Sitting of 14 May 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LLANELLI BOROUGH COUNCIL (DAFEN ESTUARY) BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Health Plans
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of health plans to meet health needs in regional health authorities.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): Every regional health authority has submitted to my Department a plan for 1991–92 putting forward its key objectives and setting out levels of activity to be purchased to meet the health needs of its population. Regions are also developing strategies to improve health based on health needs identified in director of public health reports, which are published annually.
    Mr. Carrington: My right hon. Friend will be aware that inner London is facing considerable problems in adjusting to the new structures of the national health service because of the high cost of London teaching hospitals. Will he reassure my constituents that the availability and quality of their health care will be assured under the new contracts?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is not fair to say that the problems facing London derive from the reforms. Everyone concerned with the national health service knows that there have been long-postponed issues to do with the division of NHS resources between London and the rest of the country, to which the reforms are indeed drawing attention. The regions and districts, together with the Department of Education and Science and those who have responsibility with us for teaching, must steer London carefully through the reform process.
    Mr. Salmond: If the Minister is so confident that the planning and changes that he is introducing into the NHS have support, why are the Government so intent on appointing so many card-carrying members of the Tory party to positions of responsibility in the NHS? Are the members whom he is appointing a greater or smaller
    136
    proportion than the extraordinary number of Tories who have been appointed to positions of responsibility in Scotland?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am not particularly interested in the party affiliations of those whom we appoint. We have appointed a good many people from other parties, although not, the hon. Gentleman will understand, within my responsibility, from his party.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware—I gather from his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) that he is—that in my part of the world, in Lancaster and the north-west, we are glad that resources are at last being channelled to our area? We run our affairs prudently and are not short of staff or laying off staff.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right, and I do not think that, fundamentally, there is any division between the two sides of the House on the issue. There needs to be a fairer distribution of health resources across the country. The reforms are clearly resulting in our making decisions in London that have been long deferred by both parties. We must do that, but we must do it skilfully.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why will not the Secretary of State publish all the business plans of all the trusts and all the documents that have been submitted by those organisations to his Department? The public should know the truth now. The debate in recent weeks has been about that, so let us see the documents and let the public know the truth.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The debate has not been quite about that. There are a variety of management documents for directly managed hospitals and trusts that have not been prepared for publication. Many trusts are perfectly prepared to publish the documents, and why should they not do so if they choose? But it would be unfair on them to change the goalposts half way through and ask them to publish internal management documents that were not prepared for publication.

    Child Abuse
    Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the Children Act 1989 on the handling of child abuse cases.
    The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The Children Act 1989 will have a major impact when it is introduced five months from now, in October. It provides a proper framework to safeguard the child as well as the parents and will promote firm action to protect the child when necessary.
    Mr. Day: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Children Act recognises fully the importance of the role of parents?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The Children Act redresses the imbalance in terms of recognising the on-going responsibility of parents. Two new orders are the emergency protection order, which enables parents to return to court after 72 hours to put their case, and the child assessment order, which means that the child can be assessed without removing parental rights.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware that there appears to be a deliberate campaign of misinformation in certain sections of the press about the role of social workers in child abuse cases? Will he take the opportunity of the implementation of the Act in October to launch a public information campaign, setting out the rights and duties of parents under the legislation and also the rights, responsibilities and duties of local authorities and the social workers whom they employ?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I certainly endorse the hon. Gentleman's point. However, the decisions that social workers must make are enormously complex. If social workers remove a child needlessly, they are castigated; but if they do not remove a child and it is abused, they are also castigated. Sometimes it appears that there is a ritual abuse of social workers.
    In implementing the Act we are determined to clarify the rights of parents. The Family Rights Group, for example, has been working on a handbook for that purpose. We are also determined to clarify the role and responsibility of social workers. If they can remember that their prime duty is the welfare of the child and the need to have clear evidence, they may be able to avoid some of the pitfalls that have occurred in recent cases.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend consider, when looking at the aftermath of child sex abuse cases in the past two years, giving child psychotherapists a primary responsibility for identifying whether a child should be taken into care? I ask that because, as my hon. Friend knows, the modern social worker is a generic animal and does not have the specific child care knowledge that the old-style children's officer used to have.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Skilled and professional workers should also know the limit of their knowledge and there are clearly times when they need to seek further expertise and advice. Our major implementation programme for the Children Act is unprecedented in child care. I recently announced a further package of initiatives, amounting to £1 million, to deal with various aspects of child abuse. One of those involves the treatment of victims of child abuse. The aspect that my hon. Friend indentifies is part and parcel of the matters on which we hope to make further progress.
    Mr. Rooker: I think that the Minister appreciates that there is a good deal more common ground on that issue than on many that come before the House. What action is being taken to remedy the acute shortage of qualified social workers to implement the most significant piece of child care legislation for the past 100 years? If 50 per cent. of local authorities are to implement the Act on the financial basis of cuts or no growth, how will they meet the strict new timetables laid down by the courts for the detailed and rigid assessments required, given that shortage? How will the social service departments avoid families becoming child abuse statistics if they do not have the resources to operate what must be the ultimate user-friendly service?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's point about the spirit of co-operation that underlies the implementation of the Act. Because of the resource implications, this year local authorities, in their personal social services standard spending assessments, have seen an increase of 23·5 per cent., which is the biggest increase
    138
    in money going into social services for 15 years. Moreover, there has been a 40 per cent. increase for social worker training, amounting to £50 million.
    I recently hosted a meeting with local authority representatives, social services inspectors and directors of social services and talked about how we could secure the commitment of long-term social workers to the service. We considered manpower, training and deployment issues. Many local authorities could do better in deploying their existing work force. We have more social workers and more of them are well qualified, and we must use them as effectively as we can in implementing this important Act.
    Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend will know that the Children Act arose as a direct result of the Cleveland child sex abuse scandal. How does she react to the fact that my constituents who were caught up in that scandal are still, seven months later, waiting for compensation? It should have been paid to them, but is being held up because of the solicitor acting on behalf of the local authority and the doctors involved, who caused the scandal in the first place.
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend played a major role in drawing attention to the situation in Cleveland and championing the cause of his constituents. I am happy to report that when the social services inspectorate went back to Cleveland relatively recently, it was most impressed by the way in which lessons had been learned and the new procedures implemented. I have no information available on my hon. Friend's specific worry, but I shall take up the matter on his behalf.

    Mental Health Foundation (Mid-Staffordshire)
    Mrs. Heal: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the Mental Health Foundation of Mid Staffordshire national health service trust.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): We have every confidence that this trust will continue to raise the quality of care available to its NHS patients.
    Mrs. Heal: Does the Minister agree that the only way to guarantee the highest quality of standards and services for people with mental illness is to ensure that the mental health services stay as an integral part of health and social care? We must not allow them to opt out, operate separately and sell their services to general practitioners and hospitals, thus providing a fragmented service that will allow patients to fall through the net.
    Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that mental health services must be an integrated part of the national health service, which is where they remain when they are run by NHS trusts. I hoped that the hon. Lady would use the opportunity of her question this afternoon to welcome the fact that the trust has already employed 20 additional staff in the mental health services of Staffordshire since 1 April and is committed to a further 20 staff before the end of this year. I hoped that she might also welcome the commitment to quality of service by the trust which is shown by the introduction of patient questionnaires, regular surveys of long-stay patients and a medical audit, the setting of standards and by the facts that 90 per cent. of all staff have attended training on quality

    139
    and public meetings are being held every two months. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would welcome at least some of those facts.

    Guy's and Lewisham NHS Trust
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the Guy's and Lewisham national health service trust.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The long-term future of the Guy's and Lewisham national health service trust will ultimately be determined by the willingness of districts and GP's to send patients there.
    I am confident that the managers and clinicians at Guy's and Lewisham will continue to ensure that high-quality, cost-effective patient care is provided to meet the needs both of local people and of patients from further afield.
    Ms. Ruddock: Will the Secretary of State guarantee that no two-tier service will develop in Lewisham? Is he aware that the two fund-holding general practitioners from Bromley have applied to the trust for a contract that not only asks for accelerated waiting times but demands that all their patients are seen by locum consultants and senior registrars? Will he instruct the trust not to accept that contract, or does he believe that my constituents deserve a second-rate service?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I should have thought that the hon. Lady might welcome the new and better services that many of her constituents are receiving and would turn to the districts and say that they should match that performance in their contracts. It is a pity that she did not mention, for example, the new children's unit that is to be opened at Lewisham hospital this week to replace the 119-year-old unit at Sydenham hospital—perhaps she will be at its opening.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is dangerous, cynical, electioneering nonsense to talk about a two-tier system? Will my right hon. Friend make it 100 per cent. and unequivocally clear that the health service trusts are not opting out of the health service and are beholden not to big business, property developers or shareholders but to the best possible care of patients?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, if they are opting out of anything, it is bureaucracy. As every doctor must have been trained in an independent, board-run hospital, it strikes me as ironic that so many of them seem to find the idea surprising.
    Ms. Harman: Will the Secretary of State answer the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock)? Will there be queue-jumping at Guy's and Lewisham, which will mean that, instead of patients being treated according to clinical need, some patients will have to wait longer and be treated by more junior members of staff because a minority will be able to jump the queue? Is that the system that we shall see at Guy's and Lewisham?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Lady is confused. It is for Guy's and Lewisham, as a hospital trust, to set its proper priorities for clinical care. Those who are seeking better
    140
    treatment for patients, whether they are districts or GP fund holders, are doing their best for their patients and should be encouraged to do so.

    Severely Disabled People
    Mr. Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements will ensure severely disabled people have control over their own personal assistance arrangements under the community care proposals.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Our guidance to local authorities emphasises that service users, including severely disabled people and their carers, should be involved as closely as possible in decisions about what services should be provided to them individually. Section 46 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 also requires that local authorities consult representatives of users and carers in preparing their community care plans.
    Mr. Hannam: Does my hon. Friend accept that when local authorities cannot provide the personal assistance that severely disabled people need if they are to live independent lives in the community, the present practice is that those local authorities can make cash payments to allow disabled people to buy in those services—and that that should be allowed to continue? Does she recall that she and other Ministers and the Audit Commission supported that idea in principle, and will she look for a way of putting it on a statutory basis?
    Mrs. Bottomley: As my hon. Friend is well aware, it has not been possible to find a way to break the long-standing tradition in which local authority social service departments provide services and social security departments provide financial resources. As my hon. Friend knows, I am most sympathetic to the approach that says that those who are severely disabled should feel as far as possible in control of their destiny and of the care that they receive. In our practice guidance we shall emphasise that as strongly as we can.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Lady accept that for such disabled people to have a real choice they need consultation and representation of the sort embodied in the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986? The section to which she referred does not go anything like as far as that Act in ensuring that disabled people's voices are adequately heard so as to ensure valid choice for them.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I do not accept that. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) in which many of these issues were discussed. Since the passage of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act, care for and understanding of disabled people have moved forward at a great pace and the philosophy of "Does he take sugar?" is, I hope, a thing of the past. The National Health Service and Community Care Act overtakes the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act; but we shall of course keep the matter under review once the formal requirements to consult the users and the carers on plans and assessments have been implemented. The local authority associations have been given a clear commitment, as have others

    141
    concerned with the disabled, that we shall continue to review the matter once community care is fully implemented.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the hon. Lady aware that the fundamental issue here is one of human dignity and independent living for disabled people? How does she respond to the letter in The Times from her hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), published last Thursday, about the need to end the legal impasse? Is she aware of the widely held view among disabled people, as reported by the Spinal Injuries Association, that the Government's attitude on this issue is "patronising and ill conceived"? Will she act now to give them both choice and the fullest possible control over their own lives?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I very much hope that all the energy and commitment of the many organisations concerned with disabled people will be transformed into working with local authorities and their community care plans. Local authorities must have those plans drawn up within the year. They have to consult users and carers in that work, and I believe that the special protected position of disabled people under the Act should be broadened to ensure that community care moves forward as fast as possible.

    Waiting Lists
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been conducted on the relationship between the length of national health service waiting lists and the availability of private practice.
    Mr. Patchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will initiate a study into the effects of the availability of private practice on national health service waiting lists.
    Mr. Waldegrave: We have not conducted, nor do we plan to conduct, any research into the relationship between private practice and national health service waiting lists. However, we are determined to tackle long waiting times for NHS treatment. The NHS management executive is agreeing tough targets with all 14 regional health authorities for substantial reductions, by March 1992, in the numbers waiting over one year for treatment.
    Mr. Marshall: Is not it a disgrace that, three months after John Yates, the Government's former waiting list expert, drew attention to the fact that private practice by national health service consultants may be leading to longer waiting lists for NHS patients, the Government have done nothing about it? The Secretary of State's reply is just not good enough. Will he assure the House that an immediate investigation will be carried out into this matter, or does he simply intend to expand his party's two-tier health service, which means priority for private patients and longer waiting lists for national health service patients?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has exactly and correctly reported Mr. Yates's views. If the hon. Gentleman will produce evidence to back what he says, I shall look into it. The hon. Gentleman presents yet a further argument in favour of national health service trusts. Those trusts will hold the contracts
    142
    for their consultants, and it will be open to them to negotiate with their consultants if they wish to see them carrying out more national health service work.
    Mr. Patchett: Given the evidence of Mr. John Yates to the Select Committee, does not the Minister recognise the need for a study of this matter and the possible dire consequences to the health service if it is ignored?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that my previous reply answers the hon. Gentleman's question. If the baying of Opposition Members over the issue of independent practice by doctors were drawn to the attention of the British Medical Association, it might dampen the association's enthusiasm for anything that might lead to a Labour Government.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that whenever the Public Accounts Committee has looked at any alleged negative relationship it has found none? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the whole issue of waiting lists is simplifed so that health authorities who remove people from the waiting lists are paid after they have performed the required service?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I confirm that my hon. Friend is right. There has never been any evidence to show what has been alleged. There is unfair reporting of the matter. One of the newspapers that supports the Opposition, the Daily Mirror, reports another of Mr. Yates's ideas, which is to give incentives to doctors who do well in reducing waiting lists. However, the Daily Mirror reports that in most unfair terms as being a dreadful thing to do. I am not sure whether the Labour party is in favour of Mr. Yates or against him.
    Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend not be drawn along lines that confuse the issue but confirm that the national health service is what it says it is, what it has always been and what it always will be—a service that is available when needed and free at the point of need?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I have no difficulty in fully endorsing that. In response to these questions, I re-endorse an element of the policy of the national health service's founding Minister, Mr. Aneurin Bevan, who made a historic compromise with consultants when he allowed them independent practice in NHS hospitals.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State aware that the BMA does not represent consultants? If he wants to know what consultants think, he should talk to their representative groups. Would he ask them to explain why, over a recent holiday weekend, the trust in my area simply stopped taking in patients because it did not have a senior registrar available to do the work?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that Mr. John Chawner would be confused to be described as not representing consultants. He regards that as his job and he certainly represented them when he saw me a few days ago. I am willing to admit that, in the few weeks in which they have been in existence, the trusts have not solved all the problems of the national health service. There are still problems, but I assure the hon. Lady that the management delivered by her NHS trust will be much better than the traditional management, which created these problems in the first place.

    NHS Funding
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the real growth in capital spending in the national health service since 1979.
    Mr. Dorrell: Gross capital expenditure in the national health service in England has grown by 62 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79.
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that it includes more than £40 million-worth of new capital investment in the North Hertfordshire district health authority area? Those projects are well appreciated by those who live in the areas concerned, especially as the projects were cancelled by the Labour Government.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right in his figures and in drawing a favourable comparison between our record and that of our predecessors. In the past 12 years, capital investment has increased by 62 per cent. in real terms while under the Labour Government it decreased by 16 per cent. in five years.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree, that as he knows all too well, in the St. Helen's and Knowsley hospitals area investigations show that capital and other funding has always been undercut? Now that we have hospital trusts—both hospitals have opted out—are we to understand that the hospitals will get no more capital and that there is no hope of our ever having the capital that we should have had over the past 15 years?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has not quite caught up with the Leader of the Opposition. The funding argument is over. The Labour party is clearly on the record as saying that an incoming Labour Government would have no new money for the national health service. The question that the hon. Gentleman asked me is one that he should put equally to the Opposition Front Bench.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Does my hon. Friend agree that while, we welcome the additional resources that have been made available in the eastern region, in formulating hospital policy big is not necessarily beautiful? I cite, for example, the unsatisfactory proposal to move the world famous Papworth hospital into the already over-large Addenbrooke's hospital.
    Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that big is not necessarily beautiful. In designing future NHS provision, it is important to ensure that it meets the identified needs of patients. That is the priority that we have established through the establishment of the purchaser-provider split. We have ensured that it is the principal responsibility of the new health authorities.

    NHS and Community Care Act
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of local authorities to discuss the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Ministers regularly meet representatives of local authority associations to discuss a range of matters, including community care implementation. They last met them on 16 April.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister recall telling the Leonard Cheshire Foundation conference recently that caring and costing are related? If so, what has she told local authorities about community care? More than half the local authorities are having to make cuts in their community service provision and in their grants to voluntary bodies. Those cuts are necessary if authorities are to fulfil their statutory obligation to implement their part of the care in the community policy.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I was honoured to speak at the annual general meeting of the Leonard Cheshire Foundation, which provided an excellent example of care in the community. Perhaps those who were wasting money on the £1·5 million National and Local Government Officers Association's advertisement last week should have paid attention to it. In talking with local authority associations, we are discussing the 23·5 per cent. increase for social services this year, which is in part the result of phase 1 of the community care programme. We have taken the unprecedented step of providing specific grants for voluntary organisations which provide drug and alcohol support as well as introducing a specific grant for the mentally ill. In short, the meetings with local authority associations integrate caring and costing. We make it clear that the Government will support community care and we look to local authorities diligently to implement the policy.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Has the Minister grasped the sharp increase in charges that social services authorities are having to make for disabled and elderly people? Is he aware that the average rise in charges for home helps is one third, which is four times the rate of inflation? How many elderly people does the Minister know whose benefit has increased by a third in the past year? Does it not make a mockery of care in the community if elderly and disabled people have to pay for the care that they need?
    Mrs. Bottomley: What is clear is that local authorities need to think through their charging policies. As hon. Members will know, Derbyshire, for instance, provides one in three of its elderly residents with a home help, and charges nothing. There has been a dramatic expansion in community services, with an increase of 30 per cent. in the number of day centres for the elderly, an increase of 25 per cent. in the meals on wheels service and a 27 per cent. increase in the number of home helps.
    As local authorities implement the community care policies, it is essential that they manage their resources effectively and well. The spending of social services departments has risen by 52 per cent. in the past 11 years. We are already clearly identifying the cost of implementing community care and, in turning that policy into practice, local authorities must ensure that they achieve good value for money.
    Mr. Kennedy: When the Minister comes out with statements like that about the reality of community care, she seems to pay no attention to the findings of the Radio 4 programme "You and Yours", on which she was interviewed last week. The programme carried out an in-depth analysis of the subject, across the whole country. Does the Minister accept that—according to the clear evidence that emerged from that process, and the direct feedback from those who were involved and consulted, community care is in a catastrophic state because of underfunding and because of the delays to which it has

    145
    been subjected? Anyone who has talked to those in the local social services departments will inform hon. Members on both sides of the House of that.
    Mrs. Bottomley: As I hope that all hon. Members will agree, the key issue is that the challenge of caring in the community affects all our constituents as demographic factors change and expectations rise. We must harness the good will of the community to meet those care needs, to provide carers with practical support and to ensure that our provision is truly user-led rather than producer-driven.
    Local authorities, health authorities, voluntary organisations and the private sector certainly need the two years that it will take them to phase in community care. We have already made a start with the mental illness and drug and alcohol treatment facilities, the training and the complaints procedure. We look to local authorities to work with us in a constructive partnership to implement what is a popular and very important policy.

    NHS Doctors
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors were working in the national health service in 1979 and in 1990.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The number of doctors in the national health service in England has risen from 61,554 in 1979 to 72,446 in 1989.
    Mr. Field: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it represents a record of achievement, under a Conservative Government, of which we should be proud? More doctors are spending more time with their patients, and there are fewer of those patients.
    Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House, however, that the taxpayer's pocket is not being misused to allow a tiny minority of doctors to practice politics rather than patient care?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the Government for the major increase in the number of medical and clinical personnel in the NHS. That is reflected in the many more treatments that have been afforded to our people.
    On the Isle of Wight, my hon. Friend may have come across one general practitioner who seems able to spend a great deal of time outside his surgery.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Secretary of State accept that members of the British Medical Association in Bradford voted by a large majority against the establishment of the Bradford health trust? Does he agree that the cuts announced so far—a £7 million cut and 300 redundancies—have done nothing to allay those doctors' anxiety?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman now agree to open the books? Will he allow the publication of the business plan and the Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte financial report, and will he allow the Select Committee on Health, which is to interview the chief executive and the chairman next week, to question both officials fully and thoroughly about evidence that is published and available to them?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Select Committee needs no encouragement from me to carry out its questioning, and I am sure that it will do so excellently.
    146
    The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that there will be 300 redundancies in the trust. There is no question of that. The underlying problems of that hospital, which go back many years, are now being tackled by much better management, and the hon. Gentleman will soon see a hospital with a secure and successful future.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under the old arrangements, a significant and regrettable minority of GPs treated their patients with less than the full care that we would expect and that the current much more positive response from GPs is already being manifested under our new arrangements?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that they were always a very small minority. The new GP contract, which is delivering major improvements in services to all our patients in this country, shows that GPs are providing ever better service. It is characteristic of the Labour party, I am afraid, to oppose the new GP contract.

    NHS Trusts
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he is giving the Northern region health authority in respect of future applications for national health service trust status.
    Mr. Dorrell: We have made it clear that trust status is our management model of choice throughout the NHS.
    Ms. Armstrong: Is the Minister aware that there is deep resentment and anxiety in the Northern region about the Government's pushing hospitals to go for opted-out status? I am particularly concerned about the financial viability of the north-west Durham health application. Will he guarantee today that the business plans in connection with that application and others will be published so that people who now feel anxiety will be able to see for themselves precisely what the future offers?
    Mr. Dorrell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already dealt with the question of the publication of business plans. I remind the hon. Lady that NHS trusts have an obligation to publish reports to the local public. That obligation is entirely new—it was never in the traditional model of management of the national health service.
    Mr. Devlin: Is not the situation in inner London rather different from that in the Northern region? In inner London there are 82 consultants and 420 beds per 100,000 population, whereas in the Northern region there are only 26 consultants and 260 beds per 100,000. Does that not show that in the past 10 years the Government, through the 39 major capital schemes in our region, have shown an unequalled commitment to the improvement of the health service in the Northern region, which is now being demonstrated by the number of local hospitals that wish to take on trust status so as better to serve their local population?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the difference between experience in London and that in the Northern region. He may be interested to know that experience so far of Northern region trusts is that the three existing trusts, in the six weeks that they have been in existence, have already created 11 new consultant

    147
    posts. One might have hoped that the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) would welcome that.
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will gather information on the experience of national health service trusts, with particular reference to staffing and finance.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Trusts are required to publish annual accounts and reports about their work. They are also required to submit business plans to the Department. They are free, however, to determine the number of staff they employ and to set the terms and conditions they offer them. We are confident that trusts will deliver real benefits to their local communities.
    Mr. Foulkes: Would the hon. Lady care to estimate how long it will be before she receives the first application from the directors of an NHS trust to go completely private? Will she give an absolute assurance that if she is still the Minister and the present Government are still in power they will do absolutely nothing to enable NHS trusts to become completely private hospitals?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I find it positively incredible that a member of a party that cut resources for the health service in real terms, cut the capital building programme and cut nurses' pay, should have the outrageous cheek to ask a question of that sort. I can give the hon. Gentleman a clear assurance that NHS trusts are intended to ensure better management of the national health service for better patient care. That is what we have invested in the health service for, that is why we have increased the number of staff, that is why we have improved the training, and that is why we are now improving the management structure—to provide better patient care. There is no hidden agenda; there is no intention whatsoever that NHS trusts should do anything other than remain part of the national health service.
    Mr. Sims: Is it not a fact that the national health service trusts came into operation just six weeks ago and that, while of course it would be perfectly valid in a year or two to evaluate how they are working out in practice, the present campaign by the Labour party against trusts, when they have barely started, is completely phoney?
    Mrs. Bottomley: As my hon. Friend will know, the Opposition, having so singularly failed to deliver when they were in control of the health service, now indulge in a policy of scaring rather than caring. We have seen it all before. We had it with general practitioner contracts and with the indicative list, and now we have it with trusts. We on the Conservative Benches know that we are right to be carrying forward between management plans for the health service.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Minister confirm that she has again appointed Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte to study the information that she is receiving from the second wave? Will she this time allow the public who use the hospitals to see the report? Does she recognise that after the cuts at Guy's, Leeds and Bradford, the public this time will not fall for promises? The public will want to see the business plans to judge for themselves whether this time the promises about trusts are any less empty than they were last time.
    Mrs. Bottomley: What is clear is that we have revolutionised the amount of information that is available about the way in which the health service is managed. We shall not make public the report from Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It will be one of the many reports to the Secretary of State giving him the information on which to base his decision whether to establish a trust, the purpose of which is to satisfy himself that better patient care will be available. That will also be safeguarded by the contract with the district health authority, which is the champion of local people and improved services.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has excellent and detailed plans to increase spending on public services by £38 billion in the next three years? What would be the effect of substituting an uncertain £20 billion along with socialist cuts and taxes on earnings?
    Mr. Major: If a £20 billion increase were substituted for our present plans, it would certainly mean a substantial reduction in services across the board, no doubt including the health service as well. On the other hand, if there is to be £20 billion in addition to the spending plans that we have proposed, it would undoubtedly lead to large and significant tax increases across the board.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister think that any citizens' charter should include giving people the right to vote on whether they want their local hospitals to opt out?
    The Prime Minister: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has previously said, I am very surprised that he has so little faith in the medical people who make those decisions.
    Mr. Kinnock: Even the Prime Minister must know that the "medical people", as he refers to them, whenever they have voted, have voted by majorities in excess of 80 per cent. against opt-out. [Interruption.] I will provide a list later.
    Does the Prime Minister recall saying, just last Friday, that he trusts the people? Why does he not trust the people enough to allow them to vote democratically on whether they want their local hospitals to opt out? What is he afraid of? Why is he always running away from the ballot box?
    The Prime Minister: Why does the right hon. Gentleman always run away from the facts? He is wrong on the subject of medical people and, as for trusting the people, we have trusted the people to make decisions more in the past 10 years than any Labour Government ever would.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister now answer my question? Will he give people the right to vote on whether hospitals in their localities should opt out?
    The Prime Minister rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is no use hon. Members' shouting, "Answer" unless they give the Prime Minister a chance to do so.
    The Prime Minister: What a remarkable question from the leader of a party whose education spokesman would take away the right of parents to decide what nature of schools their children could go to.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To people in unskilled work, wages or a salary of £20,000 a year may seem very good pay indeed, but does my right hon. Friend feel that a level of pay of £20,000 a year makes a person rich—rich enough to be taxed at the horrendous levels now being spoken of by the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: Only a genuine Leveller would think that £20,000 a year was rich these days. Certainly, no doctors, police constables, police sergeants, fire sergeants and others would think that. The reality is that average earnings and take-home pay have risen substantially in recent years. Only the Labour party could produce taxation policies to penalise people on modest incomes. Were it to implement all its plans it would be penalising not only people on modest and average incomes but every taxpayer.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Ewing: As the Prime Minister has demonstrated his intention to hold the 1992 European summit in Edinburgh, would he also accept that Scotland's international diplomatic role could best be served not by inviting Europe to our capital city for a few days every other year but by enabling Scotland to play her full international role as a member of the European Community in her own right 365 days a year, especially against a background in which the people of Scotland have shown that independence is their preferred constitutional choice?
    The Prime Minister: Scotland has played a very honourable role in international affairs as part of the United Kingdom for a long time and it will continue to do so in that fashion. I am glad that the hon. Lady welcomes the fact that the European Council will be meeting in Edinburgh. It think that the people of all Scotland, but especially Edinburgh, will welcome that too.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend to raise £5 billion per year from the proceeds of privatisation in the next Parliament? Will he also confirm that if that revenue were not forthcoming, it would be necessary either to reduce public services dramatically or to raise taxes and to increase public borrowing to an unacceptable level?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It would seem from what the Leader of the Opposition has said that the Labour party is planning either dramatically to increase taxation or dramatically to cut spending on public services. Privatisation has not only raised significant resources to liquidate parts of the national debt but has dramatically improved the performance of the companies
    150
    concerned. We shall continue with policies of privatisation. I think that that will be much more welcome to people than increasing borrowing on the scale that a Labour Government would envisage and increasing taxation, which is what Labour has always delivered.
    Mr. Bradley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bradley: To ensure that a citizens' charter for the health service has real meaning for the people in my constituency, will the Prime Minister confirm that as 100,000 people have signed a petition to protest at the proposed closure of Withington hospital and its maternity unit, and as 3,000 people joined hands around the two-mile perimeter to protest about the plan, such overwhelming support will mean that citizens have the right to retain their local hospital and that the Government have a right and duty to honour their views?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, matters of that sort are dealt with in the first instance by the health authority, and I think it is better that they should be. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman about the citizens' charter—an idea that I first began to consider and to speak publicly about in 1987—is that it will provide far greater redress for the citizen than ever before.
    Sir Richard Luce: Is it not becoming clearer day by day that the Labour party is coming out in its true colours as the party of high spending and high taxation—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must ask a question about the Prime Minister's responsibility.
    Sir Richard Luce: Did not my right hon. Friend reflect when he got up this morning that the Labour party is coming out in its true colours—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is no good.

    United Nations
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to pay an official visit to the United Nations.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so. However, I am in regular contact with the secretary-general.
    Mr. Cryer: In view of the withdrawal of the Valiant Churchill class of nuclear submarines due to dangerous defects in their nuclear reactors, would it not be prudent for the Prime Minister to withdraw all Polaris nuclear submarines, which have identical defects in their nuclear reactors? At the same time, he could cancel the Trident programme and announce that his Government are supporting the United Nations—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should give the hon. Gentleman a chance to get to a conclusion.
    Mr. Cryer: The Prime Minister could announce that his Government were supporting the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty; the 141 states which have signed that treaty have pledged not to deploy or manufacture nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
    Mr. Cryer: Billions of pounds could then be released for the national health service in this country and for the millions of poor in other countries throughout the world.
    The Prime Minister: Someone spoke a moment ago about the true face of the Labour party. I think that we have just heard it. I happen to be in favour of our maintaining a nuclear defence. That will be our position in the future. I am interested to learn from what the hon. Gentleman has said that that may not be the position of the Opposition.

    Engagements
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that education, and particularly the quality of that education, are paramount in many people's minds? Is he aware that in Birmingham we have excellent grant-maintained grammar schools which are under threat from the local Labour council, which intends to strangle them to death so that there is no choice for the people of Birmingham, despite 96 per cent. of them saying that they want their grammar schools maintained? Will my right hon. Friend join me in supporting educational excellence.
    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of that proposal, but I am unsurprised to hear that that is the view of the Labour local authority; it clearly has no concern for the views of parents about education—a point which the Leader of the Opposition neglected to mention. As a general principle, I agree with my hon. Friend that the Labour party opposes choice on assisted places, on city technology colleges and on grammar schools. Its top priority on day one, as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, would be to take away parents' choice to keep their schools independent of council control.
    Mr. Ashdown: As the Prime Minister has registered that some in his party regard the proposals put forward by our European partners next week on monetary union as a fudge, and as one of his Ministers has said that they are a fraud, although many others will see them as Britain's last opportunity to be at the heart of Europe rather than its periphery, will he now tell us his view of the proposals? Are they a fudge, a fraud or an opportunity not to be missed?
    The Prime Minister: We are at a very early stage in the negotiations on economic and monetary union and on political union. As to the proposals to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor told the House in January that
    "the Government have made it plain to our European partners that we cannot accept any changes to the treaty of Rome which would bind us to a single currency or a single
    152
    monetary policy without a separate decision by the United Kingdom Government and Parliament."—[Official Report, 24 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 470.]
    Mr. Michael Morris: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the evidence is that, in local government, competitive tendering has given the public good value for money? Does not that mean that we should have similar policies throughout the public sector, including the national health service?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has considerable knowledge of the health service and he is, of course, entirely right. Abolishing competitive tendering for support services would threaten the loss of the savings of £150 million a year that have been achieved in the national health service thus far. Opposition to those improvements and to efficiency improvements worth £400 million could only remove more than £500 million from the health service, year after year after year. That is the policy of the Opposition, but not of the Government.
    Mr. Peter Archer: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Archer: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that, prior to the last election, the Government gave a categorical assurance that if re-elected they would not increase VAT? Bearing in mind that, having been re-elected, the Government doubled VAT, will the Prime Minister invite the electorate to believe future election promises? If so, can he now say categorically whether the Conservative party, if re-elected, will increase VAT further?
    The Prime Minister: Characteristically, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is telling only half the story. He utterly neglects to mention the fact that there was precisely corresponding reduction in local tax by way of the reduction in the community charge.

    Statutory Instruments, &c.
    Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the two motions relating to statutory instruments.
    Ordered,
    That the draft Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance about an exchange of correspondence to which some of today's newspapers refer. Apparently, there has been an exchange of correspondence between my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Leader of the Opposition. In his letter, my right hon. Friend calls upon the Leader of the Opposition to clarify how the next Labour Government would spend more than the present Government by actually spending less—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I see that the hon. Member has a copy of "Erskine May" in his hands. So have I. Can he come to a point of order for me? I am not responsible for exchanges of letters.
Mr. Nicholls: It is indeed a point of order for you, Mr. Speaker. It touches on your responsibility for the Library of the House, to which "Erskine May", on page 196 of the 21st edition, refers. I have been able to ascertain that the Chief Secretary's letter is in the Library. Can you, Sir, take steps to ensure that the response will be available in the Library within the next 24 hours?
Mr. Speaker: So far as I know, it has never been the responsibility of the Chair to see that exchanges of that kind are placed in the Library.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Health is still in his place. In answer to question No. 9 from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), during the chaos of Question Time—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This sounds like an extension of Question Time. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Bermingham: The point of order is that the Secretary of State, in reply to the question, indicated that a member of the British Medical Association, who happens to be a doctor in the Isle of Wight, ought not to perform his functions as an elected member, but should stay in his surgery. It has always been a convention of this House—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for questions that are asked or for answers that are given, provided that they are in order. So far as I am aware, these were in order.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Lady wish to take time from that allotted to the Opposition?
Mrs. Mahon: On a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker.I wonder if you have received a communication from a constituent of mine who is writing to you about a £364,000 city grant given to Barratt, the building company, to build homes in my constituency. My constituent wrote to you because of serious allegations that have arisen in recent days. On receipt of that communication, would you allow time for an inquiry into those allegations about the misuse of public funds?
Mr. Speaker: I have to say that I have not received that letter, although I receive a wide range of letters from members of the general public. At first sight, I cannot see that it has much to do with me. However, when I receive the letter, I shall consider it carefully.

