant-maintained schools, which are responsible for the success of their schools and have every interest in maintaining good relations with their teachers, would apply to opt out without giving those teachers a reasonable opportunity to comment on their proposals and giving careful consideration to their comments. That is why the Government were ready to put "consultation" into the Bill. If governors failed to do that, they would almost certainly be in breach of their duty to consult under Clause 3(2).
On the grounds that the effect of the amendment —which simply inserts a two-month period—would not be suitable in some cases although it might be in others, and that that aspect is covered already in what was a move by the Government to try to meet opinions expressed in another place about the need for consultation, I resist the amendment.
Lord Rochester: At Second Reading I gave credit to the Government for having accepted the principle of consultation in this regard. That was not the case with regard to the first Bill.
It is because there will be different circumstances that the amendment proposes a minimum period of two months. The noble Lord has stated that the procedures for consultation should be reasonable. The amendment suggests that a reasonable period should be allowed for consultation.
I am disappointed by the noble Lord's response. However, it is not a matter that I press further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 4, line 42, after ("consult") insert ("(a)").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 20. The aim of the amendments is to include consultation with parents as well as teachers of children when a grant-maintained school wishes to opt out of the review body. The Bill requires that only school teachers employed at a GM school need be

1175
consulted before an application is made to opt out of the pay review body. That ignores the interests of parents of children at the school.
In introducing their legislation on opting out in time for the Education Reform Act 1988, the Government stressed the importance of parental choice. Parents were given the right to ballot on the decision for a school to opt out. Parents have an interest in the overall organisation of the school. The arrangements for the pay of teachers are an important element in that. The pay of teachers represents about 80 per cent. of the school's budget.
It therefore seems logical for parents to have the opportunity to be consulted on such an important change as the decision of the school to ask to opt out of the national pay review body and to run its own negotiations, in particular when one considers how important parents are as regards running the school.
I shall be surprised if, in the light of their views about the importance of parents, the power that they should have and the degree to which they should be involved with schools and the education of the children, the amendments do not receive the support of the Government. I hope that they will be able to accept both amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 19.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The noble Baroness, Lady David, wishes to require governing bodies of grant-maintained schools to consult parents of pupils at the school before applying to opt out of the national arrangements. Her amendment is perfectly clear. I have listened carefully to what she says. But I remain unconvinced that such a requirement should appear on the face of the Bill.
What is appropriate is for governing bodies to consult the teachers in their schools before applying to opt out. They are, after all, the people most directly affected by such a change. Although there is strictly no need to include such a requirement in the legislation, the Government have listened to concern expressed in another place during discussions on the previous Bill, and Clause 3 of the present Bill contains such a requirement.
It is not appropriate, however, to write on to the face of the Bill a provision of the kind which the noble Lord suggests. Contrary to what the noble Baroness said, I remind her that grant-maintained schools, by their very nature, are uniquely responsive to the wishes and interests of parents. Their governing bodies include five parent governors. It is quite possible that the governing body of a grant-maintained school considering whether to apply to opt out might decide to consult parents more directly, and it will of course be free to do so. But such decisions must be for individual governing bodies, as managers of their schools, to take. It is not a matter in which it would be appropriate for the Government to intervene. In consequence, we oppose the amendment.
Baroness David: We do not seem to be achieving the success I should have wished. Teachers may be the people most directly involved, but many parents are
1176
on the governing body which runs the school. I am surprised that the amendment has been received so coldly.
The Minister gave some reassurance that parents will be involved in some ways. I do not intend to press the amendment at this stage of the evening. I shall read what the Minister has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 2, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may at his discretion").
The noble Lord said: Under Clause 3 the Secretary of State has no option but to accept an application by the governing body of a grant-maintained school to be exempted from a pay and conditions order. The amendment proposes that he should be given discretion as to whether he accepts or rejects such an application.
The amendment is designed to guard against governors putting forward a plan that the Minister felt was unacceptable because it did not make adequate provision for pay determination by means other than the review body, or because he considered that it might in some other way be detrimental to teachers or pupils in the school in question or at other schools controlled by the relevant education authority.
In deciding to opt out, a school may plan to use financial incentives to poach teachers from other schools in a way which would be damaging to education in the area as a whole. In some other way the Minister may feel that there are grounds for believing that a governing body is not truly representing the views of teachers or parents. I do not suggest that such contingencies are likely but they are possible. Surely it is only prudent to guard against them. That is what the amendment seeks to do.
In view of the earlier strictures by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, directed at the Labour Opposition I make it plain that in moving this amendment I am not taking the opportunity to call for the abolition of all grant-maintained schools.
Baroness Blackstone: I support the amendment. What concerns us about the present arrangements in the Bill is that they make it potentially possible for a grant-maintained school to offer higher remuneration to teachers, particularly in subjects in which it is hard to recruit staff; for example, science, mathematics or design technology. Therefore, teachers may be poached from other schools in the area leaving the pupils in those schools without adequate provision in those subjects.
I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that that would be an undesirable situation. Poaching could take place by a grant-maintained school which may have acquired additional resources in one way or another, perhaps through a bequest. That would allow it to pay more. Such a school may use funds which it had managed to save through efficiencies or cuts to attract teachers from other schools in the area to the detriment of those schools.

1177
For those reasons it seems desirable that the Secretary of State should have a discretion to intervene in such circumstances. I support the amendment.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Earlier, my noble friend Lord Belstead explored eloquently this question. It is pleasing to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, say that not all grant-maintained schools will be closed. I do net know whether the same commitment will come from the Benches opposite. Perhaps there is a slight difference of emphasis between the two policies.
Baroness Seear: I suggest that there is a total difference between the two policies.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I accept that.
Perhaps I may make it clear how opting out will work. Under the provisions of Clause 3 the governing body of a grant-maintained school which wants to opt out of the national pay and conditions arrangements is simply required to apply to the Secretary of State indicating the date from which it wishes the national provisions to be disapplied. On receipt of that application the Secretary of State is required to make the necessary order: the Bill as drafted does not give him any choice in the matter.
The amendment would leave the Secretary of State with the discretion not to approve a grant-maintained school's application. I do not think it appropriate, still less practicable, for the Secretary of State to become involved in the internal managerial decisions of a growing number—and it is growing—of grant-maintained schools. Governing bodies, not the Secretary of State, are in the best position to judge what is best for their staff and their schools. In applying to opt out of the national arrangements they will be making a management decision which is properly theirs to make, having consulted their teachers. There is no good reason why such a decision should be subject to the Secretary of State's approval.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, raised the question of poaching. Employers must be free to behave as such. It would defeat the whole purpose if the Secretary of State were to be constantly looking over their shoulders. However, as regards poaching, we believe that it is for governors of individual schools, where there are delegated budgets and staffing powers of LMS with more extensive freedom given by grant-maintained status, to take the best decisions for their schools and respond to the wishes of parents and the particular needs. The noble Baroness said that somehow more money could be obtained. There is no evidence to suggest that, as regards poaching, a grant-maintained school would be at an advantage over any other school in the circumstances. I resist the amendment.
Lord Rochester: Again, I am not convinced by the response of the noble Lord. However, I do not believe that this is a matter which I should press further and, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 5, line 6, leave out ("other") and insert ("later").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that a minimum of three months' notice from the date of the application of a grant-maintained school to opt out of the pay review body is provided for on the face of the Bill. At present the Bill allows the Secretary of State to agree to a date for a grant-maintained school to opt out of the pay review body and conduct its own negotiations earlier than three months from the date of application. That would mean that theoretically the Secretary of State could allow the school to opt out of the pay review body immediately without allowing any notice if the governing body were to agree.
There is little point in having a requirement for the governing body to give three months' notice written on the face of the Bill, as in Clause 3(3), if it can be ignored when the Secretary of State makes an order to allow a school to opt out. The amendment will ensure a minimum period of three months' notice. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I understand the point which the noble Baroness makes. I hope to be able to reassure her.
Clause 3(4) is drafted as it is because there may well be times when either the Secretary of State or the governing body itself in the light of changing circumstances feels that it would be appropriate to alter the date from which the national provisions should be disapplied. We would not expect this to happen often, and I would expect that the new agreed date would almost always be later than that specified in the notice of application. But there may also be exceptional circumstances when it makes sense to bring the date forward, perhaps by a day or two—for example, to ensure that a school is able to introduce its own arrangements from the very beginning of an academic year. While this is likely to happen only very rarely, it is clearly sensible to retain the maximum possible flexibility to enable decisions to be taken which are in the best interests of schools and their staff.