Opposition Day
[IITH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Health Service and Community Care
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
  Many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to participate. I have no authority to propose a 10-minute limit on speeches in a half-day debate, but I hope that hon. Members who are called to speak will be brief so that many of their colleagues can participate. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order?
  Mr. Mitchell: I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. There is a ten-minute Bill on the Order Paper in the name of a Labour Member.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that it is perfectly in order for an hon. Member who, for good reasons which he has explained to me cannot be present, to withdraw his motion.
  Mr. Mitchell: The point on which I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, is that the Bill dealt with removing restrictions on immigration. It is extremely offensive to me, to many of my hon. Friends and to many of my constituents. It is, however, an important matter, and I seek your guidance as to whether it might be—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is perfectly in order for an hon. Member who cannot be present not to move his motion, and that is what has happened today. Nothing out of order has occurred.
  3.36 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
  That this House records its concern at the damage to the National Health Service from the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Act; condemns the pressure created by the new system for a two-tier health service in which waiting time is determined not by clinical need but by commercial priorities; is disturbed that the introduction of block contracts had reduced patient choice of hospital and restricted general practitioners' freedom of referral; regrets the shortage of people representative of their local community among the businessmen appointed by Her Majesty's Government to decide local health priorities; notes with alarm the financial instability that has already become evident among hospitals that have formed self-governing trusts; deplores the decision of the Secretary of State to approve 57 health units for trust status despite advice that there were financial problems with 45 of them; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to abandon its plans for a second wave of health units to form such trusts.
  It is just under four weeks since the House last debated health, yet so much has happened in those four weeks that it is almost unkind to remind Ministers of what they said in that debate.
  The Secretary of State for Health took pleasure in the fact that the changes had been introduced with, as he said,
  156
  "no significant problems." The Minister of State, eight days before the cuts were announced at Guy's hospital, announced to the House:
  "It will not be long before the noise about trusts…abates."—[Official Report, 17 April 1991; Vol. 189, c. 512.]
  I took the precaution of checking Hansard last night in the Library in case a member of the Prime Minister's private office had been down with an errata slip.
  My favourite passage was from the Secretary of State's speech in which he complimented the British Medical Association on—in his words—moving on and "becoming sensible." The Secretary of State will have followed with interest the views expressed by the new, sensible BMA over the past couple of weeks, culminating last Thursday after his meeting with it when it reported:
  "the Secretary of State was not open to reason."
  That is from the very medical people who, 20 minutes ago, the Prime Minister said should take the decisions on whether a hospital should seek self-governing trust. Try telling that to the BMA.
  There have been two developments since our last debate, which have given Ministers' speeches a near-comic irony which they lacked on first hearing. First, events have exposed the gulf between what Ministers promised as a result of the changes and the real effect of the changes. Last autumn, staff at Guy's were promised that the hospital would make a surplus of £1·5 million in its first year of trading. A month after the new system was introduced, the same staff at Guy's were told that the hospital was predicting a deficit of almost £7 million. At the beginning of April, the staff at Guy's received a circular from Mr. Peter Griffiths in which, under the heading "We are friendly and we are fun", he assured the staff:
  "The management cares, really cares, about people, about their staff."
  At the end of April, 600 of the staff who had received that letter discovered that they might be made redundant over the next two years.
  Whenever I refer to trusts as opting out, Conservative Members shout me down. I am bound to say that nothing has more convinced the public that a hospital that has formed a trust has opted out than the speed with which Ministers let it be known, when the cuts at Guy's became evident, that Guy's was on its own, that it was no responsibility of theirs, that what the board of directors did to staff jobs or patient care had nothing to do with them.
  The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. He cannot on the one hand assure us that trusts have not opted out and, on the other hand, wash his hands whenever they hit trouble. He cannot have it both ways, because his own reputation is on the line. He approved the very business plan that is now in such trouble. The Secretary of State has not been allowed by the media to ignore the crisis at Guy's.
  Sir Anthony Grant: What trouble?
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Member below the Gangway asks, "What trouble?" I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been out of the country for the last four weeks, but the rest of the nation knows that the trouble at Guy's is the turnround of a £1·5 million surplus, as promised in the business plan last autumn, to a £7 million deficit, with a 10 per cent. cut in staff and the dropping of

  157
  whole specialties. If the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that as trouble, I do not know what he would recognise as trouble in the health service.
  I was intrigued to note that the Secretary of State has now produced a novel defence of the new structure. I paraphrase his argument, but the nub of it—rehearsed several times on television and rehearsed again a few moments ago at Question Time—is that there is too much hospital capacity in London, that the advantage of the new commercial competition is not that it will strengthen the London hospital service but that it will show which London hospital should go under. On that basis, it is no doubt sensible to throw in a few high-risk cases such as Guy's.
  If it is the Secretary of State's view that the problem is that there are too many hospitals in London, I cannot imagine a worse solution than throwing them all out into the market to see which sinks. We cannot plan an essential public service by waiting to see who goes bankrupt. While we wait, as the Universities Funding Council reminded us last week, we could disrupt the training of a whole generation of medical students.
  I must remind the Secretary of State that the House was not sold the Government's changes on the basis that they would show which hospital should close. The Secretary of State is still comparatively new to his portfolio. He is the third Secretary of State that we have had during the process of these changes. Now that the general election is unlikely to be held until 1992, we have time for a fourth.
  May I remind the right hon. Gentleman, however, that the national health service review that led to these changes was born out of the closures in the winter of 1987–88? It was presented to the House as the solution to those closures. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was lavish with his promises. There were promises about what would happen after the changes—that money would follow the patient. As we all know, there is never any shortage of patients. The implication was that, when money followed the patients, there would be no shortage of money, either.
  I treasure in particular this passage from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in January 1990.
  "Next year,"
  he said,
  "in April 1991, we propose to reform the NHS: the coming winter will end the last year of an entirely unreformed service. The winter of next year will not be dominated by cancelled operations, closed wards and cuts in services".—[Official Report, 11 January 1990; Vol. 164, c. 1124.]
  Indeed not. The net effect of the changes has been to bring the cuts and closures forward this financial year from the winter to the spring.
  A whole new lexicon of cuts is being used in the Minister's Department. I saw the other week an internal Department of Health memorandum which no longer talks about closing wards but about "downsizing hospitals". I noticed last week that Guy's no longer talked about specialties but about "reprofiling services".
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: The flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument is that the purchasers of health care in and around the environs of London have realised that they do not have to send their their patients to London teaching hospitals. They can send them down the road to the local district general hospitals. When the
  158
  hon. Gentleman talks about NHS trust hospitals, he fails to look at the same time at the same problem that is being faced by those that have not yet opted out.
  Mr. Cook: I have heard that argument before. I noticed with interest that Dr. Ken Grant deployed it in relation to the problems that he faces at Bart's. Hon. Members who represent districts in the inner city of London and deprived areas such as Hackney, which Bart's serves, find it incomprehensible that if, all of a sudden, there is spare capacity as a result of people from the home counties no longer coming to London, waiting lists in their areas for their constituents continue to grow.
  They find it unacceptable to be told by the manager of Bart's that they will have to admit people from Essex in two weeks when they cannot admit people from Hackney within a year. If that surplus capacity is there, surely we should be using it for the people served by those hospitals.
  I was recalling the new way in which cuts, which occur not just in London, are described. My hon. Friends who represent constituencies such as Bradford, Leeds and Newcastle have talked about the cuts that are now being made by trusts in their cities. Nor are just trusts in difficulty. One of the most breathtaking interviews that the Secretary of State gave in the wake of the crisis at Guy's was when he defended the trusts against criticism by pointing out that other hospitals that were not trusts were in just as big a financial hole. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his candour, although I do not understand why he imagined that viewers would be reassured by the news that trusts were all right because everybody else was in the same financial boat.
  From a flurry of press cuttings on closures—I should refer not to closures but to the downsizing of hospitals that are now trusts—I single out one. That is about the closure two weeks ago of a ward for elderly patients in Bath. I choose that press cutting because the report was accompanied by a charming photograph of the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, shown smiling beside a plaque recording that it was opened by him in October last year.
  I could find no better illustration than that photograph of the gulf between what was promised and what has happened. It was a photograph taken the month before the right hon. Gentleman became chairman of the Tory party, showing him opening a ward. That very ward, within four weeks of the changes introduced by the Government, has been reprofiled and closed.
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks: I recall that, only a year ago, the hon. Gentleman, when making a financial assessment of the requirements of the NHS, maintained that, if we injected just £3 billion, all our problems would be solved—that no reforms or control of union power in hospitals would be necessary, and all would be magic. Since then, an extra £6 billion has been injected into the NHS. Is he aware that, if he continues to ignore the need to reform the NHS, no progress will ever be made?
  I am increasingly coming to the view that the hon. Gentleman is interested only in orchestrating events to take advantage of vulnerable people who depend on the NHS—[Interruption.]—and he is playing, as he knows, into the hands of the unions.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This sounds like a good speech for later on.
  Mr. Cook: Will the hon. Lady allow me to intervene? I did not produce a figure of £3 billion but quoted the estimate of the National Association of Health Authorities for the cumulative underfunding of the health service. She was right to say that, when I quoted that figure in the spring of last year, that organisation's estimate for cumulative underfunding was £3 billion. In view of the hon. Lady's complacency about the funding of the health service since then, she should know that the National Association of Health Authorities has now revised that figure to £4·5 billion.
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was seeking to answer a point that was put to him. It would be disruptive to have another question before he has finished answering the first.
  Mr. Cook: I shall seek to give way to the hon. Gentleman when I can, as he is always worth it.
  The figure of £4·5 billion is extremely interesting. The Chancellor of the Exchequer produced precisely the same figure out of a hat to deaden the political pain of the poll tax. If Conservative Members can find £4·5 billion to save their political skins, they can find it to save the national health service.
  Mr. Oppenheim: While the hon. Gentleman is on the subject of funding, did not the shadow Chief Secretary originally tell the House that the only priorities under a future Labour Government would be pensions and child benefit? The hon. Member for Livingston then told the House that spending on health would also be a priority. However, the Leader of the Opposition has just told us that spending on the health service would increase only in line with economic growth. Is not the Labour party playing its old cynical game of trying to be all things to all men as usual?
  Mr. Cook: I have the advantage over the hon. Gentleman, because I heard my right hon. Friend make his speech, and very well received it was, too. I know that my right hon. Friend said no such thing—[Interruption.] I merely seek to serve. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that the extra tax that comes from growth should be used for health and other essential services, which is entirely different from the slant being put on it by the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State, who imply that the Labour party was committing itself to spending no more on health than the growth of the economy. As my right hon. Friend said, that extra money will ensure that underfunding can be tackled from the start.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: I should like to return to my own speech at some stage, but I shall make a bargain with Conservative Members. I shall give way now to any Conservative Member who can explain to the House and to the country how the Government propose to find £30 billion to reduce the basic rate of tax, without ripping it out of the national health service.
  Mr. Jerry Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: Yes, I knew that the hon. Gentleman would not fail me.
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is a man of great integrity. After all, he voted against the 48 per cent. rise in waiting lists when the Labour party was last in office. Nevertheless, he has proposed a simple challenge. There is something called the Laffer curve, and I suspect that the last Laffer will be that of the Conservative Government. Quite simply, we have reduced taxes, as opposed to the plans of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who intends to increase them. In 1979, the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers were paying—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should listen carefully, because he asked a question—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was challenged by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) but should come to the point, not make a speech which he might make later.
  Mr. Hayes: I shall make it clear—in 1979, the top 5 per cent. of British taxpayers contributed 24 per cent. of the volume of taxes coming in to this country. Since the Conservative Government reduced taxes, the top 5 per cent. now contribute more than 31 per cent.—which means that there is more money for the health service. We are able to cut taxes and spend more money on public services, which is more than a Labour Government could ever do.
  Mr. Cook: My question was about a cut in the basic rate. The hon. Gentleman referred simply to cuts in the top rate. We should welcome the insight that he has given us into what will happen if the Conservatives are re-elected—the clear sign is that they will cut the top rate. If the hon. Gentleman hopes to sell the paradox that he offers the House today, even to the good electors of Harlow, he must explain why, whenever the Government cut the rate of income tax, they have to compensate by increasing indirect taxation through VAT, which people who may well not pay income tax will have to pay when they buy their goods in the shops.
  We have had good, clean, knockabout fun, which I thoroughly enjoy, but I shall now return to my speech. There is no better illustration of the gulf between what Conservative Members promised and what happened than that photograph of the Conservative party chairman. I want to leave the last word on the emptiness of the rhetoric that the Government wrapped around the reforms to Lothian health board, which has just dropped from its stationery and logos the term "Putting Patients First". That logo was dropped from all publications by the Lothian health board last week because, as its manager revealingly said on Sunday,
  "management figures are sick of having the phrase used as a stick to beat them"—
  [Laughter.]—my hon. Friends have missed the punch line—
  "every time they make cuts".
  There has been only one poll since the Government ran into problems with its NHS changes. Last week, a poll carried out by The Scotsman found that 58 per cent. of those replying believed that the Government changes would make the health service worse. A total of 9 per cent. believed that it would increase the health service. That

  161
  response makes even the poll tax—the Secretary of State's last invention—look like a runaway success in popular support. It is not the Labour party but the voters who are currently making health the main issue of the Monmouth by-election and who will make Thursday's vote a referendum on NHS changes.
  That prompts me to ask my next question of the Secretary of State. Given the overwhelming rejection by the public of those changes, how can the Secretary of State persist with his plans for a second wave of more than 100 hospitals to opt out and form trusts? Why does he not let people decide for themselves in a general election, which not even this Prime Minister can keep putting off for ever? If the Secretary of State does persist in his plans, and as the hospitals contemplate opting out, will he let the staff at those hospitals have a proper ballot?
  I ask that question because the Conservative Monmouth candidate said that such a ballot would be "sensible and proper". Does the Secretary of State endorse the candidate's view? I would not ask the Secretary of State to endorse all the views of the Conservative candidate in Monmouth—I realise that that would be too painful—but will he endorse this one? It looks as though he could do with a lifeline. Or are we to take it from the Secretary of State's silence that on that point, as on so many others, the Conservative candidate for Monmouth is an embarrassment to his party?
  The second development since our debate last month—
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially in view of the pressure of time. He should not give too much weight to what the candidates in Monmouth say—[Laughter.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. These interruptions take up a great deal of time.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: —given that the Labour party candidate in Monmouth is putting up an appalling performance.
  Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that efficiency in hospitals is essential in order to give patients a proper service? Does he not realise that hospitals under the NHS have been unable to account properly for the use of blankets, penicillin or anything else allowed for in their budgets? Because they have not had proper hospital accounting, they have not been able to deliver the service to patients. Is it not right to insist that hospitals have proper accountability and economic controls? Surely that is the best way of doing things.
  Mr. Cook: I shall make a deal with the hon. Gentleman. I shall offer to concede that, as in any multi-million pound business—the NHS is a multi-billion pound business—there are always opportunities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am trying to use language that Conservative Members will understand. There are always opportunities for greater efficiency and greater savings; I would not deny that for one moment. But does the hon. Member for Upminister (Sir N. Bonsor) agree that the worst cases of waste that we have witnessed in the NHS have involved surgeons being paid salaries to stand idle and do no operations, operating theatres paid for and equipped but not used, and wards lying empty because
  162
  hospitals cannot afford to admit patients? That is waste and inefficiency on a colossal scale, which dwarfs potential savings on blankets.
  The second development since our previous debate is that events have proved how right Opposition warnings were. We warned that the new commercial system would result not only in less choice, but in a less fair health service. We warned that, if hospitals were to survive by making money from contracts, they would be quick to give priority to the contracts that made the most money. They have indeed been quick to do that. There have already been several sightings of GP fund holders securing a fast track to put their patients in front of everyone else. One of the directors of the board at Watford observed as much, when he said:
  "the board are aware that the implication of agreeing these contracts is a two-tier service."
  Appropriately, that statement was made by the new marketing manager of Watford hospital.
  There is a simple way to describe the new arrangements—queue-jumping. Over the past week it has been fascinating to see how Ministers have tried to defend and deny the double standards in patient care that break out on a waiting list when a market behaves like a market. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister was still trying to maintain that admissions would be made according to clinical priority—the only difference, presumably, being that, since 1 April, clinical priority has been decided by marketing managers. By Thursday, his position had been overtaken by the evidence. The Secretary of State defined a new bolthole for Ministers, drawing a distinction between urgent cases, which must be dealt with according to what he described as proper priorities, and non-urgent cases, for which it is presumably acceptable to use the improper priorities of the market.
  Let us not deceive ourselves by the comfortable term "non-urgent". When we speak about non-urgent patients, we mean elderly women who are crippled and housebound because they cannot get a hip replacement operation, about middle-aged men who cannot work because of a painful hernia, and about pensioners going blind because they need a cataract operation. The right hon. Gentleman may describe such people as non-urgent patients, but they are people suffering from pain, discomfort and indignity, who want an urgent cure. How can Conservative Members justify admitting such people in order of commercial priority? How will they sell that to patients at the end of the queue?
  It is not only GP fund holders who are producing the double standard on waiting lists. Last week, I published correspondence from Alderhey children's hospital in Liverpool, a hospital which formed a trust in the first wave. That letter bluntly told north-western districts that Mersey district had agreed to pay a premium for each case of child heart surgery. The letter said that, unless the north-western districts agreed to pay the same premium,
  "It is not … possible for us to guarantee that any children currently waiting will be treated in the financial year".
  There is no mention there of clinical priority.
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): I am used to the stories that the hon. Gentleman puts about, which turn out on closer examination to be not quite what they seem. As he knows, for many years we have had money which is used to diminish waiting lists. All that the hon. Gentleman's story shows is that various districts were choosing from among

  163
  their many priorities those to which they would apply waiting list money. Some chose to put it into a specific branch of paediatrics and others did not.
  Mr. Cook: I am not making up a letter from Alderhey hospital. Not only have I seen that letter: I have seen the reply from North Manchester health authority, which properly and vigorously says that that authority has a contract with Alderhey hospital. The pricing of that contract is at less than half the premium that Alderhey now demands for each case of child heart surgery. North Manchester health authority says that Alderhey hospital must now admit those children on the basis of clinical need and priority, and not on the basis of the commercial price that Alderhey seeks.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman does not understand. The hospitals told the districts that, if some of that waiting list money could be used for this specialty, extra wards could be brought back into use. There is nothing whatever wrong with that. It would not have threatened existing contracts, and more children could have been treated. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman still does not understand that.
  Mr. Cook: Apparently I am not the only one who does not understand the letter from Alderhey hospital; nor does the general manager of North Manchester health authority. He lives closer to the scene than the Secretary of State, he deals regularly with Alderhey hospital, and he has negotiated a contract with it and is therefore better placed than the Secretary of State fully to understand the meaning of the letter, which states:
  "It is not … possible for us to guarantee that any children currently waiting will be treated in the financial year".
  There is only one way to understand the meaning of those words, which were addressed to districts who paid double the price. Such a double standard has no place in a public service.
  Delays in children's heart surgery at Birmingham drove the Government into setting up the NHS review. Perhaps a two-tier list for children's heart surgery will finally discredit the outcome of that review and will demonstrate what happens when the national health service is run as a commercial business. Labour will scrap this market in health care and bring back into the local health service hospitals such as Alderhey which have gone it alone as trading enterprises. We will restore the NHS as a public service, as we have done before.
  Before the Secretary of State tries his hand again at a historical novel and distorts the record of the last Labour Government, I shall tell him about that record. [Interruption.] I am happy to say that we do not intend to rewrite history. I shall quote from an answer received by my office on Friday from the Department of Health.
  The Secretary of State will recall that, during an earlier debate on the national health service, he taxed me with the claim that, under the Labour Government, there was only one year when there was a cut in real terms in spending on health. The Opposition asked his Department to provide us with the figures on the real terms volume expenditure on the health service. As the figures came from the right hon. Gentleman's office, I think that we can be sure that they have been pored over to cure them of any Labour bias.
  I have to report to the House that the figures produced on Friday in Hansard show nothing of the sort that the right hon. Gentleman asserted. Under the Labour
  164
  Government, there was a steady increase every year in volume spending. There is one year, however, in which health spending in real terms fell by 1 per cent., and that was 1979, the first year of the Conservative Government's term of office.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has been misled. If that has happened as a result of an answer from my Department, I apologise to him. The figures are clear. I know exactly the mistake into which the hon. Gentleman has fallen. If the figures are taken on the basis of a calendar year, which does not include the additional moneys that are produced regularly towards the end of the year—for example, pay review bodies—the result is that which the hon. Gentleman has described. However, the year-on-year figures, which have been published for many years, show only one year in the history of the health service when there was a revenue cut, and that was 1977–78.
  Mr. Cook: I accept that the right hon. Gentleman genuinely did not seek to deceive the House, and really believed in what he said. Knowing the problem that there might be in convincing him of the reality, I have brought with me the relevant edition of Hansard. It—[Interruption.] I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) is running backwards and forwards from his seat behind the Secretary of State to the Box, he being the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Private Secretary.
  At col. 491 on 8 May, there is an answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who has been accused of misleading me. I wish to spring to his defence and to say that I have never known him deliberately to mislead. The figures are set against the years. The years are 1974–75 and 1975–76 through to 1989–90 and 1990–91. I think that the Secretary of State now has the answer in front of him. His Department provided financial year figures that do not record that which he suggested in our previous debate.
  Sir Anthony Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: No; this is a private quarrel.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The figures show that there was only one year, 1977–78, when there was a cut in spending.
  Mr. Cook: I shall read out the figures. In the financial year 1976–77, total spending on the NHS was £18,617 million. In 1977–78, it was £18,889 million. In 1978–79 it was £19,606 million. The figures make it clear that there was no cut. There was a cut, however, in 1979–80. The Government are the people who tell us that their accounting methods are better than those that are to be found in the health service. They are the people who lecture managers that they are unable to obtain proper information and proper costings of operations in the health service. At the same time, they cannot agree on the terms of a parliamentary answer.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I shall give the hon. Gentleman the gross total of NHS expenditure at 1991–92 prices. That is real prices. For 1975–76, the spending was £21,568 million. It was £21,689 million for 1976–77 and £21,155 million for 1977–78.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. May we have one at a time—and would it not be a good idea if we got on with the debate?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I have been talking about the health expenditure figures. Is the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) talking about the undivided departmental figures?
  Mr. Cook: I am talking about the NHS total figure, with which column 491 of Hansard has provided me. If anyone has got the figures wrong, it is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.
  You kindly suggested, Mr. Speaker, that, as we had plainly won this exchange, it was now time to move on. I was interested to note—
  Sir Anthony Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: No, I will not. I was interested to note that on Friday—
  Sir Anthony Grant rose—
  Mr. Cook: No, I must press on.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already pointed out that a great many hon. Members wish to participate. This is becoming a kind of Committee stage.
  Mr. Cook: On Friday—[Interruption.] I must ask my hon. Friends to allow me to proceed.
  On Friday, the Secretary of State produced a new illustration of the contrast between his Government and ours. He made a speech in which he attacked me as well as the Labour party—and vulgar stuff it was; not the stuff of which he carved his intellectual reputation at All Souls. This was definitely gamma minus stuff. He said:
  "We have dramatically increased the numbers of doctors and nurses working in the NHS."
  I am sorry to say that the right hon. Gentleman's ministerial colleagues have let him down again: they have produced the figures.
  Throughout the 1980s, the number of doctors increased by 18 per cent. That is a comfortable increase, for which I will not deny credit to Conservative Members. During the period of the last Labour Government, however, the number of doctors increased by 25 per cent.—and that was over five years, not 10. The rate of increase was three times as fast as the annual rate under the present Government.
  The right hon. Gentleman's colleagues have also been very helpful in providing the figures relating to nurses. If we take the increase in whole-time equivalents on the same basis, we find that, in the 10 years of the present Government's tenure, the number of nurses in our wards increased by 6 per cent.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: What about the numbers?
  Mr. Cook: I am talking about the numbers. Under the last Labour Government, the number increased by 14 per cent., at nearly four times the annual rate. The Secretary of State spoke of a "dramatic increase". What superlative—what hyperbole—would he find to describe the record of the last Labour Government, which is three or four times better than his Government's record?
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Cook: I will not give way.
  The question for the right hon. Gentleman is this: how can he hope, at the next general election, to persuade the voters that he will do any better next time round, when sitting beside him is a Chancellor who wants to rip £30
  166
  billion out of public spending? Where will that £30 billion come from, and how much will come from the health budget?
  At the next election, the electorate will have a clear choice between a Labour party that is committed to using the increase in revenue to restore the NHS and essential services, and a Conservative party that is committed to using it to pay for tax cuts. The need for that choice to be made could be seen clearly last night at King's College hospital in Camberwell. Yesterday evening, 14 people were admitted to the accident and emergency department. They had to remain lying on trolleys in the casualty room, because no beds could be found for them. Last November, the hospital closed 120 beds to meet the Secretary of State's deadline of 1 April for the elimination of the hospital's deficit. Those 14 people included an 89-year-old woman who was blind and had suffered a fall, and a 16-year-old boy who was vomiting blood. They were all lying on trolleys 9 in apart. That is the real price of underfunding of the health service. That is the real price being paid for the commercial priorities of this Government. And those are the people who cannot afford a 5p cut in the basic rate.
  There is only one good consequence of the events of the past month: the Secretary of State and his changes have put the health service back in the centre of the stage. Some of his colleagues may well doubt whether that was wise, because the NHS occupies the fault line between our values and theirs. It is clear that some activities are too important to be left to the market, that there are some public services that are not just fairer but more efficient when they are planned to meet social needs and not driven by chasing market forces.
  It is because, as hon. Members have just shown, they are incapable of understanding that the NHS is not safe in their hands. That is why the electorate now have a clear choice between losing their NHS under this Government or renewing it under a Labour Government.
  4.20 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the progressive implementation of the Government's reforms of the National Health Service, coupled with substantial increases in resources for the National Health Service and in the numbers of patients treated since 1979; looks forward to the benefits of these reforms being spread more widely so that services everywhere are brought up to the standards of the best, especially with the further development of National Health Service trusts and fundholding practices; notes that district health authorities and general practitioner fundholding practices will both give priority to patient's clinical needs; welcomes the determination of the new National Health Service trusts to get to grips with long-standing management problems; supports the new role of district health authorities as guardians of the public health, accountable for arranging comprehensive care for their local residents; and endorses the Government's intention to set out a new agenda for the National Health Service which concentrates more than ever on improving the health of the people."
  As the sound and fury of political debate declines for a moment, commentators are beginning to see that there are two issues on which the Labour party has staked out its ground. First it claims that its members would be better than we are at producing resources. Secondly, it claims that it would be better at getting those resources to where

  167
  they are needed within whatever constraints are imposed. Both sides are agreed that this service will remain cash limited.
  The Labour party remains in trouble about money, as usual. The anxiety of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) to appear respectable in the City has completely undermined the series of costed and uncosted, bogus and less bogus pledges made by his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). Every lobby which writes to them gets a nod and a wink, indicating that there will be more money for its particular cause.
  The pit into which the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, with the able assistance of the Leader of the Opposition, has now dug the Labour party was demonstrated to listeners to "Today" yesterday, I think, when the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East was comprehensively carved up by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We simply do not now know what Labour Members mean by their spending pledges, and it is increasingly clear that neither do they.
  First, our record in office is better than Labour's. Labour increased spending on health by about 1·5 per cent. in real terms; we have increased it by about 3·2 per cent. in real terms. We have done better than Labour said that it would have done in 1987 had it been elected. The Labour party promised an increase of 3 per cent. in real terms in 1987 and we have provided a 3·5 per cent. increase in real terms since 1987. Both in the reality and in the promises, our word has more reason to be trusted by the electorate then Labour's.
  Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, the hon. Member for Livingston has failed to achieve what many Labour Back Benchers might feel it was his duty to achieve—to place the health service among the principal priorities of the Labour party in the run-up to the next election.
  Why should anyone believe that the hon. Member for Livingston would be any better in dealing with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East if Labour were in power than he has been in opposition? He has not won the argument with his right hon. and learned Friend in opposition and he would not win it if Labour were in power. It is far more likely that, if the Labour party were to find itself in power, events would be just as they were last time. I stand completely firmly on the figures, which show that, in 1977–78, Labour cut spending on the health service in real terms and cut the capital spend throughout its period in office.
  When I last raised that matter with the hon. Member for Livingston—it clearly distresses him to have to remember what happened when Labour was in power—he said, rather lamely, that he had voted against the 1975 White Paper. Well, his memory deceives him. He did not. He abstained. Some of the Opposition Members below the Gangway were more consistent. They voted against it all right. But the hon. Member for Livingston was not to be found in the House on that occasion. That once again shows that, when the crunch comes, and when faced with the equivalent—this is what we must and will prevent—of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) charging about the Treasury again cutting everything to ribbons, the hon. Gentleman will not be there on the night.
  Sir Anthony Grant: I wish to refer to the Labour party's record—my right hon. Friend will recall that the hon.
  168
  Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was too nervous to give way to me in his speech on this point. Whatever the figures were, is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the last year of the Labour Government, at the famous Addenbrooke's hospital in my constituency, wards were closed, cancer operations had to be postponed, surgeons' records were taken over by militant trade unionists and many poor people were deprived of the services that they wanted by the behaviour of the Labour Government's supporters?
  Mr. Waldegrave: The Labour party talks about a two-tier service, but when it left office, the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the National Union of Public Employees were deciding what was an emergency admission.
  The truth is that no serious commentator outside believes—I have quoted Professor Julian Le Grand to the House before and I shall quote him again because he is such an objective commentator on these matters—that Labour would be able to do better than we have done on overall resources for health. That argument, as one of my hon. Friends said earlier during Question Time today, is dead. It is unlikely that the 3·5 per cent. growth which we have achieved would be bettered by the Labour party. It has never been bettered in the past.
  As Peter Kellner—not a commentator friendly to my party—recently warned, the Labour party should be steered away from the reef of criticising our health spending record because, he thought, our spending had kept up with GDP. I can tell Peter Kellner that we have done better than that. The share of GDP spent on the NHS in the United Kingdom in 1978–79 was 4·7 per cent. It is now, in 1991, 5·7 per cent.—a full percentage point increase. We are spending on health a bigger share of a bigger national product than ever Labour would or could.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Is the essential point not how much the Government spend, which is a lot more than it ever was, nor how much the Opposition promise that they will spend, but how that money is managed? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to tell the Opposition that there is not one patient who cannot see a doctor or who, having been to see a doctor, has not received the drugs that he requires, and that there is not one person who, having been to hospital, has not been entirely satisfied with his treatment, service and attention?
  Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. As there is no real argument between us on resources, we then have to concentrate on how best to get the money to the patients, and that is what I shall deal with in the latter part of my speech.
  It was only because I was a little surprised that the British Medical Association seemed not to have remembered the Labour party's dreadful spending record on health that I delivered a mild rebuke to it for appearing to join in the party political debate somewhat in favour of the Opposition last week. It would have been an odd alliance, since Bevan—whose great biographer, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), is with us—described the BMA as "an organised sabotage" and "a squalid political conspiracy". Barbara Castle, in her characteristically more moderate language, said that there was
  "a lovelessness about that bunch that made me sick."

  169
  Luckily, since then, the BMA has made it clear that nothing it said was to be taken as any kind of alliance with the Labour party; it was just inadvertent that it gave its press conference the day before the local elections. Therefore, that matter can be laid to rest. There is no contest on funding. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) rightly said, the argument is about how the money is spent. For a party which is not able to commit itself to an overall increase in terms resources for health, Labour has made some extremely dangerous and irresponsible spending pledges.
  For example, I calculate that at least £175 million will be needed for the minimum wage pledge, and that may be on the low side. It will be £175 million only if Labour can restrain other trade unionists from maintaining differentials and many—for example, the electricians—have made it clear that that is not on.
  As no real increase will come from Labour, that £175 million will have to come from patient care—it amounts to the annual revenues of about six district hospitals. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Question Time, Labour is choosing to throw away about £150 million-worth of savings by doing away with competitive tendering, which amounts to the annual revenues of about another five district hospitals, making 11 in total. That is what happens if one says yes to every lobby before one has secured the resources with which to pay for the pledges.
  There is a long list—one might call it the nods and winks list—of all the things that Labour has said that it would do when any lobby has come to see them, although it has been careful not to cost them. That long list of things will produce cuts in patient care or it will mean that a large number of disgruntled lobbies will find that Labour's pledges meant nothing. The latter is the likeliest outcome.
  Against that background of no more money, we must work out how we can get the money to where patients need it. In the past week or so, another element has been added by the Labour party, which says that not only will money go out of patient care to pay for its friends in COHSE, NUPE and the rest but it will take money out of the pockets of most of the professionals in the health service.
  I am not sure whether Opposition Members are aware of this fact. We have dramatically increased doctors' and nurses' pay, as well as increasing their numbers. Instead of cutting their pay, as Labour did, we have put a considerable number of nurses into tax and national insurance brackets in which they would lose cash under Labour's proposals. Every GP and virtually every qualified doctor would lose considerable amounts. On the national insurance change alone, a top consultant would lose about £7,000 plus many thousands of pounds—
  Mr. Robin Cook: With a merit award.
  Mr. Waldegrave: On a merit award. I was talking about a top consultant. The tax proposals would lose the consultant many thousands more.
  Mr. Tony Marlow rose—
  Mr. Waldegrave: I shall complete these remarks and then give way to my hon. Friend.
  Therefore, the hon. Member for Livingston owes professionals in the health service a further commitment, which he will not be able to fund. Is he going to make good
  170
  their pre-tax pay to make up for the money which his hon. Friends will take out of the pockets of those professionals? That is what he is saying to them. Virtually all senior professionals in the health service will lose money under the Labour party's proposals.
  Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. Friend mentioned the fact that doctors will suffer under the proposals that Labour has revealed in the past week. Is he aware also that grade H and I ward sisters, who are towards the top end of the scale in London, will lose, because they earn between £20,000 and £22,000 a year?
  Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those nurses deserve that money, and I am proud that I am part of the Government who have begun to put nurses' pay on a proper and reasonable footing. I shall return to the subject of the real cuts that the Labour party made in nurses' pay during its last period in power.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell rose—
  Mr. Waldegrave: I shall give the hon. Gentleman the information, as he seems impatient for it. Nurses' pay was cut by 21 per cent. and doctors' pay by 14 per cent. under Labour. Not only do they face the prospect of further cuts in their real pay, as that was delivered by the last Labour Government, but under the "caring party", on that lower pay they will lose large sums of money in national insurance and tax which the hon. Member for Livingston is signally failing to promise to replace by increasing their pay.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The Minister will be aware that the Northumberland ambulance service is now a trust. Is he further aware that the chief executive of that trust—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: What, the spiv?
  Mr. Campbell: Yes, the spiv and the personnel manager have given themselves 40 and 60 per cent. increases in their wages.
  Mr. Waldegrave: If the management of that service deliver better patient care to the people of the neighbourhood by having more paramedics, which is what they will do, and by having better services, they will have earned that pay.
  We see clearly the usual argument from Labour; it wants to get it across to the public that everything will be paid for by "the rich". When we come down to it, who are "the rich"? They are the senior staff nurses and the doctors who have just qualified. Those are the people whom Labour will hit.
  The argument is not, therefore, about the overall spending of money; it is about the deployment of money. It has been easy for me to demonstrate in recent weeks that Labour has nothing to say about how to reform the systems in the health service for spending money to get services to patients better. Labour has set itself apart from modern thinking in all western European and other countries about the development and management of public services.
  Throughout the western world—not just in Britain—people are seeking new ways of devolving management; that is what the NHS trusts are about. They are seeking new ways of getting cost comparisons and incentives for efficiency; that is what the whole internal market is about. Nothing in the health service is costed in the way that it

  171
  will be in future. Nobody knows how best to apply the money. Labour is against that. Finally, it is against providing real power to those who will use it most directly for patients and not for the defence of vested interests. Labour is simply defending the system which was designed in the late 1940s. It is defending vested interests and it has nothing to say on how to develop our great service for the future.
  The Independent got it exactly right. It wrote:
  "Although theoretically the British public loves the NHS we all know that it has been run too much for the benefit of producers rather than consumers and too frequently cannot deliver a decent quality of service. By introducing some elements of the market into the system the Government's reform will apply real tangible pressure for greater efficiency. Labour's own ideas for reform are essentially cosmetic."
  That is exactly right.
  More brutally, The Times put it as follows:
  "The fear must be that in demolishing the new system Labour would be handing the service back to the tender mercies of NUPE, NALGO and the BMA."
  So little to say—
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Leaving aside the proper interests of collective bargaining, is the right hon. Gentleman trying to say that the health service has been run for the benefit of the doctors, the nurses, the secretaries and the people who work in the service, who are notoriously underpaid? That is what he just tried to say.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman knows exactly what I am saying. He knows that I believe that the service should be run for the benefit of patients and that those who simply represent the interests of the collective within it are not serving the best interests of the patients. It is that kind of argument which has led to putting off, for year after year after year, the decisions that have to be taken in London and that should be taken for the benefit of the health service throughout the country.
  Labour has nothing to say itself on how to reform the structure and to make the systems more efficient. Therefore, I find myself in the happy position of defending a radical and forward-looking reform, aimed at revitalising a great public service, while Labour is left behind, carping, criticising and doing its best simply to scare people.
  Mr. Marlow: On the point about scaring people, the way that the Labour party has been behaving over the past few months is reprehensible—[Interruption.] Yes, the Labour party is picking on those who understand these things least and who are most vulnerable. It is reprehensible.
  I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has visited Monmouth during the by-election, but a pamphlet is being stuck through people's letter-boxes saying that the Labour party will prevent the local hospital from opting out of the national health service. As I understand it, if a hospital becomes a hospital management trust, it stays four square within the NHS. Will my right hon. Friend make that clear to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) so that he can get in touch with people at the printing presses tonight to put out another leaflet to let the people of Monmouth know what the reality is?
  Mr. Waldegrave: Any such leaflet would be disgraceful and would contain a lie. There is no opting out of the NHS, and anybody who issues leaflets suggesting the contrary is simply misleading the public.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Waldegrave: No, I have given way enough.
  I want to deal now with the two main points of carping that Labour, left in our wake, has undertaken in the past two weeks. The first relates to general practitioner fund holding. We believe in giving more power to general practitioners. That is why we started the fund-holding experiment, which put general practitioners in charge of how NHS money is spent for their patients.
  On this issue, the Labour party—not uncharacteristically for that party, although it is a little more characteristic of the Liberal party—is facing in two exactly contradictory directions. On the one hand, the Labour party says that it is opposed to the principle of fund holding, on the grounds that it creates what Labour calls a two-tier system. On the other hand, the Labour party is in favour of allowing non-fund-holding GPs to make greater use of extra-contractual referrals—a facility that makes it easier for GPs to shop around to secure the best treatment for their patients. In other words, the Labour party is in favour of fund holding in one case but against it in another. That is typical.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Waldegrave: No. We have had enough contributions from the hon. Gentleman on this occasion.
  How is it that the freedoms exercised by a fund-holding GP are devices, while the freedoms exercised by a non-fund-holding GP using his extra-contractual referrals are not? On this matter, the Labour party needs to get its thinking straight. Does it, or does it not, want GPs to have greater clout on behalf of their patients? I do. I want GPs in the NHS to have the same sort of clout on behalf of their patients as do those looking after people who can afford to go for private health care.
  Many of Labour's supporters are clear about what they want to see. Let me quote, for example, Dr. David Colin Thome, who stood as the Labour parliamentary candidate in Warrington, South in the 1983 election:
  "The reason I find fund-holding attractive is not purchasing, although that is important. I am really excited because it will make us a better provider by reskilling us in clinical medicine and by developing a concept of one-stop medicine. Instead of saying that we want the best deals from hospitals, we shall soon be asking why we need to refer to the hospital in the first place."
  Many of Labour's most knowledgeable supporters know that Labour has got it wrong on GP fund holding. In a New Statesman interview, on 22 March, Julian Le Grand called on Labour to give fund holding more of a run. He said:
  "There are many, including some politically unsympathetic to the present Government, who are excited by the idea, for they see it as an opportunity not only to obtain more control over other parts of the health system, but also to gain freedom to try out many of their less conventional ideas that the NHS bureaucracy has previously stifled."
  Exactly.
  How long will it take the Labour party to recognise that it is wrong? It said, first of all, that no one would be interested in the scheme. Already, we have 1,700 general practitioners involved. Then Labour said that there would be great problems because the budgets would be insufficient. Now it has had to abandon that case. We have 7·5 per cent. of the population covered, with perfectly

  173
  adequate budgets. The Labour party was wrong about that, as it was wrong about the GP contract. It was wrong also about the selective lists. Once again it was simply acting on behalf of any passing lobby that happened to write to it—in that case, the drug companies. On the question of GP fund holding, the Labour party said that there would be no benefit to patients. It said that GPs would not take on difficult patients, that patients would not like it.
  On every count, the Labour party has been wrong, so now it has shifted its ground. Patients are benefiting, and the scheme is working, so the criticism has changed. The criticism now is not that the system will not work but that it does work. That is the new criticism. The experiment works very well, bringing immediate benefits to patients, so Labour is against it. When patients benefit, Labour's reaction is, "How dreadful. We must certainly stop that at once. We cannot have anybody getting better treatment."
  My reaction is exactly the opposite. My question is, how can we spread this to all the other patients in the NHS? At the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Livingston offered some high rhetoric about the moral divide between our parties. What I have just said illustrates exactly the divide between our parties. We want innovation, with a view to providing better treatment for patients and spreading it to all patients; the Labour party wants to stop any innovation, lest it should work.
  Mr. Robin Cook: Let us be quite clear about what the Secretary of State is saying with reference to the way in which the GP fund holding practices are working. He will recall that, last week, the Prime Minister said that patients would be admitted only on the basis of clinical priority. Is he, a week later, saying that it is acceptable to the Government that there should be a two-tier waiting list, that priority should not simply be clinical but should depend on the GP from whom the patient comes?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman thinks the present system works. There is a variety of different waiting lists at present. The hon. Gentleman referred to a case in Watford. Now, a hospital will say, "Of course, we cannot ask our clinicians to do anything they do not believe is right, so we must improve our own standards." An admission limit of a week has been set for urgent cases. That is exactly how the system should work.
  Mr. Cook: What the Secretary of State just said contains an extremely clear and very important qualification. Urgent cases constitute a minority of all elective cases. Does the Prime Minister's commitment that admissions should be on the basis of clinical priority apply to all elective cases, including the great majority, which are, as the Government described then, non-urgent?
  Mr. Waldegrave: It may be that the hon. Gentleman still does not understand that we are talking about bringing into use facilities not being used at present, without damaging the interests of any patient, and bringing forward treatment for other NHS patients. If the hon. Gentleman is against that, he is against progress. But that would not surprise me.
  In this week's General Practitioner, a general practitioner—Dr. Hawkes—says:
  174
  "The argument that you have to stop improvements could be used against any pilot scheme."
  Dr. Hawkes is quite right. We used to be urged to cross the Floor and have experiments on everything. If experiments work, are we to be told that we must stop them? Dr. Hawkes continues:
  "If we have proved the scheme valuable, any changes will be available to second-wave fund-holders. Any changes seen to be beneficial, especially if they are good value, could be copied by the DHAs, who will be under more pressure from non-fund-holders to do so. We will be running our own waiting-list initiatives, with money which will be divided proportionally between purchasers. We will be hiring local cottage hospital theatres, employing a surgeon and an anaesthetist to reduce the general and orthopaedic surgery waiting lists. Since this will be done using marginal costs, the scheme will be highly cost-effective, and there is no reason why the DHA purchasers should not do the same and benefit all our patients."
  Exactly. That is what the people who are actually doing the job say, and it is the truth.
  The second matter about which there is much carping is trusts. In the last few weeks, I have heard nothing from the hon. Member for Livingston, or anybody else, to shake my belief that devolving the management to the hospitals is the right thing to do, and we shall continue to do it. The New Statesman has already pointed out to the hon. Gentleman what it calls the weakness of Labour's case. It discusses the mismatch of hospital services in London—how, often, there is not enough community care, not enough local services provided in London, and too many specialties, with people being brought too far. That is the real issue in London. The weakness of Labour's case, as the New Statesman points out, is that this has nothing to do with costs. This situation has existed for 50 or 100 years. It applies to trust hospitals and to non-trust hospitals.
  Everyone with the slightest knowledge of the NHS knows that we cannot, for ever and in every hospital, have larger and larger numbers of people. The medical services must be made available where people now live. As I said at Question Time today, it will take skilful management to readjust services and, above all, teaching and research, to take account of where the population now live. But that is not an impossible task. Better management will mean redoubled efforts to avoid end-of-year crises, to have money spent on patients. It may involve looking at labour costs. That would be quite right. It is patient care that matters—not employment patterns in the historic mode.
  Even in this respect, the Labour party's campaign has failed. I have had a look at the reports of some recent monitoring. The hon. Member for Livingston talked about the terrible scandal of all these trusts laying off people left and right. As a matter of fact, there are 100,000 people working in the first 57 trusts. The total planned reduction in staff is about 200 net, so I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's fox does not run. Those are the outline plans; they are tentative plans at the beginning of the process, just as the reductions in labour are tentative plans at the beginning, when they may be necessary. They show that many trusts are expanding and some are contracting. That is surely right in the health service, which needs to change its shape and design to meet the new needs of the people.
  Therefore, the great scare that trusts automatically mean redundancies is a non-runner. I hope that the trusts, including those in Bradford, will carefully examine their labour costs because there is no reason for them to employ

  175
  more people than they need if they can get the money to patients more efficiently with fewer and probably better paid and better trained people.
  Mr. Max Madden rose—
  Mr. Waldegrave: I shall not give way. We must move on, as it is 4.50 pm. I have already debated Bradford issues with the hon. Gentleman many times. He keeps saying that there have been 300 redundancies in Bradford, but he is wrong.
  Another attack by the Labour party was on the contracting process. That is a bit thick, because Labour's line of attack on contracting is that there will be less choice—as if there was ever a Labour party interested in choice. We know from history—we have already been reminded today—what choice people had in the national health service when Labour was running it in the winter of 1978–79, when those attractive fellows were picketing hospitals and Labour was not taking decisions about clinical priority because the people who funded the Labour party were doing such things.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, West says that there will be less choice, but that shows that he does not understand the contracting system. The system starts by measuring where referrals went in the past. There are discussions with general practioners who cover to the best of their ability—which will increase every year—contracts which follow the flow of patients which GPs defined in the past. If the GPs cannot fully cover that, they have the mechanism of extra-contractual referrals to deal with any further referrals which do not fall within their contracting. They will have enough money to do that, and that is how the system works.
  The real purpose of contracting is that, for the first time, we have a mechanism whereby we can deliver health strategies locally and nationally. Those strategies will be worth debating in the House, unlike previously, when priorities could be set but there was no way of defining what would happen. For the first time, there will be public health authorities making agreements with hospitals, enforcing those agreements and measuring the quality, as in the Guy's and Lewisham trust where there has been access to medical audits to ensure that it is doing what it agreed with its district that it would do.
  Mr. Madden rose—
  Mr. Waldegrave: By its attack, Labour wants to stop the gains—at least, I am sure that the hon. Member for Bradford, West does—to people from fund holding rather than spreading them to the rest of the people, which is my aim. Labour wants to return hospital management to distant bureaucrats and, for good measure, to put it under the control of regionally elected authorities—that would be wonderful for hospital efficiency. Labour also wants to abandon the health contracting system which, at last, can provide an open way of setting and achieving local health priorities.
  There is nothing worth detaining the House in any of those criticisms. As Professor Rudolph Klein wrote in the British Medical Journal this week:
  "Much of the reaction to the NHS reforms therefore tells us nothing for good or bad except that resistance to change is as inevitable as it is predictable."
  Meanwhile, I am happy to say that the NHS goes on not only building the new system but delivering improved health care.
  176
  I am happy to give the House and the hon. Member for Bradford, West the latest figures for infant mortality. Infant deaths in 1979 were 12·8 per 1,000 births. In 1989, the figure was 8·4 per 1,000 births and the latest figure for 1990, which I can announce today, is 7·9 per 1,000 births, which represents a further significant drop. The figures for perinatal fatality were 14·7 per 1,000 in 1979, 8·3 per 1,000 in 1989 and 8·1 per 1,000 in 1990—steady and useful progress.
  I refer also to the work carried out yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister of State on one of the most difficult and thorny of all problems facing the management of the health service—the problem of junior doctors' hours. I pay tribute to Stephen Hunter, the junior doctors' leader, and to Professor Margaret Turner-Warwick for the progress which is now being made steadily to produce a sensible resolution to the problem. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the way in which she has helped to guide the discussions.
  Last month, we announced the first research and development strategy for the health service. Under the sound and fury of all the nonsense of party politics about the poor old health service, there is co-operation with the general medical services committee on GP contracts, with the General Dental Council on dental contracts and with the joint consultants committee on a variety of issues.Work is being done in the regions by the deans to prepare—quite rightly—for the changes that will be needed in London. It is right that those changes should be made—let us listen to the words of Professor Rubin of the Queens medical centre in Nottingham. He wrote to The Independent on 13 May:
  "Since its inception, this prestigious provincial teaching hospital"—
  he meant the Nottingham medical centre at the University hospital—
  "has looked after more patients with less staff than London teaching hospitals and has avoided moving into debt. Do you suggest that our prize should now be to see profligacy or inefficiency elsewhere rewarded by cash injections? Surely not.
  One of the greatest achievements"—
  we should note that all the consultants signed the letter—
  "of the original NHS was to produce a more even distribution of high quality health care around the UK, but it never went far enough, with London in particular keeping its doctors which the patients moved away. A laudible aim of the new NHS is to put money where the patients are and thereby redress still further the imbalance. This will be painful. However, pouring money into hospitals that have lost their patient base would be a triumph of short-term expediency over common sense."
  That is exactly what the Opposition stand for—short-term expediency over common sense.
  The issues must be tackled—efficiency, the London issue, junior doctors and all the others. The test of commitment to the NHS is not whether one can shout as loudly as the hon. Member for Bradford, West but whether one tackles the underlying issues. We have heard nothing from Labout today about any of those issues. By the ruthless and irresponsible use of scare stories, Labour tries to hide its nakedness over resources and its bankruptcy on policy. The real argument is being won by the Government and I urge the House to support our amendment.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: Owing to my longevity and the constituency that I have the honour to represent, I think that I have had more exchanges with medical experts than any other hon. Member, and some of those exchanges have been of a personal character.
  One of the Secretary of State's mistakes—it is difficult to select one from all the others—is that he does not take account of how the Government, in preparing their proposals, would not listen to those in the profession, whether they were the British Medical Association, the royal colleges, the nurses or the trade unions. Everyone involved in the national health service was told that they would have to wait until much later, but much later they were told that they could not have a meeting with the Prime Minister. One of the reasons why the Government are in such trouble is that they have not listened to any of the people who knew about the service.
  When the proposals were first introduced, I remember going to see a consultant—I shall not say what extremity of my body he was dealing with, but I can assure the House that they are all working at the moment. I shall not identify the consultant, because I do not know how the Government would deal with him. When the proposals were made, he said that he hoped that the Government would not let British management loose on the national health service because that would be the coup de grace. Now, the same expert says that it is Mardi Gras for the accountants. That is what some of the people on the spot think of it. If the right hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to all the representations, he would have had a few different ideas.
  When I had another operation, it took four hours to perform. Under the present proposals, that would be chalked up against the hospital and, no doubt, chalked up against the expert, Mr. D'Abreu from Birmingham. He happens to be the greatest expert on that subject. I should be interested in what he has to say about the Government's proposals for speeding up the operations process as one of the ways of testing what can be done.
  As for what has happened to the physiotherapists, I daresay the right hon. Gentleman will produce statistics to show that there has been an increase in the number of physiotherapists. Nevertheless, I should question any statistics that he may produce. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) exploded a great many of those statistics in his speech. I have been very suspicious of the Government's statistics ever since the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) first got his hands upon them. I have never believed anything that the Government have had to say since then.
  Anyone who talks to physiotherapists will be told what is happening. In one way or another, the number of physiotherapists in hospitals has had to be curbed. Anyone who knows anything about it knows that physiotherapists are one of the keys to providing an essential form of preventive medicine. The better the facilities for physiotherapists, the less we may have to spend on other services.
  I remember a classic illustration when I was writing about the part that Aneurin Bevan played in the creation of the national health service. I went to see some of the doctors who had been most bitterly opposed to its introduction. I say this in particular to the Secretary of State, in view of his remarks today about the British
  178
  Medical Association. It is true that Aneurin Bevan had arguments with the BMA, but he dealt with the whole question a good deal more sensibly than the present Government. He listened to the arguments. He also had plenty of meetings with the leaders of all the royal colleges—the very people in whose faces the door was slammed by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor and the Prime Minister only a year or two ago. What happened illustrates a central feature of the NHS that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have never been able to understand.
  One of those whom I went to see in 1960, soon after Aneurin Bevan's death, in order to discover what the BMA had to say about the arguments, was Dr. Roland Cockshut. He was one of those who had led the campaign against Aneurin Bevan and the establishment of the NHS. He said that we should not have a national health service and he denounced Aneurin Bevan for the way it was introduced, but when I went to see him in 1960, just after Aneurin Bevan's death, it was a different story. He said, "We didn't understand what the reality of the service was going to be; we were astounded—I am now talking as a general practitioner—to discover how wonderful it was to have introduced into our service the principle that we didn't have to care whether a person could afford to pay or not." He went on to say to me, "It was such a revelation—of course. I should have understood before. This principle is not only wonderful for patients; it is a liberation for every decent doctor in the land."
  That is what the national health service was about. That is why the BMA's attitude changed—and all honour to it. It has fought persistently against what the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have introduced. If they had had the sense to look more carefully at these matters, they might have avoided the whole of this terrible catastrophe that has befallen their Government—second only to the poll tax catastrophe. It is difficult to say which is worse. It is a tender balance.
  This catastrophe for the Government goes back to the crucial decision made by the former Prime Minister, who decided to have a so-called reform of the national health service. She could not bear the idea of the continuance of a service that had as its central principle the socialist principle that no money should be charged and no market principle should dictate what was to happen to patients.
  The former Prime Minister was so obsessed with opposing that principle that she would not even appoint a royal commission, or consult the royal colleges, or have conversations with any of the people working in the national health service—the trade unions, the British Medical Association, or anybody else. She said, "We are going to do it ourselves", so she set up a committee. If someone on the committee was not prepared to follow her—I am sure that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) would confirm what I say, as would anybody else who has followed the details of these matters—they knew exactly what would happen. Never before had there been the proposition that a major institution in this country should be overhauled by such a method.
  The former Prime Minister produced for that committee plans that have now come to fruition in an Act of Parliament. However, it had to be forced through the House of Commons by means of the guillotine. It was forced through without taking into account the protests of

  179
  the few Conservative Members who had the courage to stand up against it. Worst of all, and most despicable of all, it had to be forced through the Cabinet.
  One would have thought that a few members of the Cabinet—the present Secretary of State for Health at least has the distinction of not having been a member of that Cabinet, and if I were he I should continue to insist on that claim—would have stood up to the former Prime Minister. Some of the members of the Cabinet resigned on other issues, but not one of them dared to resign either over the poll tax or over the measures that were being taken to deal with the national health service. Not one member of that Cabinet of creeps dared to protest. That is why we are faced with this situation today, and most people in this country know it.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about having ballots. People in Monmouth know very well what the arguments are about. They are not being deceived by the Opposition about these matters. The argument is not that the national health service should necessarily be preserved in every detail as it was originally conceived. Nobody said more loudly than Aneurin Bevan that of course it had to be reconsidered every five, 10, 15 or 20 years to see whether it could be made into an even better service, particularly since, as he claimed, the NHS ought to be made into a democratic service. That is very different from the Government appointing managers, at high fees, to carry through any changes that they want.
  We have never said that the NHS should remain exactly as it was at the beginning. We have always said, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston emphasised—
  Mr. Waldegrave: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foot: I shall give way in a moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston properly emphasised the fact that greater resources must be allocated to the NHS. I was very glad to hear him blow out of the water all the false figures about what happened under the last Labour Government. The Government have been peddling those figures throughout the country for six or seven years, so it is good that my hon. Friend blew them out of the water. Even more, I believe that the leadership that he has given both to this House and to the country is a fine promise of what he will achieve when he becomes the new Secretary of State for Health and a fine promise of how we shall sustain the NHS and its original principles.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The right hon. Gentleman has talked in his marvellous speech about resignations. Did this poem happen to pass in front of him in the Cabinet in which he served, written by the present Lord Silkin and passed to Barbara Castle:
  "All things bright and beautiful, All projects great and small, All things wise and wonderful, The Chancellor cuts them all."
  At that time it was the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).
  "He cuts the old age pension, Although he cuts by stealth, And while he looks for savings, He cuts the National Health."
  I do not think there were any resignations on that occasion.
  Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to learn some history, he should go back further still—
  180
  [Interruption.] We now have the Minister learning a thing or two. If only he had listened rather earlier, the Government would not be in such a fix. He has made the great discovery that the Treasury has always been against the NHS, even in 1947–48. The Treasury was against the NHS then and we had a big fight to get the necessary funds. The Treasury has never understood the simple principle in the context of which I quoted Dr. Roland Cockshut. The Treasury has never understood the principle that one could have such a system and that if it was run on decent and humane principles it would not put profit and the market first.
  The patient must come first, and that must happen genuinely. To do that genuinely, one cannot say in advance how much the service will cost. We had all those arguments way back, before the present Secretary of State was born or even thought of. The Treasury was against it then, and there must always be good Ministers of Health to stand up to the Treasury. The Labour party has an extremely good one who will take office shortly—as soon as the right hon. Gentleman and the Government dare to take the issue to the public.
  5.11 pm
  Sir Barney Hayhoe: It would not be appropriate for me to follow the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) in his historical reminiscences, except to note that he made no response in substance to the interruption, towards the end of his remarks, by the Secretary of State.
  Labour's shadow Secretary of State set the tone of the debate in his characteristically knockabout, witty but rather superficial speech. He clearly demonstrated that the debate is more about politics than patients and electioneering than health care.
  I remind the House of my declared interest in health care, as set out in the Register of Members' Interests. I confess that I have not been an enthusiastic or uncritical supporter of the Government's reforms of the NHS, but Labour's antics in recent weeks have been so sickening that I am grateful for this opportunity to intervene briefly in the debate. I do so for two reasons—first, to denounce Labour's cynical attempts to exploit and mispresent particular incidents and problems in a destructive and highly partisan fashion; secondly, to express my confidence in, and support for, the Secretary of State and his team of outstanding Ministers.
  It will be within the recollection of the House that Labour pounced on the recent news of possible job losses at Guy's with undisguised glee and tried to present it as a general condemnation of the whole concept of trust status hospitals. What absurd nonsense that was, and it was quickly shown to be so by the similar job losses announced for the Charing Cross and Westminster hospitals, which remain under the control of their district health authority.
  Another example of Labour Members' deliberate misrepresentation has been their continual use of the phrase "opting out", with its implication that such hospitals are no longer part of the NHS. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said that a Labour Government would bring hospitals back into the NHS. That is nonsense, because no hospital which goes for trust status leaves the NHS. An hon. Member whom the right

  181
  hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent praised as a future able Secretary of State should not misrepresent the situation in such a monstrously outrageous fashion.
  I find it appalling that the media give prominence to such phoney propositions, when responsible medical correspondents must know the truth. Labour's spokespersons—among whom I include the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman)—accuse the Government of planning to privatise or demolish the NHS. Again, what nonsense that is; and how irresponsible and uncaring of Opposition Members to generate groundless anxiety among those who do not recognise how bogus such charges are.
  The NHS is a much valued national asset which is, and will remain, a crucial and essential part of the public sector, largely financed from taxation and continuing to provide services free at the point of delivery, the aspect to which the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent referred.
  As a former Treasury and Health Minister, I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Chief Secretary on the significant real-terms increase in funding agreed for this financial year. Over £3 billion extra represents nearly 50 per cent. of the total amount allocated to the NHS in the last year in office of the last Labour Government.
  As one who has long pressed, in and out of government, for additional funding, I should like to see even further increases, not least for capital projects, including much needed work to the West Middlesex University hospital in my constituency, but I recognise the very considerable additional funds that have been agreed in a difficult public expenditure year.
  There has been much controversy recently about what Labour might or might not do if—it is a mightly big if—it was returned to office. Fudge and smudge seem to be the order of the day, and the hon. Member for Livingston did not shed any new light on the subject in his long speech. He talked about underfunding but made no promise or pledge of extra funds being made available by an incoming Labour Government. Opposition Members do not quote a figure, and that was significant in all the hoo-hah and shroud-waving from the hon. Member for Livingston.
  Not uncharacteristically, the BMA has entered the bidding with demands for what appears to be a speedy and massive increase of between £4 billion and £6 billion—wholly unrealistic figures, as anyone with knowledge of public finance must acknowledge. Interestingly, the BMA—not the doctors' professional organisation but their trade union—which I can remember making quite a fuss about when part of the review body pay award was delayed for a few months, seems to have said nothing about Labour's new tax and national insurance proposals, which could cost senior consultants more than the whole of this year's pay award—presumably permanently and not deferred for a few months. It would certainly reduce take-home pay for the vast majority of BMA members.
  No wonder the Leader of the Opposition is being so kind to the BMA in return for the kindness of its leaders, who seem to be behaving in a remarkably partisan fashion—perhaps not wholly deliberately, but at least that is how it appears in public print.
  Perhaps it is appropriate to remind the BMA that the only year in which there was a real cut in NHS funding
  182
  —I return to the point so clearly made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—was 1977–78, under a Labour Government who also slashed the hospital building programme and remorselessly resisted reasonable pay increases for nurses. We should remember the Labour party's record when we see the nudges, winks and nods on the Opposition Front Bench.
  There will always be health problems, whatever the politics or health care system, but there is a marked contrast between Labour's destructive and propaganda approach to those problems and the approach of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend is dealing with current problems in a sensitive and constructive fashion. For example, he and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have responded positively to genuine anxieties. I refer not to the assertions that the Leader of the Opposition made at Question Time, but to genuine anxieties about GP fund holders, who seek preferential arrangements for their patients.
  I am glad to note the sensible comments of my right hon. Friend in the House today and in his speech to the Royal College of General Practitioners on 9 May, when he said:
  There may well need to be some ground rules agreed about what can and cannot be asked for by a fund holder—or a district for that matter—from a provider. It is our intention to listen, discuss and, where possible, agree."
  Many problems need just such an approach, such as medical education, the problem of London hospitals and junior doctors. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Health for the great progress that she has initiated and with which she is pressing forward on that score.
  I hope that the Government will propose positive action for nurse prescribing. All of these and many other problems can be resolved by my right hon. Friend's patient and sensible approach. I shall support him enthusiastically in the Lobby tonight.
  5.22 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: Like the right hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe), I shall be brief, although he will understand that the similarity between our contributions ends there. I shall speak less about the Labour party's policies than about the Government's present action, approach and philosophy on the national health service.
  It strikes me that, as we last debated health issues in the House only a couple of weeks ago, the element of predictability on that occasion has been reinforced today. Hon. Members have mentioned the warnings that were given when the National Health Service and Community Care Bill was rushed through with unseemly haste and with inadequate consultation on the likely cuts. They have spoken of the reductions in services and the fact that doctors' clinical decisions would be overriden. The indifference to community aspirations and to patients' views in particularly localities was bound to be a cauldron of political controversy, and has proved to be so. However, as other hon. Members have remarked, so has the scene of the current by-election in Monmouth.
  However one views the Government's position on the fiasco of the poll tax, at least they could find a scapegoat and blame local councils for some of the difficulties encountered with local government finance. The difference on this occasion is that the fault lies entirely with the Government.

  183
  During Report stage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) introduced what the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), described as a mini-Adjournment debate on Guy's hospital. Many of the problems that he predicted have, unfortunately, come to pass. It was remarkable that, when the controversy about opted-out hospitals—those first flagships—hit the headlines several weeks ago, the Secretary of State suggested that he was unaware of the details of the business plan for the anticipated levels of employment.
  If one went to a bank, building society or even a Government enterprise agency seeking support for a business plan and one was unable to tell the person making the decision that, within four weeks, 600 redundancies would be announced, that would be a somewhat deficient business plan. The fact that the Secretary of State did not know the details suggests either that he was not doing his job or that the managers who proposed the business plan were not sufficiently on top of their jobs. That hardly gives one confidence in the business of opting out or in the self-governing status of hospitals.
  It is worth considering the management of the health service and what has happened to representatives of local communities. A survey by the British Medical Association, which the right hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth called the doctors' trade union, showed that, of 410 non-executive members of 82 district health authorities in England and Wales, 51 are doctors and 31 are councillors. By contrast, 164 were chosen for their business and accountancy skills.
  I do not say that business and accountancy skills do not have a role to play in a service as massive and complex as the national health service, but when those new appointments are so loaded in favour of those who have no direct representative role for the local community, or personal and professional involvement in health care and its delivery, something has obviously gone wrong. As we saw throughout the country at the local elections, that has caused people to conclude that the national health service is not safe with the Government.
  What about the financial viability of the trusts? The management consultants, Coopers and Lybrand, whom the Secretary of State asked to prepare the business plans for the first round of NHS trusts, concluded that only 12 of the 56 so far established were financially secure. The report warned that all but 12 have "considerable financial problems". Is it sensible to send out the boat against such a background? Clearly, London hospitals will be drawn into tighter competition, with uncertain consequences.
  The Coopers and Lybrand report concluded:
  "a number of hospitals could easily find themselves in this position and to some degree it would be a matter of chance which ones would be most seriously affected. It is not obvious that any closures forced would be the most appropriate."
  In management consultant terminology, that is as politically clear a statement of anxiety as one is likely to get. We should not leave such questions to "matters of chance".
  Moreover, the new management system does not come cheap. So far, £80 million has been spent on advertising and the cumulative costs incurred by the new appointments advertised throughout England and Wales.
  184
  In health terms, that £80 million will amount to the equivalent of about 8,000 hip replacements, which is what we have forsworn as a result of the new management.
  The opting-out system should stop. The second wave of opting-out hospitals should not go ahead until the Select Committee on Health has taken a further look at the business plans I know that the Select Committee has already done much work on the subject, and I pay tribute to its Chairman, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) who is in the Chamber. The Select Committee is currently considering the business plans, and a report from the Select Committee should be discussed on the Floor of the House before we go another step further.
  When the Secretary of State talks about general practitioner budget holding, I notice a curious irony. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) criticised the two tiers developing in the GP budget-holding system, because he said that those doctors with budgets would have a better chance of ensuring that their patients were treated where and how they wanted. I am not sure whether that criticism of the system will be the most telling one.
  The political problem with budget holding is that it will prove to be, as it has already been, popular with GPs because of the clinical control that it gives them and, if the name of the game in the new system is that managers with contracts make the decisions, it means that GPs can exercise more medical freedom. As the costs and the squeeze are placed on the free-standing budget holders, Health Ministers will have to go along with the decisions made by the budget holders, because they will not want to undermine management figures who want to control the clinical decision making. That will be the political hot potato with GP budget holders.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Another scenario has proved to be an increasing problem in the north-west: GPs who are not budget holders are excluded from services in their own districts. In my district, the mammograph service was paid for through public funds—£80,000 was raised by a charity. Some GPs who asked women to have a mammograph found that those women were excluded by the district health authority, which had sold its spare capacity of the publicly funded service to other health authorities at a substantially increased cost to gain income for the contract service. The GPs knew about that only when referrals were sent back by the relevant consultants stating that they could not see the women to give them a mammograph.
  Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who speaks with a level of knowledge on the matter which I cannot equal. He made his point extremely well. If that is the extent to which professionals in the health service are operating in the dark, it further underlines the anxiety expressed by Opposition Members.
  I now turn to the subject of funding—or, as many Opposition Members continue to argue, "underfunding"—in the health service. Earlier, I became confused as to whether we were discussing matters in relation to the financial or the calendar year. In the current year, there is a significant percentage increase in funding. However, this is likely to be an election year, and the projection beyond this year is that the level of increase will dip sharply.
  There is a strong case for saying that, in the longer term, the NHS should have more security of funding and should probably enjoy a Government commitment of real annual