The noble Baroness may say, "That is all very well, but that is just the Government speaking and it is not on the face of the Bill". Indeed, she felt that the provision could be used to allow an immediate disapplication without, as it were, proper consultation. The answer to that is that clearly this power will have to be used responsibly. But I should emphasise that the date can be changed only if the governing body and the Secretary of State agree to change it. My right honourable friend would not agree to a change, particularly to an earlier date, unless there were good reasons for doing so. Moreover, the Secretary of State and the governors will, as always, be subject to the general legal requirement to exercise their powers reasonably. They will always, therefore, need to consider carefully the effect of their intended action on the individuals concerned, particularly in the light of the governors' consultation with their teachers.
I understand the reason why the noble Baroness raises this matter. I realise that we disagree philosophically about grant-maintained schools, but perhaps she may feel that it is right to leave this provision in the Bill in the light of the assurances I

1179
have given. The last reassurance about reasonableness may help considering that consultation has now been written into the Bill.
Baroness David: I thank the Minister for his explanation. His reply is reassuring, particularly as he says that there is a necessity to act reasonably. With that reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 5, line 8, at end insert:
("(4A) The Secretary of State may, where he is satisfied that it would be conducive to the development of the education service in the area concerned, withdraw any order made under subsection (4) above after giving not less than three months' notice to the governing body").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendment No. 23 is to enable a grant-maintained school that so wishes to opt back into the review body system and cease its own negotiations. Clause 3(1) (b) implies that opting out of the pay review body is not absolute but time limited. The words are:
"for the time being exempted".
The possibility of opting back into the pay review body is not made explicit on the face of the Bill. It is not clear how a grant-maintained school that finds itself in difficulty with negotiations and decides that it would prefer to become part of the pay review body again can do so. The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to withdraw the order made when the school applied to opt out of the pay review body and allow the school to become part of it again.
The criterion that the Secretary of State would need to consider would be that such a change was conducive to the development of the education service in the area. Therefore he would need to consider whether on educational grounds such a reversal was justified. The amendment makes clear that when considering the application he must consider the education of the area as a whole and not just the children in the grant-maintained school. That is important. It is odd that that option is not allowed in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will again be able to give a reasonable answer and perhaps accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I am not sure that acceptance and reasonableness necessarily go hand in hand. In this case I hope that I shall be reasonable but I do not believe I can accept the amendment.
The amendment would imply a continuing role for the Secretary of State in monitoring what happens once a grant-maintained school has opted out of the national pay and conditions arrangements. In the Government's view that would be entirely inappropriate. Once a school has opted out, the pay and conditions of its staff will be a matter for the governing body. Governing bodies are the employers of their staff and must be free to behave as such. It would defeat the whole purpose if the Secretary of State were to be constantly looking over their shoulders with threats of revoking the order which gave them that freedom.
I know that there are gaps in philosophy between the two sides of the House on matters relating to grant-maintained schools, and I am afraid that this is one of them.
Baroness David: That answer was not as satisfactory as the last one. I do not quite follow why the Minister says that the Secretary of State would have to monitor the situation the whole time and be looking over the shoulders of governing bodies to see what is happening. Under the amendment it would be for the grant-maintained school to ask to opt back into the system of the pay review body. The school would simply make the request.
I shall not press the amendment. Our attitude to grant-maintained schools is not particularly friendly so I shall not go to all that much trouble to take their part. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Midland Metro Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at five minutes past eight o'clock.

  AFRICA: FAMINE RELIEF
  AFRICA: FAMINE RELIEF
  UN: SECRETARY GENERAL'S SUCCESSOR
  UN: SECRETARY GENERAL'S SUCCESSOR
  DIPLOMATS FROM EASTERN BLOC COUNTRIES: TRAINING
  DIPLOMATS FROM EASTERN BLOC COUNTRIES: TRAINING
  POLICE OFFICERS: INSURANCE COVER
  POLICE OFFICERS: INSURANCE COVER
  UPTON GREY SCHOOL, HAMPSHIRE
  UPTON GREY SCHOOL, HAMPSHIRE
  MoD HEADQUARTERS: STAFF REDUCTIONS
  MoD HEADQUARTERS: STAFF REDUCTIONS