  185
  growth of 2 per cent. above the inflation rate. I do not think that the spending cycle, in which funding tends to go up as we near polling day and then down as we move further away from an election, promotes stability in either the structure or delivery of services.
  The hon. Member for Livingston rightly referred to statistics and information made available to a number of us yesterday and today on what was happening at exactly this moment—5.30 pm—in King's College hospital yesterday. He referred to a couple of examples, and I shall use another one. The individuals brought into that hospital for emergency treatment included: a man aged 80 with chronic obstructive airway disease, who spent five hours on a hospital trolley; a man aged 79 with congested cardiac failure, who spent six hours on a hospital trolley; and a lady, to whom the hon. Member for Livingston referred, who was aged 89 and was both deaf and blind, and spent nine hours on a hospital trolley waiting for treatment. We cannot be sanguine about the state of our national health service when faced with such facts about humans waiting for treatment in this city only 24 hours ago.
  I find it unbelievable that one Conservative Member who, characteristically, is no longer present, said that there was no patient with a complaint about hospital treatment anywhere in the country. That hon. Member should talk to any one of the three individuals of which I spoke, or to thousands more like them up and down the land, because he would then realise that they would have no confidence in this Government's handling of the national health service. That verdict will come through clearly on Thursday in Wales and, with even greater resonance, across Scotland, England and Wales, at the next general election.
  5.36 pm
  Dame Jill Knight: I do not think that I would wish the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) to be silent on the problems of the health service, but we would all find it much more interesting if he would come off the fence and give some idea of what the Liberal Democrats intend to do about health matters. Their amendment is pathetic. Many of us would listen to the hon. Member, perhaps not with fervent interest, but with mild interest, if we had some clue what his party thinks should be done, but instead of giving us that information he simply cites cases where something obviously needs to be done.
  The very fact that we are debating this ill-informed motion today shows the Labour party's total lack of understanding of the health service and its needs. The Labour party believes that reform is unnecessary, even when we are faced with massive evidence of the crying need for reform. The Labour party wants the health service left as it is. Labour's only answer to deficiencies in the health service, which we are trying to remedy, is that everything will be all right so long as we double, treble, quadruple or multiply by the number we first thought of, the money that we spend on the health service. The Labour party approaches every problem with a closed mind and an open cheque book—albeit with a cheque that is post-dated and
  186
  likely to bounce. Labour's attitude towards problems is always to throw money at them unceasingly in the hope that they will be sorted out.
  The other night, I had a dream. As is the way with dreams, I was transported, without realising how, to Walworth road. I could hear the banging of hammers and the sawing of wood and I saw that a great arch was being put up over the door of the Labour party headquarters. The words of the motto that the workmen were putting up were, "There is no difficulty that money will not solve—promise any amount." Of course, that is a splendid motto for catching the unwary voter.
  Ms. Harriet HarmanGo back to sleep.
  Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Lady will be sorry that I am awake.
  The beauty of that motto is that the money is not Labour party money, and the beast of the motto is that the theory is a monumental mistake.
  There are four excellent reasons why reforms are essential. The first reason is the enormous variations in standards of patient care that exist in the health service. The Labour party has the cheek to talk about a two-tier service developing under the reforms when five minutes research would show that there have been many tiers in the quality of service. The major reason for our reforms was to ensure that all patients, everywhere, receive the same excellent care. The Labour party either does not know or does not bother about a patient being six times more likely to get care in one area than in another, or about someone being three times more likely to get a hip operation if he lives in the south than if he lives on Merseyside. If I represented Merseyside I should be worried about that, but the Labour party does not seem to care.
  Some orthopaedic surgeons in the NHS do more operations in a month than others do in six months. Some ear, nose and throat surgeons do 10 operations while others do only one. That cannot be right. Some general practitioners give a far better service than others although they have exactly the same case load—the same number of patients, the same number of the chronically sick, of elderly people, of young people, and so on. There are enormous variations in standards of care. There was always an uneasy feeling that that was the case, and we had studies done that proved it. But the Labour party does not want to know about that. Instead, it has the brass neck to claim that our reforms will bring about precisely what they will remedy. The Labour party could not recognise unfair differences when it saw them, and now it does not recognise effective reforms when they are in front of its nose.
  Inefficiency in the running of the health service is a major reason why some patients are denied the treatment that they need. It is no good saying that we should throw more handfuls of money at the problem. We must realise that inefficiency is one of the greatest enemies of patient care in the health service.
  The national health service was set up more than 40 years ago for patients who could not get the operations, drugs and other treatment that patients get today, many of which had not even been invented. Modern medicine, like modern business practice, has advanced out of all recognition since 1948. Last week I went into my bank to find that it has reorganised the way one is served, the way one has to wait and the way chequebooks are sent. If it is

  187
  essential to bring the high street banks up to date, how much more essential it is to bring up to date and make more efficient the biggest business in Europe.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: A £30 billion operation.
  Dame Jill Knight: Exactly so.
  The second reason for the reforms is the need for more up-to-date management. Some of the most impressive preparation for the reforms has been made by the National Audit Office, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the enormous amount of work that it has done in a short time on costings, utilization, property and services. It has used its expertise to provide many examples of improvements that could be made and of money which could be obtained for patient care if only we dragged the whole system kicking and screaming into the second part of the 20th century.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dame Jill KnightNo, I am trying to be quick. Other hon. Members wish to speak.
  The National Audit Office said that efficient use of operating theatres was the key to reducing waiting lists. It said not that more money should be thrown at the problem, but that operating theatres should be managed more efficiently. Day-care surgery, the use of computers, and proper reviews and checks on waiting lists were also identified as important. It amazes me that the Labour party seems to have no conception of the message sent out loud and clear by the National Audit Office—that the reforms are essential. The enormous imortance of efficient management has nothing to do with simply allocating more money.
  The third reason for the reforms has to do —with money with the need to direct funds better and reduce waste.
  Mr. McCartney rose— —
  Dame Jill Knight:No, I shall not give way.
  Mr. McCartney: Give way.
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Dame Jill Knight:: The National Audit Office has said that at least 10 per cent. of the land and property owned by the health service was surplus to any possible requirements and that £300 million per year could be saved in that area.
  The provision of sterile products and services in hospitals—packs and so on—is not well controlled, according to the National Audit Office, and could be carried out more reasonably and cheaply, resulting in savings. Better use could also be made of energy in the health service. The Government's reforms will cover that aspect, too. The National Audit Office also explained how £100 million per year could be saved by the more efficient use of operating theatres.
  What about drugs? Everybody knows that a huge proportion of health service funds is spent on drugs. How much of that is wasted? In Yorkshire there was a campaign to call in medicines not being used. In three weeks 2·5 tonnes were handed in. What a waste of money. It was reported that in Oxfordshire when the relatives of someone who had died cleared out the house they found 4,112 Valium and 807 Mogadon tablets—somebody actually bothered to count them. No doubt the National Audit
  188
  Office could tell us in a flash how much that cost the health service, but my complaint is that money was wasted which could have been spent on patients. The Government's reforms will ensure that the money is spent on them.
  The Labour party merely says that more money should be spent on the health service, regardless of the fact that, as has been amply illustrated today, the Labour Government cut funding, whereas we are vastly increasing it. The Labour party does not have a leg to stand on. Our tactic is to spend as much money as the country can afford while ensuring that every pound and every penny is wisely spent and not wasted. All the savings will go straight back into patient care.
  Mr. McCartney:Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dame Jill Knight:I have not the slightest intention of giving way. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) can save his time and his voice—and mine, too.
  Mr. McCartney:Start talking some sense, then.
  Dame Jill KnightEvery word that I am saying is true, provable and relevant to the debate. I shall not take lessons from the hon. Gentleman, who has not been in the House for more than five minutes—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker):Order. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) must not seek to intervene from a sedentary position.
  Mr. McCartney:: I was standing up, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Dame Jill Knight:: The Labour party never says a word about ending waste—it merely castigates us when we try to do so.
  The fourth and final reason for the reforms is the need to shift decision-making closer to those who best know their own situation. In campaigning to prevent hospitals from managing their own affairs, and GPs from deciding on their own expenditure, the Labour party is saying that hospital boards are not capable of making their own decisions, and that GPs are not intelligent enough to manage their own budgets. Labour can go to the country on that sort of cry if it likes, but it will not hold up. Local hospitals are far more capable of managing their own affairs.
  Time and again in my political and private life, in local Government and in the House, I have seen examples which prove that those closest to the centre of any organisation are infinitely better at deciding how money should be spent and what decisions should be made in that organisation. Labour denies that, and that has something to do with its fixation that the man in Whitehall knows best and that nobody has enough sense to manage their own affairs. Perhaps Labour also clings to the belief that everything and everyone—doctors, hospitals, schools, businesses or people—should always be subject to outside control.
  We forgive Labour its fixation and its outmoded beliefs, but we cannot forgive its deliberate misrepresentation that trust hospitals are opting out of the national health service. The Opposition know that that is untrue, but they keep trying to perpetuate the lie. The fact that they do not perpetuate it in today's motion is no reason for not pouring scorn and condemnation on it, as I certainly do, and no reason not to vote against it with derision.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I should like to make two brief points. First, on Thursday at Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister spent much time quoting with approbation the words of Dr. Ken Grant about the national health service reforms. Judging by the resounding cheers from Tory Back Benchers, Dr. Grant could be the wisest guru on medical matters who has ever been born. I know rather more about Dr. Ken Grant than the Prime Minister and all the Tory Back Benchers put together. Dr. Grant might even be a friend of mine.
  I was particularly surprised to hear the Prime Minister say that Dr. Grant had said that setting up an NHS trust was opting out of bureaucracy because Dr. Grant is probably the last person on earth to make such a remark. My friend Ken Grant is not a practising GP; nor does he work in a hospital as a doctor. He is a wheeling-dealing, fixing bureaucrat who, over the past three or four years has created, ordered, arranged, set up and established all the bureaucracy in the City and Hackney district health authority. All its successes are down to him, and all his criticisms, which the Prime Minister quoted so eagerly, are an indictment of himself.
  What does my friend Ken intend to do now? He plans to leave the district health authority to set up a new bureaucracy, so that we shall have two bureaucracies instead of one. We shall have the district health authority and the hospital trust, which in this case will run not one hospital but several, and all the facilities of the district health authority. The Prime Minister says that that is good, but I remind the House that the last time the Conservatives reorganised the national health service, it led to an enormous increase in the number of bureaucrats. It is a racing certainty that this reorganisation of the health service will lead to bureaucrats multiplying like loaves and fishes in Judaea. We shall have more bureaucrats and fewer doctors and nurses.
  About two weeks ago, I was drinking champagne in the great hall of Gray's Inn in celebration of the fact that my former pupil, Helena Kennedy, had become a QC. Over the champagne, I had an argument with Ken Grant about the NHS reforms. I put my arm around his shoulder and said, "Tell me, Ken, what is it in this life that you really believe in?" He said, "They keep changing the ground rules and that makes it difficult for me. I spend too much of my time emptying beds and closing wards to reduce our deficit." I said, "Why don't you fight for what you think is right?" He gave me a quizzical look, as if to say, "Only a politician would be stupid enough to make a suggestion like that."
  When Ken dies, he will almost certainly go to hell, but, quite undeterred, he will immediately set up a consortium of the helpless, the hopeless and the hapless—as he has done with this national health service trust application —and he will start negotiating with the devil. I say to him, "Ken, don't do it. Why sup with the devil on that side of the House when you can walk with God on this side?"
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) spoke about a dream. My second point is about the shattering of a 17-year-old dream about the building of a new district health authority hospital in Hackney. That dream started under the last Labour Government and a few years ago, half of that hospital at Homerton was built. But half a hospital is not enough, and it looks a bit odd.
  190
  Just a year ago, the regional health authority said that we could have the other half because it had the funds and the date, and the Government had cleared the scheme. Four weeks ago, the regional health authority, backed by the Government, said that phase 2 of the Homerton hospital will not be built—today, tomorrow or ever.
  We went to see a Minister about the hospital. He gave us lots of sympathy and a cup of coffee, but insisted that the money for phase 2 was not available. The mind-boggling reason given to us for not building phase 2 of a hospital first thought about 17 years ago was that the property market was such that funds would never be available.
  On Thursday, the Prime Minister said that the NHS would deal with its problems on the basis of clinical need. There is much discussion about who has or has not O-levels and about who is or is not educated. It is preposterous to suggest that clinical need has something to do with the current state of the property market. Clinical need has no more to do with that than it has to do with the position of Jupiter or with the fact that the remains of the mad axeman are embedded in the concrete of the M4. That is an absurd reason for not building the second half of a hospital.
  We have decided to put up a plaque on our half-hospital, giving the names of the five guilty people. They are William Waldegrave, Tory; Tim Chessels, chairman, regional health authority, Tory; Virginia Bottomley, Tory; Evan Stone, chairman, district health authority, Tory; and Stephen Dorrell, Tory. That should explain why we shall be voting against the Government.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) spoke about Dr. Ken Grant supping with the devil, and suggested that he should instead sup with God. Dr. Grant has supped with the select, in so far as he has been a distinguished adviser to the Select Committee on Social Services, the predecessor of the Select Committee on Health. As a specialist adviser, Dr. Grant contributed to a report by the Select Committee on Social Services and, in general, that report was warmly welcomed by the Opposition. Perhaps Dr. Grant has rather more ability and talent than the hon. Gentleman gave him credit for. Many of us who worked closely with Dr. Grant for a long time know that he is a distinguished and qualified community physician. He has the qualifications and the necessary skill to do the job that he is currently undertaking.
  Mr. McCartney: I agree that Dr. Grant advised the Select Committee, but the hon. Gentleman should remind the House why the Opposition welcomed the Committee's report. It was because it recommended that the Government should not go ahead with trust opt-out hospitals until a pilot scheme had been conducted. The Government rejected Dr. Grant's advice, although it was accepted by the Select Committee.
  Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House of some of the conclusions and recommendations set out in the Select Committee's report, which I stand by to this day.
  Today, the members of the Select Committee on Health visited the Bessborough clinic in the Riverside health

  191
  authority here in Westminster. We also visited the West London hospital and the Queen Charlotte maternity hospital. It is important to say from the Government side of the House that there is concern among those working in the health service and those who come to it for treatment about the Government's reforms. Most of those we met today—managers, midwives, nurses, doctors and consultants—accept that the reforms are with us and that we must make them work.
  I give my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State due credit for saying that, if some adjustment needs to take place or some amendment needs to be made to the reforms, he will ensure that it takes place. I know from my experience in dealing with trust applications that, if there is concern about whether applications should be put back for further consideration, my right hon. Friend is prepared to take that course so that the concern that is felt in an area in which applications are being submitted can be reconsidered and examined in the calm light of day.
  It is important that the House should know that the Select Committee on Health—we have had full co-operation from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—will take evidence on the morning of Wednesday 22 May from Guy's and Lewisham health service trust and from the Bradford health service trust. The chief executive and the chairman of Guy's and Lewisham will give evidence. On behalf of the Bradford trust, the vice-chairman and the chief executive will give evidence.
  We have already received from the Bradford trust its corporate plan and all the information we require to enable us to ask relevant and constructive questions when the vice-chairman and the chief executive come before us. I am confident that, in the near future, we shall receive a draft business and corporate plan from Guy's and Lewisham, and all the other evidence that we require, so that the Select Committee, a Committee acting on behalf of the House, can seek to clarify what has happened in the two trust areas and their hospitals, what their plans are for the future and why there have been announcements of substantial job loses. I hope that we shall be able to ascertain where the job losses are likely to fall.
  There is concern in the country about trust status, but it is sensible to realise that the reforms are with us and that the trust hospitals have not opted out of the national health service. Indeed, the hospitals are still very much within it.
  Only yesterday, I was asked as Chairman of the Select Committee on Health to open a new home for Anchor Housing in Gorton, Manchester. It is a sheltered accommodation project, with nursing care, that is a joint venture between the Anchor housing association and the Central Manchester health authority. I know from what the chairman of the health authority has told me that it is making it clear to the trust hospitals within central Manchester that it does not wish to see—this is the chairman's view—the development of a two-tier health service.
  The initial stages of the reforms could well produce a two-tier health service. We know that from the information that has already come to us from general practitioner fund holders. It is clear that they will exercise their financial weight and influence in getting the best possible deal and contract with a hospital, and the consultants in that hospital. In guaranteeing certain time
  192
  scales for the treatment of patients, it is clear that patients from non-fund-holding general practitioners are likely to be passed over.
  I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to give an assurance that he will not tolerate a two-tier health service, and that he will give the most powerful and influential guidance from the Department to the national health service executive, under the chief executive, Duncan Nichol, who will transfer the guidance to the regional health authorities, district health authorities and health service trusts. It must be made clear that they must not permit a two-tier system. In any guaranteeing of the terms of a contract, they must accept their other responsibilities as national health service hospitals. That will go a long way to giving reassurance to those who are concerned about trusts and GP fund holders.
  The initial implementation of the reforms will see the choice of where to refer patients being exercised powerfully by general practitioner fund holders. I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is aware of that. To build on my previous remarks, non-fundholding general practitioners will have their choice of where to refer patients limited by the block contract system.
  It is theoretically possible for non-fund-holding GPs to make what are known as extra-contractual referrals to provider units where the patients' district health authority has not agreed a contract, but I believe that that will be limited by the residual funds that have been set aside by a purchasing district health authority that are not already committed to contract. I remind the House that residual funding has to cover any extra-contractual referrals by non-fund-holding GPs and the cost of tertiary referrals, as well as any liabilities arising out of the admission of a district patient to an accident and emergency department in other districts or regions.
  In the short term, it is clear that a two-tier system may be in operation where one set of patients—those registered with the fund-holding GP practice—are advantaged in terms of choice over patients who are registered with non-fund-holding practices. The choice of referral will be further restricted where district health authorities have not set aside sufficient residual funds to pay for extra-contractual referrals.
  I shall quote Marianne Rigge, the director of the College of Health, who wrote to the Select Committee on Health to say:
  "most GPs and their patients are going to have less choice than in the past."
  I believe that that will be only in the short term. Marianne Rigge continues:
  "No longer will it be a purely clinical decision by a consultant to whom a GP has referred a patient, that he will do that operation. There will be a new dimension—that of payment. The reasons behind the decision to operate may become financial rather than clinical. Patients may find themselves being put into a new sort of waiting list—for the money, rather than for the treatment."
  District health authorities that have general practitioner fund holders in their district may set priorities—this is important, and it has not been mentioned so far—that are different from those of general practitioners. That may cause problems, and no formal structure has been instituted to resolve them. The only mechanism for reconciliation is informal negotiation.
  As my ministerial colleagues are aware, DHAs have little power to control general practitioner referring.

  193
  Potential financial problems will be created if insufficient reserves are kept by a DHA to fund the extra referrals which I have already mentioned. The Department of Health predicted that most general practitioner fund holders would agree block contracts based on previous years' referral patterns.
  That has not always happened. Some fund holders are keen to change their referral patterns this year; that means that they are seeking what I can only describe as "better deals" for their patients now, and are prepared to use their budget-holding powers to buy services from hospitals that can offer shorter waiting times, less extensive care or better-quality treatment—or a combination of all three.
  According to Health Service Journal, Oxford health authority asked its GP fund holders to tie up 80 per cent. of their budgets in hospital contracts, leaving themselves 20 per cent. "to play the market". But let me present the other side of the coin: all is not necessarily rosy for fund holders. We have already received evidence that some of them are complaining that their budgets are too small to give them any clout with potential advisers. To get around that problem, some GPs are considering forming fund-holding consortia, in the hope that that will increase their purchasing power.
  Let me add another caveat. If a GP spends his or her budget before the end of a financial year, the GP will play the role of "rationer of health care", and may well create a waiting list all of his—or her—own.
  The implementation of the new reforms will cause problems, but, as I said at the beginning of my speech, these reforms are already with us. We on the Select Committee consider it our duty to ensure that they work, and also to ensure—with the help of the NHS professions and the Department of Health—that the Government's objectives are achieved. I entirely share those objectives, which are to provide better value for money in the delivery of health care, to make the system more patient-responsive and to ensure that a larger percentage of the total budget is spent directly on patient care and the delivery of treatment.
  I believe that I speak on behalf of many other people when I suggest to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that we should accept, for the moment at least, that the NHS reforms are with us. Would it not have been better for us to discuss today how those reforms could be improved to the benefit of the people, rather than merely bandying statistics and throwing political vitriol across the Floor? I personally believe that the Government are entirely sincere in their wish to achieve their laudable objectives—which, I suspect, are shared by every hon. Member, whatever his party.
  Having said that, let me again ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for an assurance that he will do his utmost—by means of firm guidance and encouragement from the top—to make it clear that the Government have no intention of establishing a two-tier health service. Already, the lead has been taken by a number of trust and district health authority chairmen, although not, as yet, by any regional health authority chairmen. If my right hon. Friend follows up that lead, he will carry people along with the reforms—which, after all, are already being implemented.
  194
  I am convinced that, if my right hon. Friend takes that course, we shall be able to remove the NHS from the political arena—where, today, it has been the subject of such a negative and sterile debate.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Jimmy WrayListening to today's debate, I sometimes wondered whether I was at the London Palladium. From what the Government have said, it might be imagined that there was nothing wrong with the health service. Those of us who represent constituencies that have suffered from the lack of Government expenditure know otherwise. For four years, I have been following up my ten-minute Bill asking the Government to show compassion for the thousands of women who die of cervical cancer each year. It would cost only £15 million, but the Government—to a man and to a woman—voted against my Bill. That is the kind of Government we are dealing with.
  The politicians' graveyard on the Conservative Benches evokes no sympathy in me. These will soon be yesterday's men and women. For 12 years, the electorate have given them their chance, and what have they done? They introduced the poll tax, which they have now been forced to abandon. Now they have a new philosophy—health service trusts. Why do they not do something about the people who are handing out private insurance, telling the purchasers that if they take a health service bed instead of one in the private sector they will receive £100 a day? Has any Conservative Member received £100 a day from private health insurance? I think so; I know people who have received that kind of money.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) has raised with the Department of Health the plight of those who, through no fault of their own, were injected with HIV. They asked, through their lawyers, whether they would be given compensation. My hon. Friend wrote to the Secretary of State on 28 February, but he has still received no reply. That is the sort of compassion that the Department is showing.
  The Government say that there is nothing wrong with the health service, and that they believe that a two-tier system will work. If there is nothing wrong with the health service, why is there a waiting list of 70,000 in Scotland, and waiting lists of 50,000 and 800,000 in Wales and England respectively? Do the Government honestly think that the people will accept the closure of new hospitals because of the lack of staff and equipment?
  The Government will find the answers in the ballot box. They believe in the ballot box for trade unions; they do not believe in a health service ballot box. When Guy's hospital —the Government's flagship—became a trust, was there any consultation with the workers? It is certainly clear that the Prime Minister's office is not briefing him properly. When the first Scottish hospital asked for advice about trust status, the consultants opposed the move by 87 votes to two. The Government may believe that the men and women of England and Scotland who work for the health service are ready to sell it out, but they will receive a different answer at the next general election.
  I find it hard to believe that a trust set up to show the way in Britain should forecast, in its business plan, a profit of £1·5 million, and finish its first year with a deficit of £7·5 million. Who will help it out? Certainly not the present Government.

  195
  When asked about the prospect of 600 people at Guy's hospital being put on the dole, the Secretary of State said, "It is not our business; it is the board's business." I believe that, when both Scottish and English Ministers said at the Perth conference that they would not take hospitals out of the NHS, they meant it. Because of the way in which they have set up this project, the system is isolated and fragmented and ready for privatisation. That is their idea and that is what the trusts are all about—the Americanisation and privatisation of the health service. "Don't trust the trusts," is the slogan, and do not trust the Tories either.
  There certainly has not been any consultation in Scotland, and if the people who asked for consultation had got it, they certainly would have said a big no to the trusts. It is nonsense to say that the people of Scotland want funded practices. Out of 1,000 practitioners, only 46 applied for advice on funded practices and only four are thinking the matter over. Nobody in the health service wants funded practices. They want decent hospitals, beds and more money invested in the service.
  The health boards have done a great job for the Government, especially Lothian health board, which has already drawn up secret plans. If the health boards are really interested in dealing with the shortage of beds, why are they recommending the closure of Edinburgh Royal with 2,000 beds, one of Scotland's largest teaching hospitals, and replacing it with a new hospital with 700 fewer beds? That is the type of thing they propose. It is all about selling off assets. There will be a carrot in the form of the hospitals' assets—the beautiful buildings and greenery and the acres of land that are prime sites for building.
  I hope that the people of Lothian are aware of Lothian health board's plans to close part of Eastern general hospital and of its plans for Roodlands general hospital, the Simpson memorial maternity pavilion and the Princess Alexandra eye pavilion. No doubt, the hon. Members representing constituents in that area will have something to say about it.
  I shall not take up any more time, Mr. Speaker, as many hon. Members have been sitting here for hours hoping to catch your eye. I shall simply say that the people of the United Kingdom and Scotland are not interested in trusts or funded practices.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. David Evan: I have heard from hon. Members several instances of the national health service seeming to have failed the patient. Last night, I was out with one of my constituents, when he collapsed. He was taken to St. Thomas's where he received first-class treatment. He could not have praised more highly the efforts of the people who serve the hospital. I have heard too much from the Opposition this evening about how incompetent and inefficient some of our hospitals are. I disagree profoundly with that.
  The national health service became operational on 5 July 1948. Let me put that date into perspective. Electricity generation was the task of the British Electricity Authority, the forerunner of the now defunct Central Electricity Generating Board. British Rail, established only a year earlier, was investigating technologies to
  196
  replace the steam locomotive. The National Liberal party, at its June conference in 1948, voted to change its name —surprise, surprise.
  The electricity industry has now been privatised. BR, which has run out of steam, is currently in the process of restructuring its organisation. The time has surely now come for the NHS to realign itself to face the challenges of the 1990s, not those of the 1940s. Demographic changes, new social aspirations and advances in medical science have all contributed to the need for a new service culture.
  The Opposition, however, are happy, as we all know, to keep the NHS in a time warp. Their Front Benchers pour scorn on the Government's reforms; to a man and a woman, they fail to grasp that the NHS is in desperate need of an overhaul. All they can talk about is how much more money they would spend—a cheap commentary, without any economic foundation whatsoever.
  The Opposition's shallow grasp of health economics was revealed last year, when the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) committed the Labour party to spending some £3 billion over the lifetime of a Government to restore what he called "NHS underfunding". He failed to realise that the Government have increased spending by more than £6 billion over the last two years alone. More impressively, during their first 11 years in office, this Government increased spending by 52 per cent. There are 30,000 more patients treated every week, 16,000 more GPs, 5,000 more in the hospital service, and 60,000 more nurses and midwives.
  In addition to channelling unprecedented sums into the NHS, my right hon. Friend and his ministerial team have wrestled successfully with the institutional problems that have long plagued the health service. The NHS has become what one might call a bureaucratic ghetto, with over 1 million employees, the largest employer in Europe.
  The NHS trust hospitals form the vanguard of the Government's latest reforms. On 1 April, 57 were created, and 130 others hope to join them by next year. They have an ongoing restructural process which will drag the national health service into the 21st century. Hospitals are now able to release themselves from the pervasive bureaucracy that has stifled local initiative for so long—a malaise which is particularly relevant to the North-West Thames regional health authority, which administers the funding of hospitals in my constituency.
  My local authority, East Hertfordshire, has been the victim of gross mismanagement dished out by the North-West Thames regional health authority. The six shire authorities have had to stand by and witness their prudent fiscal policies being translated into cuts, while funds have been redirected into free-spending inner-London health authorities. The results are absurd. The shire authorities, which have 43 per cent. of the region's population, receive only 31 per cent. of the cash. In other words, where £1 is spent in Brent, only 75p is spent in Welwyn Hatfield.
  A comparison of staffing ratios in East Hertfordshire as against the Riverside health authority produces even more laughable results. East Hertfordshire has 19 occupational therapists compared with Riverside's 120; a derisory 18 physiotherapists compared to inner London's 119; and 17 district nurses compared to 179—and this is for the same number of people in Riverside as in East Hertfordshire.
  The most graphic example of this towering ineptitude is seen in the history of the Westminster and Chelsea hospital project. The cost of that scheme started off at £78 million.

  197
  It then went up to £130 million. It is now over £200 million, and every capital project in the shire district has had to be shelved for three years. That is due to the incompetence of the North West Thames regional health authority and its chairman. Hospital trusts will offer an escape from that quagmire. They are an imaginative, far-sighted response to the archaic thinking prevalent in the old organisational structure.
  I come now to the caring Labour party and an article in The Times in 1978 with the headline "Hospital is to turn away patients with cancer". It says:
  '"Patients with breast, lung and other cancers and abortion cases are to be turned away from the Kingston hospital, Surrey, because of industrial action by national health services workers and supervisors', the hospital said yesterday. From midnight next Tuesday even known cancer cases will be denied admission and lives immediately threatened. Investigative surgery, even where there is strong suspicion of the life-threatening condition, will not take place."
  On 21 October 1978,The Times said:
  "Talks aimed at ending the dispute involving hospital engineers and work supervisors broke down last night after union leaders rejected an appeal from Mr. David Ennals, Secretary of State for Social Services, for a return to work, because, he said, patients were dying Mr. Ennals, who had been touring the West Norwich hospital where services had been badly affected by the dispute said: 'I appeal to those who are taking industrial action. For God's sake suspend it. For God's sake go back to work and stop playing around with people's lives. They can no longer take it out on patients. There is no doubt that some people have already died. Every day and week that goes by, the danger is there.'"
  Far from the medical garden of Eden, hon. Members will see an institution ravaged by union militancy and retarded by poor leadership mirrored in the Labour party. If the Labour party gets in at the next general election, God help us.
  6.31 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I must of necessity compress my remarks, but I have a local issue that I wish to raise.
  My constituency is also covered by what is known as West unit within the Grampian health board. West unit has recently applied for additional information on trust status. During the past few weeks, many of my constituents—not only those who work in the health service—have made clear their genuine concerns and fears about the situation.
  I start from the basic principle that the NHS is not a business to be organised by managers. People are at the heart of the service. We are the providers of the health service and we must understand the profound affection that people throughout the country have for it. Some of my constituents' concerns are based on the Government's record in the preparation for the changes to the NHS.
  I refer in particular to what was said not by the Secretary of State's predecessor but by his predecessor's predecessor—the golden boy of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) —who was charged with bringing forward fund-holding practices and trust status. In an address to the Young Conservatives, he said:
  "I foresee a substantial increase in private medical care with the NHS remaining as a safety net."
  198
  Against that kind of background, is it any surprise to the Government that people should be suspicious? Why should any Minister refer to the NHS as a safety net unless the Government intend to implement a two-tier system?
  The Government were asked by the royal colleges, the British Medical Association and the Select Committee to implement pilot schemes. Instead, 57 trusts were established and it is already clear from their record that not all is well. We have seen what has happened in three of them and we are deeply concerned that the Government are continuing to push trust status against that background. At the very least, they should consider abandoning the prospect of further trusts until we can analyse and evaluate further what is happening in those already established.
  My constituents are also worried about what is meant by the consultation process. In theory, there is consultation before trust status is agreed to, but it is essentially a meaningless exercise because, even where the medical profession and the public have made clear their antagonism towards the idea of a trust, it has still gone ahead.
  Those who are charged with delivering the health service—in our area, the Grampian health board—say that they are required to take a view on any trust application and are well placed to advise on the likely impact of the proposal on the local provision and the quality of health care. Those people are not from the medical profession—they are business men and Tory appointees. In addition, within the Grampian health board area, the health councils have been reduced from five to one. In my constituency, the most northerly part of the Grampian region, we have only three representatives on the health council. Democracy appears to have gone out of the window.
  Against that background, given the exigencies of time, I make a plea to the Government to endorse the view being so clearly expressed everywhere that there must be no further trusts until there has been a clear evaluation and analysis of the existing ones.
  6.36 pm
  Ms. Harriet Harman: Tonight the Secretary of State stood before the House of Commons as a man in whom the public have not a shred of confidence. No one believes the Government's promises on the NHS any more. No one trusts the Government because they have broken every promise that has been wrung from them. Above all, they have broken their promise that we can keep our national health service. Instead, we have seen hospitals opting out, NHS queue-jumping and a relentless drive towards a United States-style, two-tier health service.
  No one believes the Government's promise that they are really committed to the NHS, and why should we? We were told that the opted-out hospitals were to give people a say at local level, to devolve decision-making down to local communities, but then we learned that there were to be no ballots, so people at local level were not to have a say about whether their hospital should opt out. Despite the overwhelming opposition of people at local level, the Government were clearly determined to ride roughshod over local opinion. How can that be giving people a say at local level when they cannot even have a say in whether their hospital should opt out?

  199
  We were told that opting out would not mean job losses and all that we said was supposedly scaremongering. The gap between rhetoric and reality is well illustrated in a little booklet entitled "Guy's Hospital Gazette", which says:
  "We are friendly and fun. This is a great place to work … The management cares, really cares about people … Having fun is considered as legitimate!"
  That is the Guy's self-governing trust. Just as that document was being circulated to the staff, we were told that 600 jobs were to go. We were then told that those job losses would not hit services, but then a leaked memorandum from Guy's hospital told us that there would be
  "inevitable reductions in direct patient care services."
  So the job losses that we were told would not happen will indeed hit patient care services, although the Government tried to conceal the truth from the people who depend on those services.
  We were told that opted-out hospitals would not be cut loose from the national health service, but as the scale of the cuts became clear at Guy's and then in Bradford, the Secretary of State said, "It's nothing to do with me—I am only the Secretary of State. Guy's has opted out, as has Bradford, so why don't you ask the chief executives of opted-out hospitals?" The Secretary of State has a choice: he can either accept responsibility for cuts in services or he can admit that hospitals have opted out of the NHS. He cannot have it both ways.
  We were told that opted-out hospitals would still be open and accountable, but in the 200-page application for Guy's opt-out nothing was said about the swingeing and immediate cuts in jobs and services. We have never been allowed to see the secret business plan that the trust submitted to the Government. Why should we trust the Government when they will not show us documents that trusts have submitted to them? The Government are supposed to be running the national health service, but they are operating it like the secret service.
  The Government denied that the internal market would produce a two-tier national health service—
  Mr. Andrew Smith: As regards the two-tier service, does my hon. Friend share my deep concern about the report to the Oxfordshire community health council this week to the effect that a contract is being concluded with Swindon district health authority giving patients from that authority a guarantee of a scan on the marvellous magnetic resonance imager at the John Radcliffe hospital within two weeks, when the average waiting time for Oxfordshire patients is three months? Does that not show that it is the ability to fix financial deals and not medical need which determines access to treatment?
  Ms. Harman: Moreover, because all those people will have priority in queue-jumping, everyone else will have to wait even longer. Within weeks of the establishment of an internal market, queue-jumping has been institutionalised in the NHS, and the Secretary of State knows it. It happened first in Watford. Let us be absolutely clear what we are talking about. Two GP fund-holding practices have 10 per cent. of the patients in the district and 90 per cent. are with other GPs. As a result of priority admission being arranged for the patients of the two fund-holding practices, the other 90 per cent. of patients will have to wait longer.
  200
  The same arrangement was made in Bart's, and now an arrangement is being negotiated with Guy's whereby not only will some GP patients have priority admission, and therefore everyone else will have to wait longer, but some people will get priority when it comes to who performs the operation and whom they see. Advantage will be negotiated. Some patients will see consultants and senior registrars and everyone else will be relegated, irrespective of clinical need to more junior members of staff. That is the logic of the internal market, and it will hit not only Watford, Bart's and Guy's, but all hospitals in due course.
  When a person is treated will depend not on how urgent the clinical condition is, but on whether the GP is a budget-holder and whether the district health authority has been able to fix a preferential deal. As a result, there will be patients in adjacent beds for hip operations, one having waited 18 months in pain and agony and the other having waited only two weeks. I shall be interested to know whether Conservative Members would defend that situation. If that is not a two-tier health service, I do not know what is.
  Inconsistencies have started to appear in the stories from different members of the Government, as always happens with people who are up to no good. The Prime Minister is saying quite clearly:
  "Operations are done on the basis of clinical need"
  and again:
  "I shall repeat that in case he did not fully hear it first time: operations are done on the basis of clinical need."—[Official Report, 7 May 1991; Vol. 190, c. 620.]
  Yet the Secretary of State has admitted tonight that queue-jumping arrangements will be negotiated, so it will be contracts and wheeling and dealing between GP budget-holders, hospitals and district health authorities that will determine priorities rather than clinical need. No wonder, to use the words of Dr. Ken Grant, district general manager of the City and Hackney health authority, in a letter to consultants:
  "This does mean that the question of equity has gone out of the window"—
  I should like to know whether the Secretary of State accepts that—
  "but this is the reality of GPs holding their own practice budgets for elective work."
  Another promise that the Government have broken is that people will have a choice about where they go for treatment. Choice is being taken away from the patient in consultation with the GP.
  Mr. Hind: They never had it before.
  Ms. Harman: Yes, they did—[interruption.] If hon. Members will give me one—[Interruption.] Take maternity services, where there has been a long tradition—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it would be better if the hon. Lady directed her speech through me.
  Ms. Harman: If we take maternity services, there has been a long tradition, which we should encourage, of women choosing where to have their babies on the basis of what was convenient for them, what sort of care they wanted and the style of delivery that they wanted. That was described as cross-boundary flow and operated under the last Labour Government and until now. However, the decision about which hospital she will go to will not now be taken by a woman in consultation with her GP but by the district health authority manager, who will place block

  201
  bookings for maternity services for the district. If a woman wants to have a baby in a hospital other than the one where the contract has been placed, she will have to apply for access to the extra-contractual referral fund and go through the procedure. There is simply not enough money in the contingency funds to safeguard choice, tertiary referrals, and so forth.
  If the Government were honest, they would admit that choice has gone out of the window with the internal market. They also ought to be honest and admit that they are promoting private health care. They have allowed waiting lists to grow so that more and more people have been driven to paying for private health care. The Government have been giving tax relief for private health care for the elderly. Now the private sector is stalking further into the NHS, with private contractors for cleaning and laboratory services and private deals for private hospitals on NHS sites.
  Perhaps the Minister in her winding-up speech will take the opportunity to stop in its track the secret deal that AMI Healthcare is negotiating to build a private hospital on the site of the QEII hospital in Welwyn Garden City to lure NHS consultants and nurses away from their patients to do private work and to make everyone else wait longer.
  We remain steadfast in our straightforward opposition to the internal market, where doctors have to put cash before care, where profits come before patients. We shall abolish the internal market and we shall remain steadfast in our opposition to opting out. We shall bring opted-out hospitals back within the NHS. The Government can no longer carry on riding roughshod over public opinion. They are wildly out of step with the mood of the public. They must admit—as they did with the poll tax—that they have got it wrong.
  6.48 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): We are becoming accustomed to a litany of carping hysteria, negative stories and misleading information. I shall focus on some of the elementary points. "Take maternity services," said the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman). Well, let us take maternity services. What has happened? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State informed the House that perinatal mortality has never been lower. In the past 10 years, we have halved the number of babies dying in childbirth and in the past 15 years we have halved the number of women dying in childbirth. That is what I call "taking maternity services". More than that, in 10 years we have gained one third more midwives. We are profoundly and sincerely committed to concentrating on the improvement of the identifiable and measurable health care indicators.
  As for waiting lists, the last Labour Government, like every Labour Government, left power with waiting lists increased; there was a 48 per cent. increase in waiting lists during their term of office. Waiting lists have come down 7 per cent. under the Conservative Government. We want to do better, and we will do better. If ever there was encouragement for the private sector, it was the fact of the Labour party being in power. As has been said clearly in the debate, the clinical judgment and the priority which operated when the Labour party was in power were exercised by the COHSE official at the gate. We
  202
  understand that. With one third of the parliamentary Labour party sponsored by one of the health unions, we understand where Labour's loyalties lie.
  Our commitment is clear: it is to continue to improve the health care of our people. No, we do not want to argue with the AMI initiative at Welwyn Hatfield. If the private sector can flourish and develop, that does not offend us, because we are concentrating on improving the functioning, the management and the care provided by our national health service.
  None of us is prepared to listen to lectures from the Labour party about commitment, investment and plans for the health service because the Government have invested in the service and increased the number of doctors and nurses. I do not know how the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) dared to talk about the record of staff in the face of the cuts in pay that health care staff suffered under Labour.
  There has been discussion today about a two-tier service. I want to give an example of what I think would have created a two-tier service. Hon. Members are well advised to recall the debates on the introduction of the general practitioner contract. Almost all now agree that the contract has been a major force for good. Children are immunised and women are screened. It is becoming a health service, not a disease service. There is more health promotion.
  What was the line of the Labour party? According to Labour, it was too much to expect GPs in inner-city areas to meet the targets that the rest of the country had to meet. The Labour line was that targest should be lowered in inner-city areas. That is what I call a two-tier health service. Our approach was not to lower the targets for some groups in the community but to make sure that those GPs in inner-city areas received additional deprivation payments. We want to make sure that all parts of the community receive the best possible patient care.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for his contribution and for his recognition that the health reforms are here to stay. We want to improve the health care of all. Yes, trusts are at the forefront of changes. GP fund holders can use their purchasing power. They have the control and autonomy to do what a good GP has always done, which is to advise patients on how to get the best deal from the various hospitals and provisions. That is the role of the GP. The GP is the advocate for the patient. We want GPs to push forward the frontiers, but we want the districts, which have much greater purchasing muscle than GP fund holders, to make sure that they seek the same quality improvements so that they can get the same results in waiting times.
  Again, what is the approach of the Labour party? It is equal misery for all, levelling down, and the lowest common denominator. Labour thinks that it would be wrong for some people to make progress because others might be left out. Our approach is to have the best possible health care for all the people. If trusts can move forward improvements in quality and if GP fund holders can use their leverage to improve health care, we will welcome and endorse that.
  I should like to address some of the speeches made in the debate. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) spoke with feeling about BMA opposition to the health service. He quoted it as saying, "We didn't understand what the reality of the service would be." We know how that feels. We are absolutely confident that, as

  203
  the reforms bed in and as we move forward, the BMA and many others will understand precisely what they mean for the health service.
  The right hon. Gentleman seemed in his splendid oratory, which all of us much enjoyed, to overlook the fact that it was his party that introduced cash limits for the health service. On a precise point, he mentioned the role of physiotherapists. I endorse the point that it is often the professions allied to medicine which can make a major contribution to improving patient care. I can inform the right hon. Gentleman that there has been a 35 per cent. increase in professions allied to medicine over the past 10 years. Certainly physiotherapists have an important part to play.
  I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe), who has particular knowledge of and expertise in the health service. I am grateful for his recognition of what is being done about junior doctors. Much of the work in which I have been involved in that respect has been built on his work in achieving a balance. That was very much the model that was put to me when there was talk about having a ministerially led team to tackle an outdated, unacceptable way of training our juniors. How pleased I am that the consultants and the juniors have found a way through the hurdle. We are setting up regional task forces and guidance will be produced shortly. We are determined to bring to an end an unacceptable way of training doctors.
  Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that the NHS trust within the national health service has the opportunity to reintroduce matrons into hospitals? One hospital has already done that. New managements could make similar decisions. Most people would welcome that approach.
  Mrs. Bottomley: It is always worth while giving way to my hon. Friend. He has made a point that meets with great support. Indeed, he has made two important points. First, the culture around the matron was that she was a person who knew what was going on. The matron understood how the hospital was organised. That is part of our emphasis on better management. We have to tackle the problem. We cannot allow the health service to run on in the way that it has worked traditionally. We need people to take responsibility.
  Secondly, my hon. Friend was right to identify the role of nurses. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has carried forward the cause of nurses by putting the chief nursing officer on the policy board. We introduced Project 2000, a much more appropriate way of training nurses, who are now much better paid.
  Coming back to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, who spoke about nurse prescribing, we want progress as quickly as possible. It is a dreary feature of Government that we need to make sure that the list and the cost benefit are correct and that liaison with other professionals has been properly addressed.
  Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the problems that we have discussed in the debate relating to London hospitals are essentially London problems? Will she make that clear before the Labour party carries its nasty propaganda to the north of England and frightens many constituents in other parts of the country with its suggestions about NHS trusts?
  Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed, my hon. Friend is so right. Of course, the Labour party has total amnesia. Not only did Labour introduce cash limiting on the health service and prescription charges, but it set up the resource allocation working party, identifying then the dilemma which we face about the provision of consultants and beds in inner cities, based on historic provision, at a time when there has been enormous expansion outside London. The reforms will help us better to plan services and to improve the care that we provide.
  We have no doubt that these reforms will build a better health service. We have a right to have pride in our record. We have invested in an unprecedented way. We have worked with the service, and for the service, for patients. Above all, putting patients first is the focus of our work. I hope that all hon. Members will reject the Labour party's motion. The Labour party has no right to speak for the health service. Its only loyalty is, of course, to the health service unions. Ours is the record, ours is the policy, and we shall see a stronger, healthier and more effective health service as a result of these reforms.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 296.

  Division No. 142]

  [7.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Darling, Alistair

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Allen, Graham

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

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dewar, Donald

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dixon, Don

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Dobson, Frank

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Doran, Frank

  Ashton, Joe

  Douglas, Dick

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Barron, Kevin

  Eastham, Ken

  Battle, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fatchett, Derek

  Beith, A. J.

  Fearn, Ronald

  Bell, Stuart

  Flannery, Martin

  Bellotti, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Foster, Derek

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foulkes, George

  Blair, Tony

  Fraser, John

  Blunkett, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Boateng, Paul

  Galbraith, Sam

  Boyes, Roland

  Galloway, George

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  George, Bruce

  Buckley, George J.

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Caborn, Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Callaghan, Jim

  Gordon, Mildred

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gould, Bryan

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Graham, Thomas

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Carr, Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cartwright, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Haynes, Frank

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cohen, Harry

  Henderson, Doug

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cousins, Jim

  Home Robertson, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cummings, John

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howells, Geraint

  Dalyell, Tam

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  205

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Illsley, Eric

  Prescott, John

  Ingram, Adam

  Radice, Giles

  Janner, Greville

  Randall, Stuart

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Redmond, Martin

  Kennedy, Charles

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Lamond, James

  Reid, Dr John

  Leighton, Ron

  Richardson, Jo

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Lewis, Terry

  Rogers, Allan

  Litherland, Robert

  Rooker, Jeff

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rooney, Terence

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ruddock, Joan

  McAllion, John

  Salmond, Alex

  McCartney, Ian

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Sheerman, Barry

  McFall, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McKelvey, William

  Short, Clare

  McLeish, Henry

  Sillars, Jim

  McMaster, Gordon

  Skinner, Dennis

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McWilliam, John

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

  Madden, Max

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

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Soley, Clive

  Marek, Dr John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Straw, Jack

  Martlew, Eric

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Maxton, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Meacher, Michael

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Vaz, Keith

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Walley, Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wilson, Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  Winnick, David

  Nellist, Dave

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Worthington, Tony

  O'Brien, William

  Wray, Jimmy

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Patchett, Terry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. Jimmy Dunachie and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

  Pike, Peter L.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Brazier, Julian

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bright, Graham

  Alexander, Richard

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

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Amess, David

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Amos, Alan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Arbuthnot, James

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Burns, Simon

  Atkins, Robert

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Butler, Chris

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Butterfill, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carrington, Matthew

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cash, William

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Benyon, W.

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Chapman, Sydney

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Chope, Christopher

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Churchill, Mr

  Body, Sir Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Boswell, Tim

  Colvin, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Couchman, James

  Bowis, John

  Cran, James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Curry, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

  206

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Key, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Devlin, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Knapman, Roger

  Dicks, Terry

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knowles, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Knox, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Latham, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Evennett, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Favell, Tony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lord, Michael

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Forman, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Forth, Eric

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Franks, Cecil

  Maclean, David

  Freeman, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Fry, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Madel, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Malins, Humfrey

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Mans, Keith

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Maples, John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Marland, Paul

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marlow, Tony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorst, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gregory, Conal

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Ground, Patrick

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Grylls, Michael

  Mills, Iain

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moate, Roger

  Hannam, John

  Monro, Sir Hector

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

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Harris, David

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hayes, Jerry

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Mudd, David

  Hayward, Robert

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Norris, Steve

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Holt, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Paice, James

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

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pawsey, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Price, Sir David

  Irvine, Michael

  Raffan, Keith

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Jack, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Janman, Tim

  Redwood, John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  207

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rost, Peter

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Tracey, Richard

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Trippier, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Trotter, Neville

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Viggers, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shelton, Sir William

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Walden, George

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shersby, Michael

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Sims, Roger

  Waller, Gary

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Ward, John

  Speed, Keith

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Speller, Tony

  Watts, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wells, Bowen

  Squire, Robin

  Whitney, Ray

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Steen, Anthony

  Wilkinson, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wilshire, David

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sumberg, David

  Wood, Timothy

  Summerson, Hugo

  Yeo, Tim

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

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

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the progressive implementation of the Government's reforms of the National Health Service, coupled with substantial increases in resources for the National Health Service and in the numbers of patients treated since 1979; looks forward to the benefits of these reforms being spread more widely so that services everywhere are brought up to the standards of the best, especially with the further development of National Health Service trusts and fundholding practices; notes that district health authorities and general practitioner fundholding practices will both give priority to patient's clinical needs; welcomes the determination of the new National Health Service trusts to get to grips with long-standing management problems; supports the new role of district health authorities as guardians of the public health, accountable for arranging comprehensive care for their local residents; and endorses the Government's intention to set out a new agenda for the National Health Service which concentrates more than ever on improving the health of the people.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Furthermore, may I say what I said at the beginning of the debate. As many hon. Members wish to participate, I ask not only Members on the Back Benches, but those on the Front Benches, to make short contributions.
  7.13 pm
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I beg to move,
  That this House believes that the Government's response to crises in Iraq, Bangladesh, and Sub-Saharan Africa has been slow and shamefully inadequate; and calls on the Government immediately to provide additional resources for the Overseas Development Administration to deal with the three current crises and to set a timetable to meet the United Nations aid target of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product.
  Over the past few weeks, we have heard much talk about aid fatigue and compassion fatigue. Indeed, with the horror of the disasters appearing daily on our television screens and in our newspapers, it is convenient for Governments to run for cover behind those phrases as an excuse for doing less and less. I am sure that that charge cannot be laid against the Minister for Overseas Development. I know that she is indignant about any suggestion that she is dragging her heels in responding to the great human tragedies of famine, flood and war that have hit our planet.
  I know that the Minister dearly wishes that the Chancellor would respond to her pleas to expand the aid budget so that she need not blush every time the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development raps the United Kingdom over the knuckles for being so mean. We were not surprised to hear her plaintive cries last week when she told the House that it was time to
  "seek to make the aid programme grow in real terms"—[Official Report, 8 May 1991; Vol. 190, c. 734.]
  She hoped that that would be achieved, but as the aid programme has been stagnant for two years with no real increases planned, perhaps she can tell us today if she would like even more help from the Opposition to enable her to make her case to the Chancellor.
  The case for increasing Britain's aid is strong. While the British have been horrified at what they have seen on television and read in newspapers and have dug deep into their pockets, the Government's response to the current disasters has been little short of shambolic. The scale of recent disasters has been exceptional, but the Government's response has certainly not been exceptional. There is no doubt that what has been given has saved many lives, but it has not been enough.
  I shall deal with the most recent emergency first. The cyclone in Bangladesh on 29 April was one of the worst disasters in history to hit the region. Hundreds of thousands of people have already died and up to 10 million have been left stranded without homes, land or crops. The United Nations and the Government of Bangladesh have appealed for $1·4 billion—£840 million—for immediate relief, but the total United Kingdom response has been just £6·5 million. The United Kingdom's contribution to the appeal for Bangladesh, based on our share of the gross national product of OECD donors, should be more than £50 million. Last week, the Minister and the Prime Minister claimed that Britain's response was the largest of any donor, but Saudi Arabia has pledged £62·5 million

  209
  and now, while our one Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship makes its way slowly to the Bay of Bengal, the United States marines are already there.
  In Africa, the situation has been getting worse, and now it is desperate. Twenty-nine million people face starvation in 25 African countries. In total, Africa needs 5·2 million tonnes of food aid, but only 1·4 millon tonnes have arrived. There are just a few weeks left before the rains arrive, making the roads impassable. If the food pipelines are not filled now, millions of people face death by starvation.
  The United Kingdom's total famine relief since last September amounts to £67 million, much less than the Overseas Development Administration's drought-related aid to Africa in 1984–85 when 1 million people died. That would be worth £135 million at today's prices.
  In its report on the 1984–85 famine, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs said:
  "The generosity of the British people has not been matched by the British Government."
  If that was true then, how much more true is it today? The problem is that the ODA does not have the cash to cope and the Treasury apparently refuses to give new money.
  The Minister will try to assure the House that the ODA's budget is managed flexibly to cope with disasters, but, as the same report by the Select Commmittee on Foreign Affairs states:
  "The aid budget is designed to have a certain flexibility to enable it to cope with emergency relief. It is not designed to be able to cope with emergency relief on this scale."
  Again, if that were true then, it is even more true today.
  Not only is the ODA strapped for cash but its existing resources are draining away into the coffers of the Ministry of Defence. In 1984, when the airlift to famine victims in Ethiopia began, the Ministry of Defence paid the full cost. Then the cost was split 50:50 between the ODA and the Ministry of Defence for four months in 1985. In total, the ODA paid £8·3 million of the £21 million that the airlift cost, so why is the ODA now paying the full cost of military relief operations in Kurdistan and Bangladesh? Those costs involve £2,000 an hour for Hercules flights and £2,500 an hour for Chinook helicopter flights. If only the ODA had the clout to send the bill back to the Ministry of Defence.
  In Germany, the Defence Department recognises the training value of using the military in civilian disasters. Therefore, the cost is shared between the military's training budget and the aid budget. The British Ministry of Defence's training budget is almost as large as the entire aid programme. The costs should be shared in the same way.
  It is clear that the extra £20 million from the Treasury is going straight back into the MOD's pocket. It does not even cover the full cost of the MOD's bill, so the Overseas Development Administration's contingency reserve must be disappearing very fast indeed. As The Independent reported on 6 May, the £20 million was agreed before the Bangladesh cyclone, but the Minister said
  "she would be pressing the Chancellor for more money this week."
  What happened? Did she try? Did she fail? In February, in an interview with The Guardian about United Kingdom famine relief for Africa, the Minister said:
  "If I needed more money I could go and get it."
  Dare she say that again today?
  210
  The Minister said that she will have a stronger case for more money when her contingency reserve is all gone, but she cannot afford to wait. Last year she had to tell starving people in Africa to tighten their belts because the kitty was empty and the Treasury refused extra money. It is only the immense political pressure and the horrifying television pictures, along with the personal appeal of Mr. Jeffrey Archer, that squeezed new money from the Treasury for the Kurds. We can all be too sure that when contingency funds are needed next winter for a less politically sensitive part of the world, the ODA will be throwing up its empty hands in despair and the Treasury chest will remain firmly locked.
  It is not surprising that the ODA is strapped for cash, because the aid budget has been slashed, as I and many of my colleagues and Conservative Members have said many times in the House. It is still 11 per cent. lower in real terms than it was in 1979. United Kingdom aid, as a percentage of gross national product, fell from 0·51 per cent.—and rising—under Labour in 1979 to 0·31 per cent. in 1989. Despite claims by the Government that the aid programme is growing, it is stagnant in real terms. The planned aid budget for 1993–94 is worth £1·7 billion in today's prices —exactly the same as the aid budget for this financial year.
  The ODA's response has been slow as well as small. After the cyclone in Bangladesh, millions of people on flooded land could be reached only by helicopter, yet the ODA loitered for 10 days before even deciding to send four Sea King helicopters on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship Fort Grange. They will not arrive for another week or more. When a disastrous cyclone hit Bangladesh in 1970, there was a British amphibious squadron there in just over a week and the Minister—wooden leg and all—was there in under a week.
  We knew about the looming famine in Africa last September, so why did the ODA delay over half its aid for this emergency until last month? One reason is that it had run out of money, so it had to wait until the 1991–92 financial year. Another reason is that the Sudanese Government did not publicly admit the scale of the tragedy then, but we should not care whether the Sudanese Government bend on one knee or two to ask for aid when we could be saving starving people.
  The ODA lacks not only the cash to cope but the staff, too. Few realise that the ODA's disaster and refugee unit is basically an enabling organisation that signs cheques in support of voluntary agencies. The unit's staff were increased from four to six to deal with the Kurds, and from six to nine a few weeks ago—a sorry contrast to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's around-the-clock Gulf crisis unit, with 50 personnel. The excellent but overworked staff have simply been unable to co-ordinate all the requests for and offers of aid. The disaster and refugee unit needs extra staff now to screen offers of assistance, filter incoming information and monitor the distribution of aid.
  The ODA has also been unable to tap the generosity of the British people. Offers of assistance from doctors, nurses and relief workers around the country have been wasted because the understaffed disaster unit has been unable to process them. Tonnes of clothes have been left in warehouses because the ODA has not had the resources to fly them to the Kurds. For example, due to simple misunderstandings and lack of information, the ODA delayed flying 50 doctors from Cornwall for over a week.

  211
  Disasters are not a new phenomenon. Surely the mechanisms for dealing with logistical problems should be in place by now. There should be warehouses of stocks, or a system to tap into commercial stocks. As The Daily Telegraph, in a very good article headed "Emergency Aid —Why we need a force for action"—said:
  "What has happened in Iraq is that the system has been exposed by the size of the catastrophe … So it is on such occasions that the British Government is exposed as having no system at all. The French have a force, an inter-ministerial committee and a minister."
  The article went on:
  "The Disaster and Refugees Unit is a first class lubricator of the work of the voluntary agencies, who swear by it. But at that level it was never designed to cope with the big emergency. What is needed is recognition on both sides of the House that the British Government does not have a disaster relief system."
  The Minister tried to deflect criticism of Britain's response by attacking the United Nations and the European Community, but she is criticising the very agencies that this Government have undermined and underfunded. United Kingdom contributions to nearly all the United Nations development agencies have been cut by this Government. Funding for the United Nations Development Programme has fallen by 52 per cent. in real terms since 1979. On 9 April, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees appealed for $238 million for Iraqi refugees, but one month later less than $100 million had been pledged. According to the UNHCR, every cent has been spent or committed—usually before the ink was dry on the cheque. The United Kingdom's contribution of $95,000 was the lowest of all.
  Sir Philip Goodhart: Does not the hon. Lady acknowledge that our contribution to the main UNHCR fund last year was the sixth largest of any country—that it was twice as large as that of France, four times larger than that of Italy and larger than that of Germany?
  Mrs. Clwyd: That does not negate the point that I was making. If one looks through the list of United Nations agencies, one finds that in almost every case—the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, UNDP and others—the British Government's contribution has been cut drastically. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said, "We can do the job. Give us the money." Therefore it is totally unfair for the Government to criticise UN agencies when they are not prepared to give them the money to do the job. As Mrs. Ogata said:
  "The UNHCR is not able to mount massive relief operations on credit. If further special allocations are not made immediately, the entire humanitarian effort will be in dire jeopardy."
  In the case of the European Community, I understand that it was the British Government who led the discussions to reduce the European Community's special food aid programme for Africa by 20 million ecu. It is the Council of Ministers that refuses the Parliament's request to establish a permanent emergency aid reserve chapter in the EC's budget.
  I have already outlined the immediate need for new money for the aid budget, for more emergency relief and for more staff in the disaster unit, but there is much more that must be done in the coming months and years. After the immediate relief effort, the next priority will be aid for reconstruction. The victims of famine in Africa and of the
  212
  cyclone in Bangladesh need seeds, tools and cattle if they are to plant anything for the next harvest. The economy of Bangladesh has been devastated. The Bangladeshi Government have made it clear that the appeal for $1·4 billion is for immediate relief needs only and that there will be further appeals for reconstruction aid. Will that be forthcoming?
  Before the next disaster strikes, the ODA's disaster unit must be revamped. It needs contingency plans to expand, with suitably experienced staff being available as soon as a major disaster breaks. Regional co-ordinators should be found to co-ordinate donations on behalf of the ODA during disasters. An ODA internal evaluation of the response to famine in Africa from 1983 to 1986 found that there had been little contingency planning by the ODA for such a large-scale disaster. It said that more staff were needed and that staff were too busy to monitor the implementatoin of relief efforts funded by the ODA or to plan ahead. It recommended training for members of the disaster unit. Have any of its recommendations been implemented?
  Gales strike the coast of Bangladesh every day. Gales and cyclones will kill thousands more unless there is adequate investment in early warning systems and cyclone shelters. About 4,000 cyclone shelters are needed, but at present there are only 350. Our bilateral aid programme to Bangladesh is one of the largest. It should support a strategy for disaster prevention in future. In Africa, aid should be invested in early warning systems, with regionally held food stocks, transport systems and other measures to prevent a drought from becoming a devastating famine.
  A mobile emergency volunteer force is needed. Doctors, engineers and other experts who volunteer to assist in times of emergency should be sent immediately to where they are needed; hence, selection and co-ordination must occur in advance. In Switzerland, disaster relief units can second experts for two to three months and emergency teams co-ordinate with the United Nations. In France, Medecins Sans Frontieres was working with the Kurds on Iraq's borders within days of the exodus.
  Some mechanism must be found to tap the skills of British experts and to ensure that emergency relief reaches those in need as soon as possible. The Government should either set up a state-funded register of experts, as in Switzerland, or ensure that non-governmental organisations can afford to retain experts who can be sent out at short notice. We already have a capable disaster relief squad in the armed forces. The new international climate makes in impossible for the armed forces to be more involved in civilian as well as military emergencies, as The Daily Telegraph wrote:
  "The forces' stock in trade is getting there 'fastest with the mostest' and nobody does it better."
  Mr. James Paice: I hope that the hon. Lady will refer to the part of the motion which calls on the Government
  "to set a timetable to meet the United Nations aid target of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product."
  What timetable would she wish to set, and what timetable would a Labour Government set?
  Mrs. Clwyd: I shall send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the relevant section of our manifesto. We have promised

  213
  that the next Labour Government, not now long awaited, will increase our percentage of GNP to 0·7 per cent. within the first five years of taking office.
  United Nations agencies, particularly the disaster relief organisation, should be strengthened. Ministers, including the Prime Minister, are talking about the need for a new international agency for disasters. What do they intend to do about that? The right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, talked of precisely that when he was Minister for Overseas Development in 1988.
  I remind the Government that the United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation already exists. We should strengthen that existing organisation before inventing new agencies. Once the United Nations agencies are assured of sufficient cash to operate effectively, it will be worth reviewing their mandates to strengthen their roles. In particular, we must ensure that they can meet the emergency needs of people displaced in their own countries, as well as those of refugees who flee abroad.
  The root causes of disasters, particularly conflict and poverty, must be tackled. Resolving bitter conflicts and civil wars is the only long-term solution for Africa, just as peaceful autonomy is the only solution for the Kurds. There are signs of hope, such as the recent agreement between the Angolan Government and UNITA for a ceasefire and elections. But all peace negotiations need to be underpinned by the international community through the United Nations. The richer members of the United Nations must be willing to give it the clout and financial resources to monitor and guarantee the peace process in Angola and elsewhere.
  Poverty turns a drought into a famine or a cyclone into a human tragedy. Poverty forces millions of Bangladeshis to eke out a living in paddy fields on flood-prone lands. One of the poorest countries in the world, Bangladesh cannot possibly afford to build 4,000 cyclone shelters or spend 6 per cent. of its GNP on sea defences, as the Dutch do.
  Action Aid's report on British aid to Bangladesh in 1988 found a massive shift from project to programme aid and increasing commercialisation of aid. It reported that little was spent on projects directly benefiting the poor. Long-term sustainable development is ultimately the best way to prevent disasters. Radical action is needed to alleviate the poverty of 1 billion people and to reduce the debt burden that is keeping third-world countries poor. Action to prevent global warming is vital, too, if storms are not to become more violent and frequent. As Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan said on 5 May:
  "Unless you have some kind of new economic order, people will continue to move North: all the barbed wire, laws, and immigration controls in the world—nothing will prevent that."
  A new economic order means debt relief, improved trade, more aid and a massive investment by north and south to eradicate poverty. Sadly, the British Government are not promoting such an economic order. We should lead the way forward at the G7 summit in London in July by launching an attack on poverty and debt, and if the Prime Minister has the nerve to call an election in June, the new Labour Government will do exactly that.
  If the British Government are committed to alleviating poverty and promoting sustainable development, they
  214
  know well the next step to take. It is to set a timetable to meet the United Nation's aid target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP.
  Sir Peter Blaker rose—
  Mrs. Clwyd: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way. I am bringing my remarks to a close.
  The United Nations is more entitled to criticise the British Government for taking Britain away from the United Nations aid target than the Minister is entitled to batter the United Nations for its failures. I cite these examples of the Minister's criticisms of the United Nations:
  "I am concerned about the lack of speed of the United Nations in dealing with the problems … In the meantime, there is much work to be done in providing relief. In that sense, the United Nations must get its act together … We want an effective United Nations reaction, but it is taking a long time to get up and running".—[Official Report, 22 April 1991; Vol. 189, c. 777–82]
  Those are exactly the criticisms that we make of the British Government. Could it be that the Minister is looking for a scapegoat? Is it not a fact that she and her Government colleagues have lacked speed, that they should get their act together and that they need to get up and running? Perhaps they are suffering from fatigue—the fatigue of a tired and worn-out Government.
  7.39 pm
  The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'welcomes the Government's swift and continuing generous responses to the crises in Iraq, Bangladesh and Sub-Saharan Africa; and also welcomes the Government's initiatives to ensure the continuing effectiveness of United Kingdom aid and to stimulate improved international disaster relief delivery.'.
  No one can look back on the vivid images of recent weeks without being moved by the suffering of so many fellow human beings. In the Gulf region, we have seen Iraqi refugees trekking into inhospitable mountains and across national boundaries to escape one man's tyranny. In Bangladesh, whole communities have been swept away by natural disaster. In Africa, a devastating combination of natural and man-made disasters threatens life on a scale at least as great as any that we have seen.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clywd) chose to put her case as she did.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Minister is reading, so how can she say that?
  Mrs. Chalker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I will give way, but it is a little early in the debate. I am not reading; my remarks are not on the brief in front of me.
  I particularly regret the hon. Lady's use of the words "slow" and "shamefully inadequate". I believe that she does not mean the words to be accurate or descriptive but uses them for effect, like the absurd claim made last week that the Government have a "secret agenda" for raising VAT. Although the subject of Labour's motion is aid, the context is its ongoing and futile election campaign.
  Sir Peter Blaker: The House heard the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) read out the proposals that the Labour party has just made for reaching the United

  215
  Nations target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP. Is not that exactly the same promise, almost word for word, that the Labour party made in 1974? Will my right hon. Friend the Minister tell the House how many times, in the 17 years that Labour has been in power since the second world war, a Labour Government have reached that figure?
  Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. Labour Governments have always accepted the 0·7 per cent. of GNP target, but in none of those years did they reach it. I do not blame the hon. Member for Cynon Valley for that, because we have not reached it either. However, we have no chance of reaching it unless we have proper economic growth, and we have proper economic growth only when the economy is properly managed. It was proved in 1976 and 1977 that we shall never have that under a Labour Government.
  Mr. Max Madden: Will the Minister take a second to compare the pitiful number of journalists reporting this debate in the Press Gallery with the much larger number of men and women in the Public Gallery? The British public are greatly moved by what they have seen on their television screens in recent months in Africa, Bangladesh, Iraq and Iran. I would be prepared to have a small wager with her that most people would be prepared to forsake any tax cuts that the Government may make for a positive promise to deliver what they want—a war on the poverty that they see throughout the world today. I hope that, in what remains of the debate, the Minister will say how the Government will deliver that commitment rather than play around with party politics in a pre-election campaign.
  Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman's last words reveal exactly what he is about.
  I wish to deal with the real world disasters that we now face. They are global in nature and demand a global response. I am proud of the part that Britain continues to play in our work overseas and to be associated with the efforts of the many people currently engaged in the British aid effort, whether it is in humanitarian terms, such as emergency relief, or in the regular development programme. That includes all my officials, the non-Governmental organisations, volunteers and hundreds more besides, many of whom have worked the longest weekday hours that I have every known and nearly every weekend since the end of March. I am deeply grateful to them. They have done it willingly—they have not been press-ganged into it—and they have had increased support as the weeks have gone by and new disaster has come upon new disaster.
  Before I speak about the major elements of our response to disasters, I shall say a few words about their causes. At first sight, there may seem to be little that we can do to prevent the droughts and cyclones that have afflicted Africa and Bangladesh. However, underlying their impact are factors such as population pressure and poverty. which the hon. Member for Cynon Valley mentioned. We continue to tackle those through carefully targeted development aid. That is why I announced increased population planning grants for the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the World Health Organisation. When I saw Dr. Sadik, the executive director of the United Nations Fund for Population Activities yesterday, I announced a 25 per cent. increase to £7·5 million.
  216
  We are also working in Bangladesh—which has been so sorely hit by the awful cyclone and the subsequent bad weather—with the World bank and other donors to put in place one of the largest population projects ever established, worth over $600 million, £12 million of which is the United Kingdom's contribution. We have been seeking to focus our work on poverty, particularly in the Asian countries, and 70 per cent. of British aid is going to the poorest countries in the world. I agree that poverty must be a key focus in our aid programme but we are carrying that through in our regular development programme and shall continue to do so.
  Sir Charles Morrison: My right hon. Friend's remarks about the increased aid for the population programme are welcome, but will she do her best to encourage other nations, particularly the United States of America, to follow suit? Their record in recent years is disgraceful.
  Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We have already been working with other donors to try to make them increase their contributions on population planning. I hope that they will listen because we firmly believe in a constructive mother and health care programme, which can best be achieved by sensible family planning schemes throughout the world through bilateral and international programmes.
  It is less easy to tackle the scourge of war, which is one of the other main problems affecting many developing countries. Those wars have contributed so much to the tragedy of Africa. There are signs of progress and we welcome, in particular, the preliminary ceasefire agreement in Angola and the talks to be held in London next week between the Ethiopian Government and opposition groups. Sadly, there are fewer signs of optimism for the people of Sudan, Somalia and Liberia, who still face fighting day in and day out. I assure the House that the Government will continue to work strenuously for peaceful solutions to all Africa's conflicts.
  We must encourage good government in the developing countries. It is important not only for human rights but because good government, sound economics and free markets are essential if people are to feed themselves and corruption is to be rooted out. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley will agree that that is one of the key problems to be resolved. I was sorry that I could find no room for good government in the Labour party's latest policy document, "Opportunity Britain".
  Donors should encourage developing country Governments to stop fighting endless civil wars. The Governments of those countries should let their farmers get on with trying to grow their produce and selling it in a peaceful and free market.
  Mr. David Alton: The right hon. Lady will recall that, while she was absent on a trip to the Horn of Africa, one of her colleagues at the Foreign Office assured the House that funds would be made available for transportation in the Horn of Africa. The hon. Lady will know that some money has been made available, but the major aid agencies, in particular Christian Aid, say that Hercules aircraft are still not flying and transportation has not been provided. Can she tell the House anything about that?
  Mrs. Chalker: All the food aid sent to Africa by this country has been accompanied by covering transport costs. I have made it a policy that when we give food aid, we must ensure the means of its arrival at the proper destination. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have been seeking to plan ahead. There have been many problems in Sudan. I only hope that, since the arrival here of the Sudanese Minister of Finance, with whom we had some vexed words, a little more progress is being made in Sudan. The Sudanese Government have at least begun to talk about the size of the problem faced by Sudanese people.
  It is not enough for disaster relief to be swift: it must also be effective. We heard a lot from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley about slowness. However, when dealing with such disasters, in addition to consultation with the relevant Governments, other donors, the international relief agencies and our own non-governmental organisations, we also need to ensure that all those factors are brought together. That means that not only we, but other donors, must be ready to dispatch the right assistance.
  Sadly, there have been far too many examples of over-stretched transport facilities, clogged up with well meant, but unwanted, relief items, and of well-intentioned volunteers who have been prevented by the authorities overseas from joining the relief effort. The hon. Lady mentioned that, and I want to mention the problems that have occurred in Turkey, Iran and Iraq, where second-hand clothing, willingly donated by so many people, was turned back as unacceptable. That may seem strange, but we have to pay the cost of transporting the clothing, and if it is turned back as unacceptable it is obvious that we would have been better off using the money for other purposes. It is very sad that thousands of tonnes of unwanted clothing were sent overseas.
  In the early days of the Iraqi refugee tragedy, there were people from other countries—not this one—hanging around airports in Turkey and elsewhere who were unable to leave and provide the help they wanted to give because they were not permitted to leave. All our volunteers have gone to the camps and places where they can help. That was why I insisted on careful planning, preparation and consultation in the country of the disaster to ensure that the donor assistance reached its target. None of those priorities seems to be reflected in the Opposition's approach.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Chalker: This is the last intervention that I shall take or I shall not be able to respond to the debate.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister consider the situation of some Iraqi students at universities such as the Heriot Watt, which is now desperately short of funds. Those students are precisely the sort of people that would be useful in future in a rebuilt Iraq.
  Mrs. Chalker: I am sure that if those people are willing to volunteer, they will be considered along with the many others who have done so.
  I am also sure that we are right to ensure that the contributions that we make, whether to the United Nations or anywhere else, are well targeted. Earlier this year, before the Kurds, Shias and others left their homes, the Overseas Development Agency contributed £8 million
  218
  to the United Nations agencies to meet the expected refugee outflows from Iraq. But as we now know, those plans were overwhelmed by the sheer flood of refugees towards Turkey and into Iran. At that time, the United Nations expected about 400,000 refugees to come into Iran, Turkey, Jordan and Syria, but in truth, more than 2 million refugees have crossed the borders into Iran and Turkey.
  In the seven weeks since the human trek to safety began, the ODA has committed a further £62 million in humanitarian aid to Iraqi refugees, in addition to the special contribution being made by British troops. I shall return to the issue of Ministry of Defence costs later. The sums committed since Christmas, which total £70 million, are by any measure a substantial response to the needs of the Iraqi people.
  We have flown more than 1,000 tonnes of tents, blankets, food and medicine into Turkey and Iran by cost-effective commercial flights. We used the RAF's Hercules and Chinooks to deliver that aid to the people in the mountains and on the roads, often in the most appalling conditions. So far, we have spent £6·7 million on the air bridge in Iraq, Iran and Turkey, £5 million of which is the additional cost of using MOD equipment.
  We have financed the activities of British NGOs. Last week, 91 volunteers with medical, nursing and rescue experience went to provide every assistance to the refugees still in the mountains and help them make their difficult journey south and west to their towns in Iraq. More volunteers will follow them to carry through the work and extend their excellent contribution to the Iraqi people. I know that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley thought that that should have happened sooner, but it is no use saying that when planning is dependent on the position at the other end, as well as those who come forward and the preparations that are made.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Minister has made it clear to the House that she will not take any more interventions.
  Mrs. Chalker: I have indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, so as to allow as many speakers as possible to contribute to the debate. I have taken more than six interventions already.
  Britain has led the international efforts to find a long-term solution to the crisis. It was our Prime Minister who willed the creation of safe havens in northern Iraq. From the beginning, British troops have been involved in the establishment of those havens. There is still much to be done—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) was heard in good order. I hope that the same courtesy will be extended to the Minister.
  Mrs. Chalker: There is still much to be done, but I know that the House will be encouraged by the fact that refugees are now coming down from the mountains and moving into the safe areas in substantial numbers. That same process is also beginning to happen from parts of Iran. The UN's role is now developing in Iraq. To help that operation get under way, I announced Britain's contribution of $10 million to UN humanitarian relief for the region early last week.

  219
  In Bangladesh, Britain has led the relief effort. Our initial response of £6·5 million was one of the first and, then, the largest. More has since been added by countries such as Saudi Arabia, but that country has pledged its money not for immediate relief, but for reconstruction. One needs to look at the detail of what has happened.
  In Bangladesh we financed the urgently needed supplies of tents, blankets, food and medicine, as well as tackling the appalling disruption of communications by paying for a Royal Fleet Auxiliary, with four helicopters with substantial disaster relief stores, nine boats and a detachment of Royal Marines. ODA vehicles are in use in the flooded districts and boats, including some from the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, are distributing food when the weather permits.
  Britain has financed two United Nations disaster relief experts in Chittagong from the beginning of the crisis. As always, we are working with British and local NGOs, who are doing a magnificent job to deliver relief to those in need. Our NGO co-ordinator from Dhaka set up an office in Chittagong a week ago to provide on-the-spot assessments and ease co-ordination among aid organisations locally.
  However, it is in Africa that 29 million people face the worst disaster. The continuation of drought, long-running civil wars and economic mismanagement have worsened the crisis of starvation and illness. Britain's response has again been swift and substantial. The £90 million pledged by ODA since last September includes 158,000 tonnes of bilateral food aid, much of which is for the horn. That makes Britain the second largest contributor of food to the region. Britain will continue to play her part, but we need other donors to contribute too. That is why, for more than six months, I have strenuously pressed for more urgent action for Africa by other donor countries and the European Community. More than 800,000 tonnes of food will now be financed from the Community budget, with more to follow from other member states. But the crisis in Africa is a long way from being over. Our job over the next few months will be to continue to save lives and give people the means by which they will be able to feed themselves in future.
  I now come to the financing of aid. We have heard more than enough carping about money from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley in recent weeks. We have also heard a lot about targets. The Government remain committed to the principle of the United Nations aid target, but I shall not attempt to compete with the hon. Lady to see who can promise to spend the most. Spending money for the sake of it is easy. Making that money really effective where people need relief is another matter.
  We started this financial year with an aid budget of £1,721 million. It is a substantial programme—the sixth largest in the world. Its value has grown in recent years and it is planned to continue to grow in real terms. Our aid is well targeted and effective. Its quality and professionalism are praised by the OECD's development assistance committee and by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  We provide humanitarian relief without diverting resources from our planned development programmes, because humanitarian relief comes from funds set aside for that specific purpose, calling as necessary upon the Overseas Development Administration's in-year contingency reserve. In exceptional circumstances, we also have recourse to the Treasury reserve.
  220
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear in a letter to the Leader of the Opposition, in the context of our efforts to help Iraqi refugees, that the Government were prepared to look sympathetically at the case for making additional resources available to the ODA for humanitarian purposes if it looked as though its contingency reserve was likely to be exhausted early in the year.
  As the House knows, on 29 April the Prime Minister announced an extra £30 million for the aid programme for continuing assistance to Iraqi refugees. I had no hesitation then about going to the Treasury for that additional money, and I do not hesitate to do what needs to be done. I can assure the House that the Government will continue to look sympathetically at the resources available to the ODA so that Britain can continue to play its full part in the international relief effort to help alleviate the terrible suffering in Africa, and to assist the people of Bangladesh to reconstruct their lives. This afternoon in Brussels EC Foreign Ministers agreed a further 60 million ecu package of co-ordinated assistance to Bangladesh in addition to the initial relief contributions already announced. We are glad to contribute to that.
  It is clear that the armed forces constitute a key element in our disaster relief capability. Let me make it clear to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley that the aid programme pays only the extra costs—of fuel and spare parts, for instance—arising specifically from the humanitarian relief operations carried out on our behalf by the armed forces. Our armed forces are doing a magnificent job in Iraq and in Bangladesh, and we applaud them for all that they do. But it is not for Britain alone to provide all the relief, money and solutions. The problems are international and they need international solutions. It is clear that every nation and group of nations must play its full part in a co-ordinated way.
  Britain galvanised the EC's decision to provide additional substantial disaster relief—105 million ecu in the case of Iraqi refugees and 115 million ecu for famine relief in Africa in recent weeks. However, it is the UN which should play the unique role of co-ordinating the international response to disasters. I agree with the hon. Lady that the UN disaster relief organisation is good, but it is very small.
  Mr. George Foulkes: It lacks money.
  Mrs. Chalker: It has had resources and it will continue to have resources. I look forward to the UN takeover of the relief operations in northern Iraq. We want that to happen, but the transfer must be worked out. That is why discussions continue in Baghdad. A UN resolution may be necessary to achieve that end, but we believe that it is right for the UN to prepare to take on that role in the safe havens in northern Iraq.
  I pay tribute to the International Committee of the Red Cross for its outstanding role in the humanitarian aid operations. It has been backed up well by Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, and many other agencies. We applaud their efforts, but it is still the UN which must play the unique role of co-ordinating the international response.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Chalker: No, I have made it clear that, because of pressure of time, I shall not give way.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The Minister has made it clear that she is not giving way. This is a very short debate.
  Mrs. Chalker: There is much to be proud of in both the British and the international provision of humanitarian relief, but we must continue to adapt and improve our response mechanisms.
  At the international level, only the UN has the power and resources to mobilise the international community, but too often it has been hamstrung by a lack of clear leadership and co-ordination. Institutional improvements and changes in attitude are needed. The UN must lead and co-ordinate the international response to international emergencies. We believe that the time is ripe for reform. We have been discussing that idea with other like-minded countries. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the House on 9 May, we want better international co-ordination of emergency assistance, and we are doing all that we can to bring it about.
  We must also ensure the effectiveness of Britain's disaster relief system. In the past, the ODA has worked mainly through non-governmental organisations and other international agencies. They have the skills and experience to deliver effective relief on the ground. Our work has therefore involved the allocation of funds rather than the direct management of relief operations. A small disaster unit was adequate for that purpose, but the nature and extent of disasters have changed dramatically in recent years, and so have our responses. We have become more directly involved in the management of the responses. Increasing use of the armed forces is one aspect of that development. Another is the organisation of teams of volunteers to work in refugee camps such as those on the Turkey-Iraq border. In order to manage such operations, we have strengthened the disaster relief unit and its staff has been doubled. There is now a basic staff of 12.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Four, six, nine, and now 12.
  Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman may shout as loudly as he likes, but it is not simply that the number of staff in the unit has been doubled. The rest of the staff in the office are there when their expertise is needed to back up the disaster relief unit. If the hon. Gentleman believes that maintaining a standing waiting capacity in a unit that would be used only from time to time is using scarce aid funds effectively, he has got it wrong.
  Putting extra staff into such a unit is only one aspect of the challenge. The management of our disaster relief has already been under review. We shall strengthen our operations system by maintaining a permanent register of volunteers from this country with appropriate skills and experience. The first stages of that initiative have already been set up and have been used. That register will continue to be used because the volunteers will give us the capacity to mobilise multi-disciplinary relief teams at short notice.
  I understand the frustration of some hon. Members. I understand their mood, but one thing that I know above all is that the value of the humanitarian aid that Britain has been providing and will continue to provide is second
  222
  to none. There are a great many dedicated people both inside and outside Government who make that possible. We intend to make their efforts even more effective.
  The Opposition motion is misconceived—it is a disgrace, and I ask the House to reject it.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Peter Shore: I shall be brief, not because the subject invites brevity but because many hon. Members want to speak in the debate.
  This has been a year of exceptional disaster for millions of people in Africa, Asia and the middle east. The effects of three great calamities are with us. The first is the plight of nearly 2 million Kurds and 500,000 Shi'ites who fled from their homes in Iraq to the border areas of Iran and Turkey. The second is the ever-increasing threat of famine for millions of people in the Horn of Africa and Mozambique. The third is the violent cyclone that engulfed the islands and coastal area of the bay of Bengal only a fortnight ago.
  On Thursday, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs was given the welcome news that the two helicopters on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Fort Grange had been increased to four. The news about that had been given the day before by the Minister for Overseas Development. I also understand that five American helicopters and four additional ones from India have arried in Bangladesh. That will greatly augment the capacity of the Government of Bangladesh and the relief agencies there to deliver essential supplies to the scattered communities on the islands and in the flooded areas around the bay of Bengal.
  Unhappily, we have not yet seen the end of the calamity in Bangladesh. Since the great cyclone, a tornado has hit part of Dhaka, the rivers have flooded around Sylhet, and a second cyclone is reported as moving up from the Anderman islands area. The short-term measures that are now in hand to rescue people from starvation and disease from only the first part of a crisis programme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) made plain, the cyclone and its floods destroyed crops, drowned livestock, wrecked boats and severely damaged the infrastructure in the Chittagong area. Millions of people have been severely affected, and well over $1 billion-worth of damage has been caused.
  Because of the poverty and shortage of resources, neither the Government of Bangladesh nor the people there can supply the seed, the livestock, the shelter and the boats that are required to rebuild their shattered lives and communities. That will make continuing demands on our emergency aid programme.
  Inevitably, the budget of the Overseas Development Administration has been overwhelmed by the demands of those three crises, and its contingency reserve of about £70 million has already been used up or is certainly well committed. Of course there will be a generous response from people all over the country, and especially from the Bangladeshi communities, to the call for aid funds. However, if we are to make a continuing and effective response, further funds over and above the £30 million that I understand the Treasury has already committed will be necessary, and will have to come from the Government's contingency reserve. I am glad to have the right hon. Lady's assurance that she will press for extra funds, because they will undoubtedly be needed.

  223
  We should consider, however briefly, not only the immediate crisis but the longer-term measures that are needed to prevent or at least to mitigate similar disasters. There is no doubt that the cyclone shelters, pitifully inadequate in number though they were, were highly effective in preserving lives. However, I am told that none has been built since 1978. Following the great floods in September 1988, flood action plans have again been drawn up by the World bank. The United Kingdom has played a considerable part in drawing up those plans, but their execution, apart from the great embankment at Dhaka, has scarcely begun. If we are to avoid similar catastrophes in the years ahead we must increase our aid budget and must target it more effectively on life-saving projects.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: Surely the responsibility for building life-preserving shelters in Bangladesh is primarily that of the Bangladesh Government. The right hon. Gentleman will know about the nature of Bangladesh Governments in the past and will know that offers of help were met with resistance and obstruction. The international community, and especially Britain through its aid budget, encountered great difficulty in trying to set up such shelters. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should tell the Bangladesh Government that the erection of such shelters should be given priority, and that it is being done on their behalf?
  Mr. Shore: Plainly, the Bangladesh Government have to be the major partner in all efforts to tackle the enormous problems in Bangladesh. Unfortunately, Governments in Bangladesh have been not only administratively inefficient but lacking in accountability to their people because they have been established either by martial law or by rigged elections. Bangladesh has just had, for the first time, a free election which produced a Government who are genuinely representative of the people of Bangladesh. That Government were at once overwhelmed by the tragedy of a great cyclone disaster, and that must earn them rightly deserved sympathy.
  Our aid programme has dropped far below the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. of GDP, which we accepted many years ago. If there is to be a peace dividend from the end of the cold war—as, in time, there will be—there is an overwhelming case for our overseas aid budget having the first claim upon it.
  8.16 pm
  Sir Philip Goodhart: The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has made a typically constructive speech, which I am sure commands the support of the whole House. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who opened the debate, adopted a rather more partisan approach. I am sure that historians will applaud the role of our Government and country in bringing help to the Kurdish refugees in particular.
  Under the terms of the United Nations resolutions that formed the basis of our participation in the Gulf conflict, we could not intervene until the Kurds were in flight. There was therefore an unavoidable delay in giving them assistance, but, even allowing for that, the dominant impression that many of us will retain from watching the pictures of the earliest relief efforts is one of avoidable confusion and muddle. That pitiful confusion must raise the question why we do not have a properly organised,
  224
  Government-supported disaster team that can fly out at short notice to give help when there is a natural or a man-made disaster.
  The needs of suffering people are usually the same, whether they have been afflicted by hurricanes, earthquakes, or a breakdown of law and order. They need medical care and drinkable water, and they need communications, so that those who are trying to cope can tell the extent of the disruption and can find out what is going on.
  Our armed forces have transport aircraft that can get the right people and the right equipment to the scene of a disaster. The medical services of the armed forces have doctors and nurses who are trained to cope with the casualties of disaster. We have service engineers who are capable of dealing with water problems, and signalmen who can provide the communications that are needed. What we do not have is the system of getting the right people to the right place with the right equipment.
  Why do not we have a proper disaster response system? It is not because there is a shortage of ideas. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley quoted freely from an article in The Daily Telegraph by my friend Hugh Hanning of the Fontmell group on disaster relief. He has produced so many practical ideas, and has been churning them out for years.
  The ideas of the Fontmell group have been enthusiastically greeted within the armed forces, and similarly by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, they were cheered by Members of the extreme left and the centre left only a few moments ago. They also have the widest support among the centre right and the far right on the Government Benches.
  Why has not more happened? I suspect that the answer is a degree of bureaucratic inaction. Many civil servants, as Sir Bernard Ingham has forcefully reminded us in the past day or two, have considerable energy and imagination. I suspect, however, that the civil servants who man the relevant departments in the Ministry of Defence and who deal with these problems are not equipped with the same imagination and energy. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said, they have been a mite too bureaucratic in recent years in charging the Overseas Development Administration rather more than it should have been charged for services rendered.
  The ending of the cold war and the restructuring of the armed forces implicit in "Options for Change" mean that the Government have every excuse for reconsidering the creation of a proper disaster relief team that would combine civilian and service personnel. I am glad that the steps will be taken that my right hon. Friend the Minister announced a few moments ago. Sadly, it seems certain that the number of refugees in the world will increase rather than decrease in the years to come. The most acceptable quick fix for dealing with the desperate needs of refugees must be to strengthen the resources of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.
  In the past, the Government have been understandably critical of the competence of some United Nations agencies, but the UNHCR is putting its house in order and is short of cash rather than competence. Like the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, I do not believe that we have any reason to be ashamed of our record in the support of the UNHCR over the past decade. Last year, we were the sixth largest contributor. We provided more funds than Germany did, twice as much as France and four times as

  225
  much as Italy. If the western world is to begin to cope with the refugee crisis, however, with the flood of refugees in Asia and Africa, the resources of the UNHCR must be increased. I do not believe that it is starry-eyed or idealistic to think of doubling the funding for the organisation during the coming year.
  We are good at responding to special appeals, but I was saddened yesterday to receive a letter from a Foreign Office Minister—not my right hon. Friend the Minister of State—that told me that our contribution to the general fund of the UNHCR at the end of the coming year, at £20 million, would be the same as that made this year. I think that we should at least double our contribution, and that we should lead a campaign to encourage other rich nations to increase their contributions as well.
  Finally, I make no excuse for returning to the problem of the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is the only place in the world in which large camps for refugees and asylum seekers are maintained on British territory. I know that the administration of the camps is a continuing source of friction and ill will between the Hong Kong government, the UNHCR and the British Government. Nominally, the camps are run by the UNHCR, but in fact it does not have the funds to do a proper job. Most countries do not contribute to the UNHCR operation in Hong Kong. They specifically exclude Hong Kong, because they believe that Hong Kong is a comparatively rich territory that does not need help.
  America has provided more than half the funds for the UNHCR for use in the Hong Kong camps. Japan and the European Community together contributed half as much as the United States. The only other significant help has come from Australia, Canada and Sweden: their combined contribution amounts to one quarter of the American funding.
  The burden on the Hong Kong Government has been increased and, in the run-up to the elections in Hong Kong in the autumn, the members of the Legislative Council are saying that they will not provide funds for any new accommodation. On the other hand, the number of people coming from Vietnam, which showed a marked decline last year, is increasing. That is why the Vietnamese Government face severe economic and political problems at home.
  The existing camps are intolerably overcrowded, and thousands of young Vietnamese boys and girls are spending their entire childhood locked inside crowded barbed-wire compounds, with rudimentary schooling and no chance of touching, or even seeing, a flower or a tree. I understand the problem we face, and I also understand the Government's reluctance to become directly involved, but we can and should make a greater contribution to help those who are the true victims of compassion fatigue.
  8.29 pm
  Sir David Steel: I preface my few remarks by saying that I agree so much with the tenor of the speech of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), and especially his reference to the work of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, which is one of the better United Nations agencies. It is one of the more effective, yet it is sorely pressed for funds. I agree especially with the hon.
  226
  Gentleman's remarks about the refugees from Vietnam. Having seen one of the camps for the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong a few months ago, I hope that the hon. Gentleman's words will fall on receptive ears.
  It is easy for Opposition parties to say in a debate of this sort that the Government are too slow to act and that they do not give enough in response to disasters. I have a feeling that we would say the same whatever the Government did—so let me get over that at the outset by saying that I too think that they have acted too slowly and given too little.
  Mr. Speaker has appealed to us to make short speeches. I wish to make five points, which I hope will be constructive, about the structural lessons to be learned from disasters; if I can make them all in one minute, I shall be extremely pleased.
  First, I agree with the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) about the need for the Government to set a general target for their overseas aid budget. One improvement has already been made. The previous Prime Minister never accepted such a target in principle; she never allowed any reference to the 0·7 per cent. figure to escape her lips. Indeed, she always argued that there was a great role for trade and the private sector. I do not deny that, but it is none the less welcome that the new Prime Minister should accept that the 0·7 per cent. target is desirable.
  My party is committed to supporting that target within the lifetime of the current Parliament, and we have heard that the Labour party is as well. It would be very pleasant if an all-party consensus could be reached, with the Conservative party putting a date to the target. It would not matter very much if we failed to meet it; if we established an aim, we could at least come back every year and complain that it had not been achieved. Let me make a serious point: we might then move towards the target rather than moving away from it, as we have done in recent years.
  I do not want to indulge in too much self-flagellation. None of the G7 countries has reached the target, and West Germany and Japan are at about the same stage as us, while—disgracefully—the United States is well below that level. The Scandinavian countries, however, have demonstrated that they have the political will to achieve the target, and I think that we should do the same.
  Secondly, I do not consider it right to raid ODA funds to deal with exceptional contingencies. At the end of her speech, the Minister read out some words that were intended to mollify us, to the effect that, if need be, she would always be willing to go back to the Treasury. That, however, does not answer the point made in 1985 by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which stated that exceptional tragedies should not be a charge on the ODA budget. I am sorry to bring up this subject again, but I object in principle to the fact that the Ministry of Defence should be able to say, "Yes, we will help, but the ODA must pay for the petrol."
  When we mentioned that last week, the Minister said that we did not understand Government accounting systems. I can only say that, if the Ministry of Defence has to raid the ODA budget to meet some of its costs, those Government accounting systems are wrong in principle. The Treasury should be charged for any extra funds that are needed to deal with such disasters; the ODA budget, limited as it is, should not be expected to contribute to the MoD's costs.

  227
  My third point, which appears in the Liberal Democrats' amendment to the motion, relates to the need to establish a more effective rapid-response agency at an international level. I welcomed what the Minister told us about her Department's efforts to establish a register of volunteers; nevertheless, the United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation—apart from being small, as the Minister said—has not the equipment, the staff, the knowledge or the know-how to act quickly.
  I am not certain that we have learnt enough from the way in which past disasters have been tackled. I read a report by one of our chief fire officers—I think that it was the chief fire officer in Kent—who had helped to deal with the Armenian earthquake. He made a number of useful points about the need to assemble lists not only of volunteers—the Minister mentioned that—but of agencies, experts, items of equipment, available stocks, tents and supplies of food and water around the globe. That should be done at international level. It is not necessarily a question of stockpiling at great expense in different parts of the world; it is a question of knowing where to go as soon as equipment is required, and of having the machinery to do that immediately.
  At present. both the ODA and the United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation respond only to requests made by Governments. During the early stages of the Bangladesh disaster, we were constantly told about the difficulties in communications, and it was said that we were awaiting requests. I do not believe that it is necessary to wait for requests before assembling equipment that will obviously be required.
  I followed with great interest what was said by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). In the case of Bangladesh, the great embankments that were funded by the World bank seem to have proved less effective than the more limited local facilities that the people would have wanted. There is, I think, a lesson to be learned: when cash is given, it should perhaps be used to finance less prestigious projects that would have a more direct impact on the people involved.
  Mr. Michael Lord: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is little point in setting up massive stockpiles that could cost money, when we do not know whether we shall be dealing with a land or a sea disaster, or whether the temperature will be freezing or very hot. He also said, however, that we should have responded to the Bangladesh disaster before we had been told what was needed. Had we done so, we might well have sent lots of inflatable boats, and it turned out that there were a good many there already.
  Sir David Steel: What was manifestly not there—and everyone knew it—was a supply of helicopters. As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney observed, our response in that regard was both slow and inadequate.
  In Bangladesh, an immediate injection of cash would have been enormously helpful. Local supplies were available within the country and in neighbouring countries—which, again, was fairly obvious. I am not being pernickety; I am simply saying that, in this age of satellite television, it cannot be right to take the attitude that we should sit around waiting for formal requests from Governments. A more rapid response is required.
  228
  Fourthly, in discussing disasters of this kind, we must not lose sight of the long-term programmes with which the ODA and other bodies are concerned. As one who knows Africa better than some of the other areas that we are discussing, I find it deeply depressing that, in the horn, Ethiopia, Sudan and Somalia, famines are recurring that would have been at least partly avoidable if the countries concerned were not wracked by civil wars and maintained by shipments from all the world's arms producers—no doubt including this country in some cases. Another problem is our failure to achieve the standards of irrigation, well-boring and education that are required, on a long-term basis, if we are to prevent the return of famine whenever adverse weather conditions arise. When responding to immediate crises, we must not neglect the long-term needs of that area in particular.
  While I am on the subject of the Sudan, let me tell the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who intervened on her speech, has passed me a fax from Christian Aid. It says that the rations for displaced people near Juba have had to be cut because of transport difficulties. The Minister responded earlier on that; will she now back up the request for extra transport funds that has been made both to the European Community and to her own disaster unit?
  My final point is this. It is essential that we consider the disasters in waiting. I refer particularly to the advent of cholera in Peru, where I understand some 2,000 people have already died. Some 2 million may die by the end of the year if the international community does not respond. Sudden, unexpected cyclones are not the only causes of disaster. It is also taking our eye off the ball, being occupied with today's disaster so that we neglect disasters that are in the making.
  We have just had a report from Frank Judd in Mozambique—whose appointment to the upper House I warmly welcome; as director of Oxfam, he will bring great experience in this field—and he has warned of coming disaster in Mozambique.
  I have also had other reports—from Sierra Leone, for example—where there is a threat that the country may follow the path of Liberia if we are not careful. I hope that this will not happen. What worries me is that here is a former British colony and yet it is the American Government and the Nigerian Government that have given substantial help to the Government of Sierra Leone. I understand—I am open to correction if the Minister wishes—that all we have done is send one military adviser. I believe that we have a particular moral obligation to help a country for which we have been responsible.
  As another example, there is the situation, already referred to, in Angola, where, thank goodness, there is at long last to be a peace settlement. But what do we discover? It is not a country in which we have a particular interest—it was, of course, a Portuguese possession—but the French have moved in; theirs has become the second language, and they are the people most interested in developing fishery protection and tackling the long-term development needs.
  It is rather sad if we are losing our influence in Africa. We are failing to look after not only the interests of the people of Africa but also after British interests in extending commerce and trade.
  I said that I would be brief. I have made five general suggestions. If the Government were to pass on three out of the five tonight, I should be extremely happy.
  8.41 pm
  Sir Timothy Raison: I listened to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) with interest, and he made a number of valid points, although I would quarrel with one or two of them. The right hon. Gentleman has a slightly false picture of our Government approaching the Government of Bangladesh about what help we can give. We do not sit idle and do nothing until a plea is made to us. If the practice is the same as it always was, and I am sure it is, we would certainly very rapidly have established communication with the Government of Bangladesh, but we would want to be sure of two things: first, that whatever we gave was needed and, secondly, that there was respect for the fundamental principle that, in aid programmes of any kind, we ask the Government concerned what they want rather than simply go in, override them and tell them what they will get. I am sure that that is an absolutely sound principle.
  I also believe that the right hon. Gentleman ought to think a little more carefully about the extent of our aid programme. He has said that we should cover all the former British colonies; and goodness knows there are many of them, and many of them are facing very great difficulties. On top of that, he says, we should have major interests in former Portuguese colonies and in south America. But one of the troubles with our aid programme is that it is far too thinly spread; we cover far too many countries already. Rather than look for new areas in which to provide help, we should concentrate harder on providing more help in depth in those areas that we know really well and where we have really strong obligations and historical connections.
  However, I do not want to carp at the general tenor of what the right hon. Gentleman had to say. I am sure that the whole House agrees that the extent of the crises in these three areas results in the bleakest picture that any of us who have followed this area over the years have ever known. The sheer awfulness of what has happened almost defies words. That is true, above all, in Africa. I believe that it is there that the gravest situations of all are to be found.
  Apart from the intrinsic horror of what is happening, there is a feeling of lost confidence in the aid process, a feeling that aid cannot tackle these things. I do not think that the problem is one of compassion fatigue, although there may be signs of that here and there. I think that there is a kind of despair about what can be done to put these matters right or to prevent these crises.
  The despair is triggered off by the fact that so many of the great disasters of the world are caused not just by natural events but by deep political difficulties. It is this that is making it so hard to tackle the things that have to be tackled. It is these political problems, as we see in the middle east and in Africa, that it seems to be beyond the scope of the aid community to solve. There is no need for me to list them, but they include the Kurdish problem, the Ethiopian problem, Somalia, Sudan, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, and so on. They are all suffering from profound political problems, which are causing the troubles they have to face.
  The question is, what can we do about it? I have to say frankly that the simple remedy of doubling the aid programme will not solve these problems. I believe, indeed, that it would be very difficult to absorb a rapid
  230
  doubling of the aid programme, certainly in terms of finding worthwhile projects. That is one of the strange things about this field—that, although the needs are so great, it is very difficult to find worthwhile projects to carry out.
  It is fair to make the point that Bangladesh, of all countries, has received enormous quantities of aid in the post-war years. It has been one of the foremost recipients of aid, not only from the United Kingdom, although we have provided a lot, but from many other areas. Bangladesh still faces enormous problems, which have culminated in the recent tragedy. Sudan too has been a very substantial aid recipient until recently, when it became virtually impossible to provide it with aid because of the present hazards in that country.
  We have to recognise that, as the critics of aid have pointed out, aid has often been used to prop up incompetent or corrupt regimes. It has not been able to achieve its objectives precisely for that reason. We also have to recognise that aid can even sustain a civil war rather than bring peace. There is a kind of minimum level of activity which is sutained by aid coming into a country, and this can occasionally stop people getting to grips with their problems and allow civil war to continue. Arguably, perhaps, that has been true of Ethiopia, and it is possible that it might happen in Iraq.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider rather more carefully the tenor of his remarks in the past few minutes, because they not only encourage the Government to turn away from increasing the amount of aid given but discourage individuals who are giving generously to various aid programmes in Britain from feeling that they should continue. His remarks might encourage people to believe that there is no point in giving any money to anybody.
  Sir Timothy Raison: I quite understand why the hon. Lady has said that, but I have constructed my speech to point out what I believe to be very genuine difficulties. I do not think that any of the things that I have said is untrue, and I can assure her that I have thought about them a great deal. But there are also some positive things that I want to say, so perhaps she will listen to them and recognise them.
  The fundamental question which I think this debate has exposed is whether we need a change of strategy. In this respect, the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister was very interesting, and it is worth while considering what she was telling us. Perhaps the point that came over is that we have to think about the role of relief in the aid process as a whole. When I was Minister for Overseas Development, it was felt that relief was a kind of unpleasant necessity that was occasionally pushed on us, and that the whole thrust of ODA and development was long-term development. That was what the money was collected for, and the relief activities were something that had to be dealt with on the side.
  Of course, the logic of that is absolutely impeccable. Nobody can deny that, if long-term development can be carried out, there is a chance of averting the disasters that lead to the clamour for short-term relief. That philosophy was absolutely right.

  231
  However, what we have to think about now—this is partly what my right hon. Friend was talking about—is whether, in our aid strategy, in planning the organisation of ODA and the way the budget is allocated and so on, we should not recognise that disasters play a bigger part than any of us had expected, and that there must be some change in the strategy and the way in which the Department is organised to have regard to that. That is one of the crucial questions that has cropped up today.
  In a way, the wheel has gone full circle. I can take the example of Oxfam. When Oxfam began, it was the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, set up for the specific purpose of dealing with disasters. Over the years, Oxfam tried to move away from that concept and towards a very strong emphasis on long-term development; as I say, I think that the Government moved in parallel with it. But, like the Government, Oxfam has been forced back on to disaster relief. Since that is so, and since these ghastly disasters do happen whatever we might wish, my right hon. Friend is right to say that we must look at our capacity for dealing with these things.
  It may also be said that, although disaster relief is not what we want to be about—it is a cruel necessity—in some ways it is an easier operation to run than long-term development. The record of a lot of long-term development which has been carried out with good intentions by dedicated and skilled people has, nevertheless, been deeply disappointing. The change has not been brought about in the third world that one might have expected from the quantity of resources that have gone into it. That is because the development process is itself a difficult one, and is complicated by political factors.
  At least when one is dealing with disaster and famine relief, clear targets can be established. People know what they are trying to do and what they have to deliver and where, and they can get on with the job in a dynamic way. The ODA's record in that area has been excellent. The handling by the disaster unit has always been of high quality.
  It may well be that my right hon. Friend is right—I suspect she is—when she says that perhaps we have to enlarge that side. It has already been enlarged, but perhaps that part of the operation has to be increased. It is quite on the cards that there needs to be a shift in the balance within the aid programme from the longer-term work towards the shorter-term work. I think that that applies also to other organisations around the world which are working in that area.
  That means that we must carefully examine our ability to cope with disasters. In a way, we have made quite a good job of it. Sometimes, we have been late in the field, but overall our record has been good. But all of us, including the United Nations agencies, the EC and so on, need to do a lot of rethinking.
  The response of the EC seems not to have been discreditable. I am glad that, just a few days ago, it made the decision to dispatch, I think, an extra 500,000 tonnes of food aid. That is welcome and has not received enough publicity, but we must look at the mechanisms for delivering disaster relief.
  However—here I come back to what I have already said—that does not mean that development ceases to be a vital part of what we have to do. We can see in parts of the world, particularly in Asia, that great gains have been
  232
  achieved by development. Many of the Asian economies, in contradistinction to the African economies, are getting on the move.
  India, the vastest of all the aid recipients, is showing signs of strength which has gradually been built up. In particular, there are certain forms of aid where one can feel confident of the value of what is being done. I am a firm believer in educational aid and training aid, bringing people here for training or sending our people out to the receiving country. The record of the ODA and the British Council in that area has been good.
  Evidently, population aid has to be of great importance. After all, it is the characteristic of the sub-Saharan countries that they have often 3 or even 4 per cent. population increase rates. Above all, there has been great value in the emphasis of the past five or six years on supporting those countries which are prepared to take sensible economic strategies on board and which really have been prepared to take part in a policy dialogue to see that the old ways are not good enough.
  The long-term development work is vital. We are in some ways getting a clearer idea of how to bring that about effectively, certainly in the basic economic field. Our great needs are to press on doing all that we possibly can to deal with the political and military obstacles to development which are causing so much cruelty and grief. One profoundly hopes that the talks that are going on about the horn of Africa will lead to success. One profoundly hopes that, in Iraq, we shall not find ourselves with a prolonged civil war breaking out.
  All I can say is that I believe that, in tabling their motion this evening, the Opposition have to a great extent missed the point. I do not think that their intentions are wrong, although no doubt they are pretty political, but we must look afresh at all our approaches to this difficult and important area.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: There has been an air of unreality about this debate. Apart from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), the House has not addressed itself to the enormous problem that exists out there—or perhaps not so much "out there", as modern technology means that our people can see what is going on, and I do not believe that they will feel that we have had the kind of considered and urgent response to the problems of the third world that they are seeing in their living rooms night after night.
  The simple truth is that Bangladesh is being struck by a cyclone of indifference every day of its life—as are Africa, Asia and Latin America. We have not begun to address the real problems that exist there in the way that those problems invite.
  I do not wish to be uncivil to the Minister of Overseas Development, as she may well be fighting the Treasury in the way that her predecessor attempted to do—we shall try to give her some encouragement today—but would it not have been more honest for the Prime Minister and his various Ministers to acknowledge that, due to the recession which they have largely been responsible for creating, what we have been doing has been woefully inadequate, given the problems of the third world? In no way have we even begun to address the real problems of

  233
  long-term development which are so crucial if the problems are to be met. It is not enough to mount fire brigade operations when our consciences are pricked and to ignore what is going on for most of the time.
  The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), the former leader of the Liberal party, might think that I am being deliberately provocative when I say in the second aid debate that we have had this year that I am almost beginning to despair of the views that he is now expressing. When he calls for a consensus on these vital matters, does he really think that we should pretend that we have views that we do not have? Does he really think that there is a consensus even between the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) and the Minister?
  Tonight, the Minister has expressed views which are a complete repudiation of the speech that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross gave to the Tory conference at Perth this week. I cannot believe that even the hon. and learned Gentleman, for whom some of us have a sneaking personal respect, would abandon common humanity to enjoy a few transient moments of tabloid fame.
  Sir David Steel: I hope that the hon. Member is not going to drag me into this private fight. The consensus that I was seeking was on achieving the UN aid programme, and I know that he will agree with me about that.
  Mr. Clarke: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made that clear, and that I gave him the opportunity. In his speech he appeared to be asking for a consensus on wider issues and it has to be said that that consensus simply does not exist. It does not befit an Opposition to pretend that it does, in view of the fact that the problems that we are witnessing are not being tackled with the urgency that we believe is vital.
  The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross did a great disservice to many people in his constituency, including elderly ladies who work for Oxfam, Christian Aid and the rest, and who ought not to be convinced that their efforts are in vain. I therefore regret his speech, but the House cannot ignore what he said because the real influence upon the Government's shameful policies in these matters may well be reflected in the sort of views that he expressed.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what views I expressed?
  Mr. Clarke: Because time is limited—
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: He does not know.
  Mr. Clarke: It is not for me to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of the speech that he made—from time to time, his recollection may be somewhat faded—but if he has any doubts, I refer him to the House of Commons Library and to last Friday's Daily Record. Then he might see the comments that he made, although I do not wish to dwell upon them because they are unrepresentative of the humanity that I believe the people of Scotland feel. Nevertheless, the hon. and learned Gentleman might have done a service to this debate. He has influenced people to believe that the Government are not giving the leadership that we so urgently require.
  234
  Frankly, it is not good enough for the Minister for Overseas Development or her colleagues in government to call for leadership within the United Nations when they are not giving leadership here in the United Kingdom.
  Mrs. Chalker: What utter nonsense.
  Mr. Clarke: Despite her sedentary interruptions, the right hon. Lady has totally failed to explain why the Government have failed to honour their commitment to the target of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product. I am willing to give way to allow her the opportunity to tell us whether that is the Government's commitment. Do they still believe in it? On Thursday, the Prime Minister, no less, told the House:
  "We have a better record than almost anyone in the world and we can justly be proud of that record."—[Official Report, 9 May 1991; Vol. 190 c. 822.]
  The Prime Minister must know that that is absolute nonsense and is not justified by any facts. The Prime Minister need not go any further than our own Library to check facts.
  What do we find when we check on our commitment to 0·7 per cent. GNP? Far from the Prime Minister being right in saying that we lead the world, we find that we are behind Denmark, which has achieved 0·94 per cent, France with 0·78 per cent., the Netherlands with 0·94 per cent., Norway with 1·04 per cent. and Sweden with 0·97 per cent. We are even behind countries which have not achieved the figure but are nevertheless doing better than we are—countries such as Australia, Belgium, Canada, Italy, Germany and Japan.
  The Government are not doing any service to the people of Britain or to the problems by pretending that they are doing better than they are. If the Government have financial and fiscal problems, they ought to tell us that that is the real reason. They should not try to make a virtue of lethargy, but that seems to me to be the case. The problems that we are debating simply will not go away if that is the Government's approach. Apart from the three areas of crisis that the House has debated today, we have witnessed a decade of economic disaster for sub-Saharan Africa, an extremely unhappy decade for the debt-ridden countries of Latin America. Yet we have also witnessed the fact that the political will on our part to deal with those problems and to offer real leadership to other nations within the UN does not seem to exist. We are therefore entitled to call for a Government who will give these issues real focus and leadership.
  Mr. Lord rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way. There are many more arguments that Opposition Members would like to make. It would be fine to continue the debate about taxation. The Minister seemed to give the impression that she would even prefer a cut in taxation to an increase in the Government's contribution to overseas aid. Perhaps she should make her position clear in her reply. It is not enough for supporters of the Government, including the Prime Minister, to pretend that we are doing superbly when manifestly that is not the case, and when a Back Bencher, the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross, gives a whole conference the impression that he thinks that we are doing too much and, sadly, gets applause for his views. It is profoundly obscene for us to

  235
  witness poverty, deprivation, squalor and death in the third world without feeling angry. As the debate continues, I hope that that anger will be articulated and will intensify.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Front Bench spokesmen wish to reply to the debate at 20 minutes to 10. If hon. Members on both sides are very brief, it should be possible to call most, if not all, of them.
  9.5 pm
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The words of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) were clearly prepared to distort and disguise the important matters which I raised in Perth last week. There is no difference between myself and my right hon. Friend the Minister. The only difference is that last week she spoke second and I spoke first, whereas this evening she spoke first and I am speaking second.
  During the time that the hon. Gentleman spoke, the population of the earth increased by five times the entire population of the city of Perth. Such a city is not built in two minutes, every two minutes. If we are talking about disasters, there may be disasters of cyclone or war, but the disaster which happens every day, every hour and every minute is the desperate increase in the population of the world. That is what creates the other disasters.
  I am ashamed that the hon. Gentleman, having read a totally misinformed report in the Daily Record, using words which I did not use, should suggest that I am impiteous when a disaster occurs. If a person falls, or if a tragedy occurs, whether in Bangladesh, Somalia or anywhere else, it is natural for all of us to help. May I say to the hon. Gentleman, to the House and, I hope, to a listening world, that it is even more impiteous that we do nothing about the disaster of the increase of the world population, whom we cannot feed or educate and who are the result of unintended pregnancies.
  I set up birth control agencies in Edinburgh because in my private practice I saw the tragedy of unintended pregnancy. The world is a tragedy of unintended pregnancy. The people who were washed away in the ghastliness of the Bangladesh cyclone were replaced last week. The population is on the increase again. What is the hon. Member for Monklands, West going to do about that? What will he do about the fact that the populations of Somalia and Ethiopia—thanks to Band Aid, or no thanks to Band Aid—are increasing on an exponential curve? What will the hon. Gentleman do about that? What is his lot going to do about it? What is Geldof going to do about it?
  Mr. Tom Clarke rose—
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I will not give way.
  What will the hon. Gentleman do? The answer is nothing, except express distress and complain that the Government are not doing enough. Then he will wait for the next plane or overloaded train in Somalia or Bangladesh, or wherever, to crash, and he will say again that the Government are not doing enough. In my opinion, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is one of the most responsible members of the Government. The way in which she has addressed such
  236
  disasters as we are discussing has been extremely responsible, and the Government's response has been quite excellent in scale and direction.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fairbairn: No. The hon. Gentleman cannot just wander round to the Front Bench for the purpose of getting me to give way. Someone wrote to me saying, "I wish his father had used a condom." But I did not use the word "condom" in my speech.
  The Government have been very responsible in the face of these disasters, but the great disaster that faces us all is the fact that the population of the earth is expanding out of control. Other disasters will occur increasingly until we address that basic fact. It is a matter to which we should be giving much more attention. I shall say so again and again, however much it offends Opposition Members, until we address the distress of unintended pregnancies in the first, second or third world, or any other world. That will be the answer to the tragedy of mankind. What is now the cause of that tragedy will continue to be the cause. There is no point in asking the Government occasionally to send a fire engine if the children are not prevented from playing with fire.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. John McFall: This motion is about famine, flood and disaster. The concern of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) may be gauged from the fact that he made no mention of the people who are currently suffering. That is what we are interested in today. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has said that poverty and conflict are at the root of the problems. Indeed they are.
  Before the Gulf war began, I said that winning the peace would be harder than winning the war. Consider the billions upon billions of pounds that were spent on winning that war. We spent at least £2,000 milllion in the United Kingdom. What have we spent on winning the peace? We have spent £21 million on aid for the Iraqi Kurdish refugees and given £12 million to the EC. We are one of the smallest contributors in the entire EC. The Minister is shaking her head. Even if the figure were doubled, it would not compare with the amount of money that was spent instantly for the purpose of winning the war. One is forced to deduce that the Government are concerned less about winning the peace than they were about winning the war.
  What is happening today? Arms sales are progressing apace. Every Thursday, the Joint Intelligence Committee of the Cabinet considers, among other things, the arms sales. But those sales continue. This week, the New York Times said that President Bush is strangely silent about the need to curb the sale of conventional arms to the middle east. The new weapons sent to the middle east by the United States in this year alone are worth over $33 billion. Eight of the 15 former top importing third-world countries are in the middle east. Another disaster, another Saddam, and we will have our eyes shut. Where is the new world order we were talking about? Was it merely the United Nations with a respray, which is now showing the old rust? We need not so much a new world order as a new economic order. That is the root of the problem.

  237
  We went to the Gulf to defend our interests. As a tragic Kurdish refugee said in the mountains, "The Kuwaitis had oil and they were saved; the Kurds had no oil, so we were annihilated." If we say that we care about human beings—whether Kurds, Iraqis or Bangladeshis—we should treat them all the same, but we have not done so. The conclusions from the Gulf war are that it was a war about resources. We shall face the same problem time and time again, if we continue to keep our eyes shut, as we have done until now.
  What about Iraq? We have heard nothing about the Shi'ites and we should be doing even more for the Kurds. But what about the innocent Iraqi people whose infrastructure was demolished in Iraq? We have not heard about them. We were told about smart bombs in Iraq—the reality behind smart bombs is that they bomb now and kill later. Every day, innocent Iraqi people are suffering from bad health and from lack of water and electricity resources because we have bombed their country. We have destroyed their infrastructure and we are not lifting a finger to help them.
  I mentioned poverty. In the 1960s, President Reagan said, they fought a war against poverty and lost. I believe that it is individuals such as President Reagan and our former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) who have put us in our current position. They had a blinkered vision of the third world and they believed that the market would solve the problems. We know that the market does not solve them in developed countries, let alone in the third world.
  It is no accident that the world now faces a litany of disasters. All over the world, the seeds of poverty are bearing a bitter harvest. I ask the Minister for Overseas Development, what will she do about that?
  A month or so ago, I read in The Daily Telegraph about Bill Deedes, a high Tory by any measure. He went to the Sudan and, in moving words, he said that the animals die first, the children die next and then the adults take their turn to die. Twenty-seven million people are today facing that reality. During the Gulf war, we made that point to the Government, but the Press Gallery was empty so there was little response in the newspapers the next day. Twenty-seven million people are dying. What is happening in Africa today? Incomes are falling by 25 per cent., commodity prices have fallen by 30 per cent., per capita spending on health is down by 50 per cent. and spending on education is down by 25 per cent.
  The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) mentioned Peru, which is undergoing a cholera epidemic. That epidemic could be prevented if money was used not to service debts, but to help the people. It is an obscenity that every United Kingdom citizen pays, if I remember correctly, more than £6 a week to the banks for third-world debts, to help commercial interests such as NatWest and other groups that recklessly granted loans in the 1970s. Every individual has to pay the price today, while the banks are let off. That is an obscenity, given the fact that millions and millions of people are suffering in the world.
  I want a Government commitment that at the Group of Seven meeting in July they will declare an assault on poverty. The World bank has already said that a concerted effort will take 400 million people out of poverty by the
  238
  year 2000. The Archbishop of Canterbury says that the first priority in his reign will be an attack on poverty. I want the Minister to convey that to the Prime Minister, and put the rhetoric into action.
  An international disaster relief agency is essential. There are, I know, plans for that at the moment. In addition, however, we need a humanitarian support operation. We face today the cocktail of mass hunger. That is the recipe that lies ahead of us. The shades of 1974—the last food disaster—are with us.
  The point of tonight's debate is that the key to the problem is famine prevention. Until that issue transcends political differences, we shall get nowhere. Development is the best antidote to famine. The Government have made no commitment to that. Their record is abysmal. Given that their record is so abysmal, all that we can do is to vote against their amendment.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Michael Lord: It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). He told us about all the problems that face the world, many of which we would all agree about, but then he went on to blame the Government for most of them, or for not doing all that they should. That is the wrong impression to give. I believe that our Government have done as much as they possibly could in the circumstances.
  I therefore congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development on her caring, purposeful and, I believer, practical approach to the problems that we face. I, as much as anybody, would like the United Nations target to be reached. I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees with me about that and that she will do all that she can to enable that target to be reached as soon as possible.
  Aid is always a highly emotional matter. In a way, that is no bad thing. Emotion can be the driving force for action. In that sense, it can help. Emotion, however, is no substitute for practical help, either in emergencies or in the longer term. Enormous amounts of money are constantly being poured into the third world—and rightly so—by Governments, voluntary organisations and other organisations such as Band Aid, to which reference has already been made. Furthermore, there have been the efforts of people such as Bob Geldof, but still we see the pitiful sights on our television screens, and people are asked to give more and more.
  Why are such huge amounts of money still needed with such sad regularity? There are two basic reasons—first, the forces of nature, and secondly, the internal structures of the countries concerned. We can do nothing about natural forces—cyclones, hurricanes, tornadoes, drought and so on. We may hate to admit it when we can put men on the moon and fly around the world in a matter of hours, but the truth is that some forces are still greater than man can cope with, and always will be.
  To counteract the worst effects of disasters and to make peaceful progress within third-world countries, it is essential to have internal structures which will allow that to happen. Sometimes as a country we are made to feel very guilty about the problems in Africa. When colonial powers were involved in that continent there were no wars. People lived in peace. When colonial powers were in Africa, it was self-sufficient. People were not hungry.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Thousands were killed in colonial wars.
  Mr. Lord: Now, Africa takes two thirds of the world's aid; then, it was self-sufficient. I do not want to turn the clock back to those days, but I do not believe that we as a nation should feel guilty about the fact that then Africa was self-sufficient, whereas now it takes such a huge amount of the world's aid. More importantly, it suggests that, in order to combat famine and disease and to cope when disaster strikes, we must have peace, stability and a workable infrastructure of some sort.
  What can we do? How can we help? We can certainly give aid in the short term. We can also involve ourselves in long-term aid. We are doing that. We know, however, that the problems will return unless some fundamental changes are made to the way that many third-world countries run their affairs. Many hon. Members referred to the same point. Most of them were on this side of the House, but the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) mentioned it, too. We respect the sovereignty of all nations. We are told that we cannot interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. That being so, how can we help if rulers will not let us help, and if corruption is rife? How can we help when a civil war is in progress? It cannot be done.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said that Africa needed a famine early warning system. food stores and a proper transport system. She suggested that others, perhaps the United Nations, should be undertaking such work. I agree that those tasks should be undertaken, but if we are not careful, by doing them we shall take over the running of the countries concerned, which we are not allowed to do.
  While we cannot run the affairs of other countries, respecting their sovereignty often happens at the expense of the people of those countries. A way must be found to make the United Nations more dynamic. At the time of the Gulf war, even when we anticipated that it would be a horrific problem, we hoped that out of it would come a United Nations with more moral strength and determination, perhaps being willing to intervene on occasions when in the past it has not felt strong enough to do so. I urge my right hon. Friend to press her Government and United Nations colleagues to try to achieve intervention when that is in the best interests of the nations that we are trying to help, for without co-operation no amount of aid will help.
  The basis difference between the two sides of the House is that Opposition Members seem to believe that by throwing money at the problems that we are debating, they will be solved. My hon. Friends and I disagree with that philosophy. I agree that more aid should be given, but until that aid is accompanied by co-operation from the countries that we are trying to help, disasters will continue to recur and, sadly, we shall have debates of this kind for many years to come.
  9.27 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: It was clear during the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) that the Minister was becoming more and more embarrassed by his remarks, but Government policy is in reality much closer to the views of that hon. and learned Gentleman than one might think.
  Consider, for example the position of Kurdish refugees in Britain today, of whom there are about 800. The British
  240
  Government have the nerve to take to task the perfomance of the nations surrounding Iraq in endeavouring to cope with over 2 million refugees, when we in Britain spend money not on trying to help Kurdish refugees—to permit them to have political asylum and stay here—but on sending them back to face whatever horrors may be inflicted on them. The Home Office sought and obtained an extra £12 million from the Treasury to achieve a faster turnround of people who face death on their return to Iraq.
  The Minister said that war was part of the problem, and that is true. Why then do the Government permit the Birmingham arms fair to go ahead? Why are they not taking a closer look at the affairs of countries to which Britain sells arms? We should be making greater efforts on that front.
  The Minister said that giving 0·7 per cent. of our GNP in aid would not be achievable unless the economy improved. But 0·7 per cent. is a proportion, not a sum of money. We want that proportion to be achieved regardless of the performance of the economy. As the economy improves under a Labour Government, 0·7 per cent. will be a vastly increased sum going to world aid.
  The hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) talked a lot of nonsense about the good old days of imperialism, when there were no wars and the countries now needing aid were self-sufficient. Has he never heard the expression "economic imperialism"? One does not have to be in full control of countries to dictate what goes on in them.
  As I have time to take only one example, I shall cite that of Sierra Leone, which used to be fully self-sufficient in growing rice for its people and preserving their lives. That country cannot be held responsible for the fact that Liberia's civil war is spilling over into Sierra Leone. We have a treaty with Sierra Leone, but it is receiving no aid. In the meantime, far from growing its own rice, it must import every grain from the United States and pay massive debts to the International Monetary Fund and bankers. It is suffering from having built up massive debts and interest rates.
  Countries such as Sierra Leone, Nicaragua, El Salvador and many others whose populations are in desperate poverty are compelled by rich western countries to run their economies in a way that does not help their people but simply provides more profit for the rich countries of the world. The Government must face up to that real issue, which a Labour Government will address, and talk about solving it. To talk about contraception in that context is obscene nonsense.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. Alistair Burt: The House can always tell when an hon. Member gets uncomfortably close to the truth, especially if he or she expresses views that contain a grain of truth. People laugh nervously and then scatter and hide behind the parapets.
  I should like to read the following passage:
  "The population problem in Bangladesh is awesome. The problem of people has been defined: too many, too close, too young and too late … there are too many women starting child-bearing too early, before they are fully grown. They are under-nourished and have too many babies too close together, which not only undermines their own health, but also that of their babies. Fifty per cent. of babies born in Bangladesh are below normal birth weight and almost all mothers are anaemic. More than ninety per cent. are born at

  241
  home, and the majority delivered by untrained attendants; resulting frequently in tetanus for mother or child, which is almost invariably fatal. This is part of the vicious cycle faced by females, starting when they are born, that has to be broken."
  Those are not the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) or a statement from the Government. They come from Fiona Duby, who is a health worker on an NGO project in Bangladesh, and they appeared in the British Overseas Aid 1990 annual review.
  We may not like the way our colleagues sometimes express things that happen to be true, but on over-population, but we laugh at them at our peril.
  9.33 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This debate could not be more timely. The most appalling disasters have occurred in Bangladesh, Kurdistan and Africa. There is no shortage of popular support for getting aid and help to those disaster areas.
  However, I deplore the way in which journalists keep writing about donor and aid fatigue, because it is very damaging to non-governmental organisations that are doing their best to get aid quickly to those who need it most. Journalists could do more useful work by writing about the background to those disasters rather than speculating about donor fatigue.
  The case of the Kurdish people has been raised in the House many times. Indeed, I have been highlighting their plight for many years. Clearly, they have the most desperate short-term needs for medicine, blankets, food and engineering help, just to survive. As we speak, children are dying on the mountains, and many people are dying of starvation in that region.
  Unless a long-term political solution is found to the aspirations of the Kurdish people, the problem will return time and again. Sadam Hussein has always done deals with the Kurdish people when he is weak and has killed them when he is strong, as he did in 1988 at Halabja.
  Emergency aid is desperately needed. The British Government could find more than £1 billion to fight the Gulf war, without any vote in the House to support their decision, so I find their niggles about small sums of money in an aid budget quite distasteful. If we were serious about conquering hunger, the world arms bill alone could do so. The question is whether there is the political will to do so.
  The 1980 World bank report stated:
  "present output of grain alone could supply every man, woman and child with more than 3,000 calories and 65 grammes of protein per day. Eliminating malnutrition would require redirecting only about 2 per cent. of the world's grain output."
  Those figures were relevant in 1980. Obviously, the exact figures have changed now, but clearly the world would be capable of feeding itself if wealth were properly distributed throughout the world. A recent World Food Programme report showed that 29 million people in 25 countries—mainly in Africa—were at risk of immediate death from starvation. Against that background, we must consider the economic relationship.
  Some 100,000 people in Bangladesh have died as a result of the recent cyclone, and 10 million people are homeless. Polluted drinking water and various other problems will hit that country very quickly. Those
  242
  problems will not go away and must be faced in the spirit that we live in one world and one planet. At present, instead of vast amounts of aid flowing from the richest to the poorest countries, the wealth flows the other way, as it has for every one of the past 200 years. The debt crisis affecting third-world countries at present means that, in real terms, they are subsidising the banking systems and commodity brokers of the north, at the expense of their own people. The closure of hospitals and health services in Mexico, Peru, Bolivia and other countries, insisted on by the World bank and the International Monetary Fund, is a major part of the problem.
  We have a role to play in providing rapid emergency aid, and we must do so. We also have a role to play in providing programme aid to ensure that there is consistent, long-term economic and agricultural development in those countries. We also have a responsibility to ensure that the debt problems of third-world countries are solved. Those problems are best met by writing off debts, which prove an unbearable burden for those countries. We must also insist and ensure that the real prices of the commodities produced by third-world countries increase. In a basket of commodity prices, most countries now receive less in real terms than they did in 1950—more than 40 years ago.
  Unless we address these problems, the basically economically based disasters—albeit some of them are environmentally based—will return to haunt us again and again. We must do something to write off the debts and restore a balance in the world's wealth, to ensure that the real wealth created goes to those who most desperately need it, not to finance the profligate consumption of the super-rich of western Europe and north America.
  9.37 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I have time to raise just one item—British aid to the Kurds.
  The generosity of the British people in assisting the Kurds has been considerable. It was reflected in the events of this weekend, but that was by no means the extent of the generosity, because we are now seven weeks into the problem faced by the Kurds.
  As soon as the pictures came on to our television screens, people up and down this country got together in communities and villages and started to collect blankets, groundsheets, tents and the necessary supplies to be sent out to the Kurds. By 4 April, a group called British Aid for the Kurds had been established—a successor organisation to that which sent parcels to the British troops during the Gulf war. That was a straightforward exercise, because there were plenty of MOD aeroplanes flying to the Gulf, so supplies could be sent.
  But there have been massive logistical problems in getting British aid to the Kurds. The ODA has not been able to respond to the work that has been done as it could have had the resources been available. That has nothing to do with shortcomings on the part of the people in the disaster unit, who have worked admirably in difficult circumstances. The problem is the vast shortfall in the resources provided for the ODA to handle crises.
  There is a big unwritten story that the media have not got hold of—about how people responded as soon as the crisis was known, and how it has taken so long to get the goods out to Turkey, and especially to Iran. We have often had to depend on Iran Air to fly the goods out, and until

  243
  recently it has had to pay landing charges at Heathrow. Indeed, I understand that Iran Air still has to pay landing charges if the flight is considered scheduled.
  The case of British aid for the Kurds reveals the inadequacy of the ODA, and its inability to handle three massive crises at one time. Its procedure for handling what we may call normal passing disasters is to send two 707s with medical and other supplies and to buy goods in local markets to provide assistance in an area. That procedure is not capable of beginning to touch the problems in Bangladesh and the horn of Africa, or the problems of the Kurds. In short, the Government need to adjust their operations.
  9.42 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: I am pleased that all the Members who wanted to contribute to this important debate have been able to do so—albeit rather briefly in the case of the last few speakers.
  The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) asked us to bear in mind the important issue raised in a rather eccentric fashion by the hon. Member for Tayside, North. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are not unaware of the problems associated with population and development. There is an active all-party group on population and development chaired by the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison). I have not seen the hon. Member for Tayside, North attending its regular meetings.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not the Member for Tayside, North. I represent Perth and Kinross.
  Mr. Foulkes: I must apologise profoundly to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I never thought that I would be able to insult him.
  It is an unusual pleasure to be able to start by welcoming some of what the Minister has said. I welcome first what I interpret as the announcement of the establishment of a mobile emergency volunteer force with doctors, engineers and other experts available to be mobilised and sent immediately to help when disasters happen.
  Secondly, I welcome the expansion of the disaster unit. A few weeks ago it consisted of only four people. After our private notice question on 3 May, the number rose to six. After the statement demanded by the Opposition on 8 May, there were nine people, and today it has been announced that the number is now 12. After a few more private notice questions and statements, and a few more debates initiated by the Opposition, perhaps we shall get a disaster unit big enough to cope with the scale of these disasters. The people in that unit do not stand idly by when there are no disasters—planning is an essential element in coping with disasters, and the unit will be planning for potential disasters of all kinds.
  Much of what the Government have done over the past few months has been in response to pressure from the public, the media and, if I may say so, from the Opposition. I shall not disappoint the Minister by congratulating her on everything, however, for there is much more to be done. I intend to repeat some of the unanswered questions and deal with some of the Government's misinformation.
  The aid budget is inadequate. It has been squeezed again and again as existing allocations have been used to
  244
  help cope with disasters. We are only one and a half months into the financial year and already about three quarters of the contingency fund has been used. It is fairly certain that in the next 10 and a half months there will be more disasters to cope with. There are major demands on the programme from other parts of the world, and parts of the programme will inevitably be harmed if more and more is taken out of an already small budget to help in disaster areas.
  The budget is already 11 per cent. down in real terms. The Prime Minister said that this country is generous, and the Minister for Overseas Development implied that the budget is increasing. That is untrue. The Minister's answers to questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) show that the aid budget is on the way down. Trying to meet extra needs and demands from a shrinking budget clearly places great strain on other aspects of the aid budget.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) asked the Minister about extra funds. My hon. Friend quoted from The Guardian, and the Minister has said several times that she would be prepared to ask for more money. In a debate earlier this month I tried, as always, to be helpful. In reply the Minister said:
  "I believe that more resources are necessary in these exceptional circumstances, but, however helpful he might think his comments are, the hon. Gentleman must leave to me the approaches that I have made, and continue to make, for the resources that I need to carry out my job efficiently."—[Official Report, 8 May 1991; Vol. 190, c. 741.]
  In her winding-up speech, will the Minister state clearly the results of her approaches? How much new money—not money from the contingency fund or from the overstretched aid budget—is there for the Kurds, for Bangladesh and for famine in Africa? We have tried to get a straight answer but we have not received one. We want a straight answer now.
  Ministry of Defence charges were raised by hon. Members on 3 May, 8 May and in this debate. If the reason is not cost, why are the Government reluctant to mobilise the forces of the Ministry of Defence? Those forces have the experience and the will to carry out the task, and they have the equipment and personnel. Field Marshal Lord Bramall has said that they are ideally equipped for that task, but the Minister says that the ODA has to pay the extra costs.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) quoted Hugh Hanning of the Fontwell group. Mr. Hanning has conducted much work on the matter. He has produced a pamphlet and written many articles and, as the hon. Member for Beckenham said, he clearly understands the issue. Hugh Hanning said that the United Kingdom is the only country whose Ministry of Defence does not deduct training costs from the charges that are made. Will the Minister make that absolutely clear, and will she approach the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury to make sure that the extra burden of training costs does not fall on the already overstretched ODA budget?
  I am afraid that the Minister's strategy has be be described as diversionary tactics. One of my hon. Friends referred to it as scapegoatism. The Minister blamed the delay in mobilising forces and assistance in Bangladesh on the weather. One of my hon. Friends tried to intervene to suggest that the right hon. Lady might have been on holiday at the time and that that might have delayed the response. In the context of the famine in Africa, the right

  245
  hon. Lady attacked bureaucracy in the European Community and the following week she had to apoligise to the Community because she was wrong.
  Now the Minister is attacking the United Nations. She is saying, "It is not the fault of the British Government; responsibility lies with the United Nations." All the United Nations agencies are having to work with both hands tied behind their backs because of the collapse of the funding and assistance made available by the Government to the United Nations.
  Several hon. Members, and especially the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir. T. Raison), spoke about the despair that is felt in tackling some of the problems, given their magnitude. He was a Minister for Overseas Development, and he has discussed these issues before. Indeed, he has raised them again and again.
  Most of the despair in most of the countries where there are disasters arises from the huge debt burden that most of them have to bear. There is not, as some Conservative Members fondly imagine, a huge transfer of resources from the rich countries to the poor. Given the payment of interest charges and the repayment of debt, there is a net transfer from the poor countries to the rich, despite all the aid that we give. There must be major debt forgiveness. Help must be given to the countries that are so poor.
  We have a moral responsibility, and humanity should motivate us in this place as it motivates the British people outside. The British people are generous with their voluntary donations and the Government must match that generosity. The British people want a swift response, and the Government must give it. We want to see a response out of common hunanity, but we also want to see political stability and economic prosperity in the countries where disasters have struck. In that way, we shall have security and safety in working with countries that we know to be politically stable and economically prosperous. It is in our interests to help them, as well as in the interests of the poor and of the peoples who are threatened with debt in so many countries around the world.
  9.51 pm
  Mrs. Chalker: We have had a good debate. It has been rumbustious at times, but it has revealed yet again the concern and anxiety that is felt on both sides of the House in response to a great issue. Our anxiety is fully shared by the British people. That was shown by the magnificent response on Sunday to the Simple Truth concert.
  I shall try to respond to some of the comments that have been made in the debate, but before doing so I say that, as politicians, we must respond constructively and practically when dealing with the public purse. That response has been forthcoming, and in recent months £70 million has been provided for the Iraqis and £90 million for Africa. A starting sum for Bangladesh—I have always made it clear that it was for immediate relief—is the £6·5 million that has been announced so far.
  There have been some interesting contributions to the debate. For the first time in history, I found myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I agreed with what he said about journalists reporting the debate, and with his remarks about the need to resolve the situation of the Kurdish people.
  246
  I do not always quote The Guardian, but this evening I shall quote from the "Notebook" column:
  "The British government's leadership in each of the current international relief operations—for the Kurds, Bangladesh and Africa—is indisputable. It has moved quickly, efficiently and generously to deliver the right kind of assistance to those who most need it in meaningful amounts."
  If the Opposition do not believe what they read in The Guardian today, I shall. Many fair-minded people share the view expressed in the column to which I have referred. That is why I have consistently paid tribute to my staff, to non-governmental organisations and to all others who have helped. Such remarks, however, will not discourage us from considering urgently what further improvements can be made to the way that we and the international community distribute aid.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Chalker: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have only seven minutes to complete my speech before the House divides.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister has still not answered my question.
  Mrs. Chalker: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman if he will stop making a noise. I shall tell him where I was.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer the question!
  Mrs. Chalker: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman where I was, if he will listen. On 27 March, I was in my office. On 28 March through to 4 April. I was ill, unfortunately. I kept in touch with my office by telephone and fax machine throughout that time. If the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has not suffered the pain of a gallstone, he does not know what it is.
  I referred earlier to our review. UN co-ordination is needed urgently. I was not criticising individual agencies, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) seemed to think: I was expressing my regret—I know that my view is shared by many other member countries—that, despite the excellent efforts of people "on the ground", we were not able to secure co-ordination with those at the top to bring together the available resources quickly. We are now working to solve that problem, as we have been doing for some time. It was last September, when I went to Jordan, that I realised that it was a problem. The review that we have set in train—which deals with how we should handle major disasters simultaneously—is going well, and I hope that before long I shall be able to inform the House of the outcome.
  I have taken note of the many comments that have been made tonight by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) that there has been a loss of confidence in the aid process as such; the current frustration is, I think, caused by the size of the problems that are developing, and the frequent inability of receiving Governments to work with donor Governments to resolve those problems. Things have improved in many of the countries concerned, for the simple reason that many more countries are now working away at the process of economic reform. It is interesting to note how much better they have done in terms of growth—as shown by the World bank's long-term report—when they have undertaken economic reform programmes.

  247
  I understand the deep concern about debt. Let me point out, however, that it was the present Prime Minister who took the lead as Chancellor, building on the debt cancellation initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) in 1987. That is how we worked out the Trinidad terms. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out those terms imaginatively and generously. They called for the cancellation of two thirds of eligible official bilateral debt, and for the repayment of the balance over 25 years. The Trinidad terms are a British initiative, which has been welcomed by donors and debtors alike. Our aim is for them to be accepted by the G7 summit that will be held in London in July, and we are working towards that.
  The question of money is important. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), alas, was not listening to what I said so carefully in my opening speech, because he was talking to his hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley. I said that the Government would continue to look sympathetically at the resources available to the ODA, so that Britain could continue to play its full part in the international relief effort to help alleviate the terrible suffering in Africa, and to assist the people of Bangladesh to reconstruct their lives.
  There is no dispute about the fact that the aid budget was cut nearly a decade ago as part of the process of getting total public expenditure under control. It has, however, increased in real terms in the past three years. New money has been made available: that is my straight answer. Already this year, £30 million from the Treasury has been added to the aid budget.
  Let me also say to the hon. Gentleman—as I have said before—that I am engaged in discussions. I am not in a position to give him answers and, in any event, those answers must be answers to the very necessary case that we make. I believe, however, that MOD costs are entirely proper. My understanding with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the training value of the relief operations will be taken into account in the amount charged to the ODA.
  I commend the Government's amendment, and ask the House to reject the Opposition motion.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 292.

  Division No. 143]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Boateng, Paul

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Boyes, Roland

  Allen, Graham

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Alton, David

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Buckley, George J.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Caborn, Richard

  Ashton, Joe

  Callaghan, Jim

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Barron, Kevin

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Battle, John

  Carr, Michael

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cartwright, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

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

  Cohen, Harry

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Blair, Tony

  Corbett, Robin

  Blunkett, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  248

  Cousins, Jim

  McKelvey, William

  Cryer, Bob

  McLeish, Henry

  Cummings, John

  McMaster, Gordon

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dalyell, Tam

  McWilliam, John

  Darling, Alistair

  Madden, Max

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

  Marek, Dr John

  Dewar, Donald

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dixon, Don

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Dobson, Frank

  Martlew, Eric

  Doran, Frank

  Maxton, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Meacher, Michael

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Morley, Elliot

  Eastham, Ken

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Fearn, Ronald

  Mullin, Chris

  Flannery, Martin

  Nellist, Dave

  Flynn, Paul

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  O'Brien, William

  Foster, Derek

  Patchett, Terry

  Foulkes, George

  Pendry, Tom

  Fraser, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Prescott, John

  Galloway, George

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Radice, Giles

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Randall, Stuart

  George, Bruce

  Redmond, Martin

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Reid, Dr John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Richardson, Jo

  Gordon, Mildred

  Robertson, George

  Gould, Bryan

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Graham, Thomas

  Rogers, Allan

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Rooney, Terence

  Grocott, Bruce

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hardy, Peter

  Ruddock, Joan

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Salmond, Alex

  Haynes, Frank

  Sheerman, Barry

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Henderson, Doug

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hinchliffe, David

  Short, Clare

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Sillars, Jim

  Home Robertson, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hood, Jimmy

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

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

  Howells, Geraint

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

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Soley, Clive

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Illsley, Eric

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Ingram, Adam

  Straw, Jack

  Janner, Greville

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Vaz, Keith

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Walley, Joan

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Lamond, James

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Leighton, Ron

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Wilson, Brian

  Lewis, Terry

  Winnick, David

  Livingstone, Ken

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Worthington, Tony

  Loyden, Eddie

  Wray, Jimmy

  McAllion, John

  McCartney, Ian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy and Mr. Allen McKay.

  McFall, John

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Amess, David

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Amos, Alan

  Alexander, Richard

  Arbuthnot, James

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  249

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Franks, Cecil

  Atkins, Robert

  Freeman, Roger

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  French, Douglas

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fry, Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gill, Christopher

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bendall, Vivian

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Benyon, W.

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gorst, John

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gregory, Conal

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Boswell, Tim

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Ground, Patrick

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Grylls, Michael

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Hague, William

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Bowis, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hannam, John

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

  Brazier, Julian

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Bright, Graham

  Harris, David

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hayward, Robert

  Burns, Simon

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Burt, Alistair

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Butler, Chris

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Butterfill, John

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hind, Kenneth

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Cash, William

  Holt, Richard

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

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

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Chope, Christopher

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Hunter, Andrew

  Colvin, Michael

  Irvine, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Jack, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Janman, Tim

  Couchman, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cran, James

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Curry, David

  Key, Robert

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

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Day, Stephen

  Knapman, Roger

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dicks, Terry

  Knowles, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knox, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Dover, Den

  Latham, Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Eggar, Tim

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Evennett, David

  Lord, Michael

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Favell, Tony

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forman, Nigel

  Maclean, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forth, Eric

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  250

  Madel, David

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Shersby, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Sims, Roger

  Maples, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Marland, Paul

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Marlow, Tony

  Speed, Keith

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Speller, Tony

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mates, Michael

  Squire, Robin

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Steen, Anthony

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stern, Michael

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mills, Iain

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Moate, Roger

  Sumberg, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Summerson, Hugo

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Moss, Malcolm

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Tracey, Richard

  Norris, Steve

  Tredinnick, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Trippier, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Trotter, Neville

  Page, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Paice, James

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Patnick, Irvine

  Viggers, Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Walden, George

  Pawsey, James

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Waller, Gary

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Price, Sir David

  Ward, John

  Raffan, Keith

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Watts, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Redwood, John

  Whitney, Ray

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Riddick, Graham

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wilkinson, John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wilshire, David

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rost, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Yeo, Tim

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Shelton, Sir William

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the Government's swift and continuing generous responses to the crises in Iraq, Bangladesh and Sub-Saharan Africa; and also welcomes the Government's initiatives to ensure the continuing effectiveness of United Kingdom aid and to stimulate improved international disaster relief delivery.

PETITION

  Wolverhampton Group of Steel Companies
  10.12 pm
  Mr. Donald Thompson: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I bring a petition on behalf of Simon Fletcher who is petitioning this House because he believes that there have been grievous miscarriages of justice with regard to various companies, principally the Wolverhampton group of steel companies, for a long number of years.
  Wherefore your petitioner prays that your Honourable House may be pleased to Order a Bill of Review of the matters set forth or to Order such other enquiry or course as to your Honourable House may seem fit in order to examine and evaluate the said miscarriage and to give relief to all other the Companies named together with their bona fide Creditors and/or Contributories in the said Liquidations and the right of the last named to the enjoyment of free association by restoration of such Companies to the Register (due allowance being made in cases of the Wolverhampton Group of Steel Companies for the properly ascertained Compensation payable and allowable to each in its own right pursuant to the two several Nationalisations of the Steel Industry which have occurred and of whose benefits (they) have been denied less such sums as were realised and properly applied in each several Liquidation on fair and level terms as is and has been given to all other Her Majesty's Subjects.
  And your petitioner as in duty bound, will ever Pray, &c.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Oil Fires (Kuwait)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Richard North commenced his striking Sunday Times colour supplement report:
  "Man's assault on the air he breathes was never so blatant, wilful or ugly, as it is in the oil fields of Kuwait. Up to 5 million barrels a day of excellent light crude, among the easiest to refine in the world, is burning filthily—enough to match Britain's daily consumption every eight hours."
  The Secretary of State, whose presence I very much welcome as a courtesy, will recognise from his recent visit the description by one of my service constituents that the midday sun was like the midnight moon.
  That leads me to the first of a number of questions of which I have given notice to the Minister. The first is to ask for an objective report from Sir Donald Acheson, the chief medical officer, on his view of the dangers of hydrogen sulphide and the number of parts per million which could cause serious respiratory disease. When sheep have been slaughtered and their lungs examined, black spots have been found on the lungs. Are black spots also, one wonders, found on the lungs of human beings?
  My greatest concern, after talking to world authorities in Edinburgh, Cambridge and Oxford whose names are known to the Minister, is about polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. I do not think that there would be much dispute that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are carcinogenic—they cause cancer. If, as we are told, these have been identified, I hope that the Department of Health report will give its view. I hope that it will also say what happens when temperatures go up to 120 deg F. concentrating the smoke into a thicker, low-lying cap over the desert sands.
  Perhaps the problem can be encapsulated in the sad and ironic tale of the 17 scientists who were going round Kuwait with their clipboards, asking residents about their symptoms, about the water they drank and about the silent killer, water-borne disease. They found at the end of the first day that the forms were splattered with oil and, in a sense, the medium was the message.
  Normally I do not submit to the House anonymous letters, but I know that this is genuine:
  "I wrote to you a few days ago regarding our troops in Ahmadi and Kuwait City.
  The news continues to make very grim reading. Day becomes night—sitting with only the light from candles in oil-smoke filled corridors. What is achieved other than a deterioration in health?
  Letters are taking up to 22 days to reach home. THREE WEEKS is a dreadful length of time to wait for news.
  They are our forgotten Army—no proper back-up now; after all, the War is over, isn't it?
  Someone must do something about getting our Service Personnel out of that Hell hole before permanent damage is done to their health. They would be better employed in northern Iraq.
  I am sorry not to be able to give my name but you are not supposed to interfere when your loved one is serving in the Forces."
  I welcome the presence of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. I hope that inquiries will be made of our servicemen as to what they are now going through.
  Secondly, I refer to the Secretary of State's helpful letter of 7 May, in which he outlines the need for massive logistical support. Who will organise this massive logistical

  253
  support? It is not my business to try to abuse the Kuwaitis, who have been through terrible things. But is it not the case that Kuwait is paralysed and cannot undertake this task? As the fires rage, the situation gets worse. I ask specifically why for so long, it was left to Bechtel and, for example, Robbie Middleton, who accompanied the Secretary of State on a journey that I am told by several people was very successful. I have to be candid and say that I gather that the Secretary of State led that mission very satisfactorily. On that score, there is no criticism at all from me, but I must ask why the matter was left to the Americans for so long.
  Where will the transport come from? Where will the water supplies come from? Where will the specialised equipment come from? What attention is being paid to the inventions of people like Professor Harper of Heriot-Watt, whose case I brought to the attention of the Department? I hope that the Minister will say something about what "help" and "encouragement"—to use words in the letter of the Secretary of State—can be given to the Kuwaiti British Fire Group.
  Thirdly, in the presence of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces—indeed, in the presence of any Minister—I should say that I quite sure that the service men who have to deal with the mines and the unexploded shells have a most thankless and dangerous task. Of course, the booby traps have to be removed. I should like to pay tribute to the two Financial Times journalists who lost their lives in the course of their reporting duty. The Financial Times has reported these events with great distinction. The truth is that in that area one cannot walk off tarmacadam—indeed, even off fresh tyre tracks. We should all like to see detectors of non-metallic mines invented.
  I want to ask about tunnelling, about the construction of culverts. Is the operation still short of bulldozers? In a written reply of 13 May, the Minister of State said:
  "Face masks are available to these personnel and they are advised to avoid strenuous activity when in areas suffering heavy air pollution."
  Are face masks available to people other than key personnel? My understanding is that more ought to be available.
  I want to ask also about world weather, about the climatic effect. Areas from Turkey to China are affected. What is the Government's view on what Dr. Houghton and Dr. Browning, those distinguished scientists of the Meteorological Office, are now saying? I do not think that I break Chatham house rules—the gentleman has said this elsewhere—when I say that Professor Akbar Ahmed, professor of arabic studies at Cambridge, said that his relations in Quetta, in Baluchistan, were now affected by what was happening in Kuwait.
  I also ask, is there not a reasonable chain of cause and effect which we should investigate and which may link Kuwaiti oil fires to the cyclone in Bangladesh? That link will be difficult to prove or disprove, but if the Kuwaiti oil fires have caused or are causing the unusual weather in the Bay of Bengal, they must be quenched as soon as possible and for the additional reason of the sake of humanity.
  The argument is, briefly, that, due to the rotation of the earth, the general wind pattern is a westerly air stream from Kuwait towards India and Bengal. There is already evidence that the Himalayan snows have been darkened by Kuwaiti oil smoke. About 100 million tonnes of oil a year
  254
  is burnt in Kuwait, but it is burnt inefficiently and probably 1 per cent. appears as soot. Kuwaiti crude typically contains 4 per cent. sulphur. The sulphur oxide—SO2—is an absorber of sunlight. It changes to SO3 and then to SO4, which is sulphuric acid. That mechanism is believed to have caused the type of cold that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs.
  The concept of a nuclear winter suggests that dust clouds from atomic bombs rising to the upper atmosphere could produce permanent climatic change. The oil fires in Kuwait are producing soot on the scale of an atomic war. Carbon dioxide—CO2—and the direct heat are unlikely to be so important. However, cyclones are instabilities between bodies of air at differing temperatures. Warm air trapped below cold air can rise and rotate to produce high winds, rain and high tides. In Bangladesh, the coastal cyclones are usually most devastating in the autumn, but this is an early cyclone and one has to ask whether it will be followed by others. Those people who opted for war have an obligation to put as much effort into the ecological battle as they did into Desert Storm. It is up to the Government to persuade us that that is being done.
  I suppose that it is tempting for people to attribute the unprecedented disaster merely to the wickedness of Saddam Hussein. Neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is present, is under any misapprehension about Saddam Hussein, but we and 32 others thought that the war option was the wrong way to tackle the problem. To prevent the answer that the disaster is merely the fault of Saddam Hussein, I report what I heard at a Kingston Labour party meeting last week. An Iraqi from Basra—a Shia whose family had suffered terribly from the Sunnis—said that if, every day, for 36 days as much explosive as was used on Hiroshima is used against one's country, vengeance and irrationality take over and people detonate oil wells.
  The purpose of the debate is to ask the constructive question, "What on earth can be done about it now?"
  10.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for initiating this Adjournment debate. The grim situation in Kuwait has not disappeared from the public mind in Britain or in the rest of the world.
  The scale of Saddam Hussein's vandalism is vast. In addition to the oil fires, serious damage has been deliberately targeted at key oil and gas establishments. Saddam Hussein and his destruction squads deliberately set out to destroy the wells and thus delay Kuwait's ability to produce oil and processed products in refineries, at petrochemical plants and power stations. Saddam Hussein ordered the systematic mining and booby-trapping of the surroundings of the blazing oil wells. That ordnance must be cleared before well control work commences. Shifting sands and lakes of oil cover unexploded mines. All this makes it difficult to estimate how long restoration work will take.
  In responding to this man-made disaster, the Government are continuing the commitment that they made, with the other allies, to free Kuwait through Operation Desert Storm. The allies responded then to the Kuwaitis' appeal for help against Iraqi aggression. The Gulf oil fires are a deplorable consequence of that

  255
  aggression, and the Kuwaitis have again appealed to the international community for assistance. I hope to persuade the hon. Gentleman that the commitment to help Kuwait now is just as strong.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are offering the Kuwaitis help to tackle the fires and block off the flows of oil. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took a strong lead with his early visit to Kuwait soon after the liberation of that country, with direct offers of help to the Crown Prince. This has been followed up with a visit by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is currently in Kuwait. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy took the latest mission of business men to Kuwait on 26 April 1991 to give United Kingdom proposals his personal backing, and he is confident that British companies will obtain major contracts.
  Bringing the fires under control is taking much longer than any of us would like. However, I think that we are all aware that the oil industry has never had to face a disaster on such a scale with, initially, more than 600 burning or leaking oil wells. Many methods have to be used—and, indeed, new ones developed—to bring the tragedy to a close as soon as possible.
  The Kuwait authorities, in the first instance, have relied on the historically successful well control companies from North America, such as Red Adair and Boots and Coots, to fight the oil well fires. We can all understand why the Kuwaitis did that. There has been no opportunity to develop a significant UK capability because of the very low number of blow-outs and fires in the UK compared with North America. However, there are so many wild wells in Kuwait that the Kuwaitis have appealed for international help, and British companies have seen an opportunity to develop their technology and experience.
  It is in response to that appeal that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy led the business mission to Kuwait last month, and I am very pleased to report that British companies are now getting major contracts. Indeed, the Kuwaiti British Fire Group, a consortium including AMEC, Taylor Woodrow and Wimpey, has led the way with an announcement today of receipt of a letter of intent for a major contract to tackle the oil well fires.
  The KBFG has to mobilise its team in Kuwait within three days of agreement of the final contract conditions and funding arrangements, and then it has a further 21 days to assess damage to the wells and produce a detailed report to the Kuwait Oil company. It is hoped to begin the practical process of extinguishing fires once its survey and report are complete and agreement has been reached with Kuwait Oil on a plan of action. The survey will give the KBFG the opportunity to examine in detail each individual well and decide upon the best method of extinguishing the fires and controlling the oil flow. In addition to traditional means of well capping and relief well drilling, it is considering a number of innovative alternative techniques, in liaison with Kuwait Oil.
  The KBFG will be sending out a field team of 18 to undertake the initial survey work. When the survey is completed it will be in a better position to assess the overall numbers of people required for the oilfield rehabilitation project. In addition to the enormous resource base offered by AMEC, Taylor Woodrow and Wimpey, the KBFG will draw on the resources of other international companies such as BP for technical support, Royal Ordnance for its
  256
  skills in dealing with explosives and mine clearance, and others. The KBFG is equally supported by AMEC, Taylor Woodrow and Wimpey with a three-man executive board co-ordinating the project. The project's second phase is expected to be worth many millions of dollars.
  The KBFG survey will be based just north of Kuwait, close to the Sabriyah oil field. However, as part of the survey it will assess the most suitable site for a large-scale encampment that best facilitates the oil field rehabilitation programme. This contract is good news all round—good news for the Kuwaitis as they fight to control the fires, good news for the KBFG consortium, and good news for other British companies bidding to offer help to Kuwait. I am sure hon. Members will join me in wishing the Kuwaitis and KBFG every success.
  AMEC, one of the KBFG partners, has also been involved with Biwater Ltd. in the refurbishment of the old British Army married quarters at Fahaleel, south of Kuwait City. This base will provide accommodation to attract mainly British firms and their staff. Two hundred beds in single rooms are becoming available at the aptly named BRIT camp—short for British reconstruction implementation team. Both the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Engineers have been involved in making the campsite safe and providing it with transport facilities. Full information on the camp has been sent to 370 companies which have expressed a written interest.
  Of course, the KBFG contract comes only a month after Royal Ordnance obtained a major contract from the Kuwait Ministry of Defence for battle area and explosive dump clearance. The contract covers a large proportion of Kuwait, both around population centres and around oil wells. Clearance of the war zones will allow the environmental clean-up to proceed safely. This was "contract No. 1", as the Kuwaitis term it—the first signed with a British company. The KBFG's is the second. The substantial Royal Ordnance contract will go well into 1992. It is another concrete example of the support that British firms are giving to Kuwait, continued today by the KBFG.
  Another example of United Kingdom assistance to the Kuwaitis, and one in which, I know, the hon. Member for Linlithgow has taken great interest, is the involvement of the Royal Engineers in dealing with the aftermath of the invasion. The engineers have had no direct involvement in fighting oil fires, but assistance and advice has been provided on the disposal of unexploded ordnance by Royal Engineers personnel in Kuwait. In addition, the Royal Engineers have given safety briefings and have produced maps showing danger areas and leaflets giving safety advice. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Royal Engineers do not have any equipment specifically designed to extinguish oil fires. Nor are Royal Engineers personnel trained in the very specialised techniques required. However, they have standard equipment—for example, bulldozers, cranes and fork lift trucks—which can be of some use.
  Similarly, short-notice but none the less invaluable assistance has been provided in the restoration of power to the Kuwaitis, when a combination of British service men and British Electricity International were involved.
  On the question of health, I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman was keen to receive a Government view on the health risks associated with the indigenous Kuwaiti population as well of those expatriates directly involved in trying to extinguish the dreadful oil well fires. On 9 May,

  257
  the hon. Gentleman draw that matter to the attention of the Leader of the House and today I have obtained information which I hope will be of assistance to the hon. Gentleman.
  I am advised by the Department of Health that close to burning oil wells, high concentrations of toxic irritants, including smoke, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide, will be produced. They may present serious problems to those involved in fire fighting operations.
  The smoke is likely to be an irritant, although its activity in this regard will depend on its exact composition. Simple masks will reduce the amount of smoke inhaled. Because crude oil is burning, the presence of organic compounds, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as the hon. Gentleman said, should be anticipated. However, possible carcinogenic effects would be related to long-term cumulative exposures; short intermittent exposures from the fires would not be expected to add perceptibly to such risks, and would be negligible compared with risks of burns, explosions or traumatic injury while actually fire fighting.
  Exposure to carbon monoxide in the smoke plume could lead to fatigue and some impairment of performance of the tasks in hand, but in the open-air conditions of the fires, exposures are unlikely to be sufficient to cause concern.
  Whilst I do not have all the details, I am advised that sulphur dioxide is an irritant and in high concentrations may trigger an attack of bronchospasm in asthmatic people. Asthmatic attacks may be precipitated at sulphur dioxide concentration of about 2,500 mcg per cu m. Asthmatics who develop an attack as a result of exposure would require medical treatment. Some non-asthmatics could experience airway irritation and coughing. Peak sulphur dioxide concentrations of 2,700 mcg per cu m have been measured in the plume 100 km downwind from the source. If this information is reliable, concentration closer to the source could be higher than that, and people in that area could be exposed to high concentrations of sulphur dioxide.
  Some oil wells which were blown up but not burning were reported to be producing large quantities of hydrogen sulphide. That is a very toxic gas and every effort should be made to eliminate exposure to it. At low concentrations, the characteristic smell of rotten eggs and the accompanying eye irritation will be noticed. Higher concentrations cause loss of the sense of smell and pulmonary damage, and damage to the nervous system may follow rapidly. This problem has been dealt with by setting such remaining wells alight. Although it is highly odorous and has acute toxic properties, hydrogen sulphide has not been reported to have carcinogenic effects.
  Further away from the fires, the concentrations of smoke and toxic gases will fall but, as yet, no clear information on actual ground level concentrations has appeared. It seems unlikely from what is known that there will be long-term effects, but in the absence of satisfactory data we cannot be certain of this; nor is it possible, therefore, to make any definitive statement.
  Although there have been theoretical levels of ozone and nitrogen dioxide at ground level of the order of 200 to 300 parts per billion measurements in the plume have been substantially lower. Concentrations of below 300 parts per
  258
  billion of ozone or nitrogen dioxide do not pose a major danger to health, although some individuals taking exercise out of doors may experience coughing and discomfort on taking deep breath. Effects may be limited by reducing exposure and limiting exercise out of doors.
  Experts currently in the area should be well aware of those problems and should have the necessary protective equipment, including closed-circuit breathing apparatus for use if circumstances demand it.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Linlithgow will agree that this comprehensive statement will be helpful in responding to him.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised the important question of the environmental effects of the Gulf crisis. I know that he and Dr. Nigel Downing, the distinguished maritime biologist, met my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to discuss his concerns about the effect of oil spills and the Iraqi occupation of coral islands in the north of the Gulf. My hon. Friend accepted the importance of the islands and summarised the help that the Department of the Environment have been able to offer Dr. Downing, such as assistance with flights and contacts in the Gulf states.
  I am aware also that the Kuwaitis are concerned about the threat to animal life from the smoke plume. Both the Saudi National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development and our own natural history museum have taken an interest in the environmental problems in Kuwait, in particular the case of the offshore coral islands in the Gulf. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to provide Dr. Downing and other environmental authorities with any assistance that his Department can provide.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow mentioned Bechtel, which is a large establishment with a strong commitment to the United Kingdom. It employs 1,200 staff, 600 of whom are employed abroad, and its responsibilities include the middle east. About 100 of its staff were held hostage in Iraq, where it had a contract, after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.
  Before the land war started for the liberation of Kuwait, the London office of the Kuwait Oil Company invited Bechtel to provide a back-up service of fire-fighting teams from north America, which were to be employed by KOC directly. Bechtel have, therefore, been responsible for all the support services required, including the provision of water, construction plant, vehicles, accommodation and personnel. After a slow start, which was understandable given the conditions prevailing in the aftermath of war, and the regrettably well targeted Iraqi sabotage, steady progress has been made, with some 90 wells extinguished and capped. Water supplies are now reported to be adequate to support the fire- fighting teams. I understand that Bechtel now has in Kuwait 200 staff controlled from its London office, with a further 100 expected soon.
  The Kuwaiti authorities understandably want to extinguish and cap more wells more quickly and have invited groups other than the north American fire fighters to supplement their needs. I am pleased to note that there is British involvement, once again, with the British Kuwait Fire Group offering a turnkey contract. I welcome all efforts from the United Kingdom to assist Kuwait to overcome its problems.
  I revert to my earlier comments on our overall reconstruction programme. There is no doubt that our performance has made a good impression on the Kuwaitis.

  259
  I shall respond to the meteorological issues raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow as soon as possible in writing.
  This country played a vital role in the liberation of Kuwait from the terror of Saddam Hussein, a terror which has left its environmental scar on that nation. We shall continue to play a leading role in the reconstruction of Kuwait, and can be justly proud of our efforts so far.
  Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Minister for that serious answer. He has answered my questions in the spirit in which they were asked last week.
  On the issue of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, is he prepared to give me the evidence of Sir Donald Acheson that short-term exposure may not have deleterious effects? I will not challenge the chief medical officer on his own ground but I should be more than curious to ascertain what evidence the Minister is relying on.
  Mr. Moynihan: As the hon. Gentleman knows, not being a Minister in that Department, I went to
  260
  considerable lengths to ensure that my Department could deliver as comprehensive a statement as possible today. However, that point will not be lost on the Department of Health. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put the question to my colleagues in that Department, they will clearly have a responsibility to reply.
  Mr. Dalyell: The impression created by the Minister's reply is that there is still a great deal to be done on the provision of some not very sophisticated equipment, and that time may not be on our side. As I understand it, the sheer heat generated makes it more and more difficult, not least with the change in the weather, to tackle the number of oil wells that we should. Is the Minister satisfied that all the equipment, even that which is unsophisticated, is being sent out as soon as it can be?
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what basis he calculated community charge for two adults at £901 in Lambeth in the illustrative tables published with his consultation paper in the council tax.

  Mr. Key
  The community charge for two adults is two times the personal community charge set for the area, after allowing for the £140 reduction announced in the Budget. The final amount set will be less to the extent that reductions are secured by capping. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce his decisions on capping as soon as possible.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the council tax payable for two people in a property valued at less than £26,800 as a proportion of the council tax payable by(a) two-person household in the central band and (b) in a household in the central band as a proportion of the council tax payable by a two-person household in the top band, (i) overall and (ii) in Grimsby.

  Mr. Key
  Under our proposals, in every area the council tax for a property with two adults valued at less than £26,800 would be two thirds of the bill for a property in the central band; and the bill for a property in the highest band would be two thirds more than the bill for a property in the central band.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will provide estimates of the numbers of tax units gaining and losing, and the amounts of their losses and gains, in pounds per week and as a percentage of net income (1) in the move from domestic rates to community charge, (2) in the move from community charge to council tax but retaining maximum rebates of 80 per cent. for council tax and (3) in the move from community charge to council tax, but with 100 per cent. rebates for council tax differentiating between single-pensioner tax units, one-parent family tax units, other single-adult tax units, tax unit couples with(a) no children, (b) one child, (c) two children and (d) three or more children, and all tax units;

  (2) if he will provide estimates of the number of households gaining and losing, and the amounts of their losses and gains, in pounds per week and as a percentage of net income (1) in the move from domestic rates to community charge, (2) in the move from community charge to council tax but retaining maximum rebates of 80 per cent. for council tax and (3) in the move from community charge to council tax, but with 100 per cent. rebates for council tax differentiating between single
  62
  pensioner households, other single-adult households, two-adult households, households of three or more adults and all households.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report, on the same basis as his illustrative 1991–92 council tax exemplifications, for each authority the average amount per household (1) paid in community charge in 1991–92,(2) which would have been paid in council tax in 1991–92, (3) which would have been paid in community charge in 1991–92 for spending at standard spending assessment and (4) which would have been paid in council tax in 1991–92 for spending at standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 29 April 1991 by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), at column 12.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to a 14-band property tax as a means of financing local government.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: None.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what considerations underlay his decision to make a de minimis provision of £10,000 in his statement of 3 April on charge-capping; and if he will list the local authorities that would have been designated for capping had this provision not been included.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: Five authorities set budgets which exceeded the provisional criteria announced on 31 October 1990 by less than £10,000. In each case the maximum reduction in community charge bills secured by capping would have been less than 10p. The five authorities are: Brighton, Buckinghamshire, Enfield, Hammersmith and Fulham and the West Midlands police authority.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish his best estimates of the total amount of poll tax income that local authorities have been unable to collect in the financial year 1990–91;

  (2) what are his best estimates of unpaid non-domestic taxes at the end of the financial year 1990–91.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: On the basis of the returns received so far, we estimate that by 31 March 1991 local authorities in England had collected £8·6 billion in non-domestic rates, equivalent to 94 per cent. of the provisional contribution to the non-domestic rates pool.

  On the basis of the same returns, we also estimate that by 31 March 1991 local authorities in England had collected £9·4 billion in community charges, equivalent to 92 per cent. of the community charge income which they budgeted to receive.

  My Department does not yet have information about the amounts of non-domestic rates or community charges collectable by authorities and therefore about the amounts of rates or community charges outstanding.

  British Waterways (Property Auction)
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will arrange for a copy of the catalogue produced for the recent property auction held by British Waterways to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Trippier
  This has been arranged.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proceeds were raised by the recent auction sale of property by British Waterways.

  Mr. Trippier
  The auction held on 27 March 1991 raised £2·9 million. Some of the properties originally included in the catalogue were sold separately and raised an additional £0·7 million.

  British Waterways
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his most recent estimate of the cost of the backlog of maintenance that needs to be carried out by British Waterways.

  Mr. Trippier
  The British Waterways board's latest estimate of the arrears of maintenance which need to be dealt with during the next five years is £47 million at 1990–91 prices. This figure does not include the cost of strengthening public road bridges under Operation Bridgeguard.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any adjustments have been made to the grant to British Waterways or its external finance limit in the wake of its recent sale of assets.

  Mr. Portillo
  No.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any adjustments have been made to the grant to British Waterways or its external finance limit in the wake of the recent slump in the property market.

  Mr. Trippier
  No.

  Red Squirrels
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for the conservation of the red squirrel.

  Mr. Trippier
  The red squirrel is fully protected against killing, injuring, taking and selling through its listing on schedule 5 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Housing Valuations
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the estimates available to his Department of the percentage of housing stock in each local authority in England falling into the valuation bands (a) £0–£15,000, (b) £15,001–£30,000, (c) £30,001–£45,000, (d) £45,001–£60,000, (e) £60,001–£80,000, (f) £80,001–£100,000, (g) £100,001–£125,000, (h) £125,001–£150,000, (i) £150,001–£175,000, (j) £175,001–£200,000, (k) £200,001–£250,000, (l) £250,001–£300,000, (m) £300,001–£500,000 and (n) £500,001 plus.
  64
  Mr. Portillo
  No. The Government published a range of data underlying their consultative paper "A New Tax for Local Government" on 23 April 1991.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will rework his published estimates of council tax on the basis of the valuation bands sought by the Valuation Office in circular VO53 and subsequently provided to his Department.

  Mr. Portillo
  No.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of the background material used in preparation of his council tax exemplifications published on 23 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 29 April 1991 by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), at column 12.

  Building Regulations (Fire Safety)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to harmonise the building regulations fire safety requirements in(a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland and Northern Ireland; what representations he has received from fire officers on the operation of the current requirements in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The current review of the building regulations aims to achieve a greater degree of technical consistency between the provisions for England and Wales, and the requirements for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Thirty-six fire authorities made representations about the operation of the current requirements in the course of a study commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry, in conjunction with the Home Office and my Department last year.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on his efforts to secure international agreement on the environmental safety of genetically modified organisms.

  Mr. Trippier
  Further to my right hon. Friend's statement on 29 January, my Department made a contribution of $80,000—£44,700—to the secretariat of the United Nations conference on environment and development—UNCED—on 18 April. The secretariat will spend this money on mounting a conference, to be held in London between 17 and 18 June, at which representative international experts will be consulted on the development of guidelines on the risk assessment and management worldwide of activities involving genetically modified organisms. This work will inform consideration of the environmentally sound management of biotechnology, which is a priority topic for UNCED, to be held in Brazil in 1992.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether Ordnance Survey is being examined as a candidate for privatisation;

  (2) what is the 1991–92 annual budget for Ordnance Survey; and what percentage of that is allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have asked the chief executive of the Ordnance Survey to write to the hon. Member with the details he requested.

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Historic Royal Palaces Agency; and what percentage of that is allocated to staff costs.

  Sir George Young
  The chief executive of the Historic Royal Palaces Agency will write to the hon. Member with the information he requests. I will arrange for copies of the letter to be placed in the Library of this House.

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre; and what percentage of that is allocated to staff costs.

  Sir George Young
  I have asked the chief executive of the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre to write to the hon. Member with the details he requested.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Building Research Establishment; and what percentage of that is allocated to staff costs.

  Sir George Young
  I have asked the chief executive of the Building Research Establishment to write to the hon. Member with the details he requested.

  National Environment Week
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution his Department will be making towards National Environment Week.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 8 May 1991 to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), at column 831.

  Waveney District Council
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement listing the amount of public money his Department has passed to Waveney district council for all services in each of the past 10 years; and what his plans are for the next three years.

  Mr. Key
  The amounts paid in support of Waveney district council's general services for these years were:

  Rate support grant (£000)

  Main housing subsidy (£000)

  1981–82

  4,063

  853

  1982–83

  4,176

  77

  1983–84

  4,246

  0

  66

  Rate support grant (£000)

  Main housing subsidy (£000)

  1984–85

  4,291

  0

  1985–86

  4,239

  131

  1986–87

  4,533

  0

  1987–88

  4,606

  0

  1988–89

  4,721

  0

  1989–90

  4,946

  0

  The amount paid to Waveney district council's collection fund, on which Suffolk county council precepts, in respect of 1990–91 were:

  1990–91 (£000)

  Revenue support grant

  11,894

  Non-domestic rates

  23,966

  Housing revenue account subsidy

  3,772

  The amounts that the Government propose to pay to the district council's collection fund in respect of 1991–92 are:

  (£000)

  Community charge grant

  111,285

  Revenue support grant

  11,298

  National non-domestic rates

  28,552

  Housing revenue account subsidy

  3,582

  1 Estimated.

  These figures exclude information on minor specific grants paid in respect of particular functions or services.

  It is not possible to give details of the amounts of external finance to be paid to the district council in 1992–93 and 1993–94 since this will depend on decisions which have yet to be taken on the amount and distribution of public expenditure in those years.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grants under the rural housing programme have been made in the south-west region; and how many home improvement agencies have been aided.

  Mr. Yeo
  A total of £7·9 million of supplementary credit approvals will be issued to local authorities for 1991–92 in respect of schemes under the rural housing programme. A schedule of allocations has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Five home improvement agency schemes in the south-west region have been aided for the same period.

  Pollution Taxes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to the report on pollution taxes prepared by the state university of Leiden in the Netherlands for the environment directorate of the European Commission.

  Mr. Trippier
  This report has not yet been released by the Commission, nor have the views of member states' Governments been sought.

  "This Common Inheritance"
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in implementing paragraph 18.31 of Cm. 1200, with regard to the establishment of a new discussion and advisory body with members drawn from a wide spectrum of business interests.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 7 May the appointment of the members of a new Advisory Committee on Business and the

  Advisory committee on business and the environment

  Name

  Position

  Company

  John Collins (Chairman)

  Chairman and Chief Executive

  Shell UK Ltd.

  A. B. Cleaver

  Chairman and Chief Executive

  IBM UK Ltd.

  Chris Hampson

  Director

  ICI

  John G. Speirs

  Managing Director

  Norsk Hydro (UK) Ltd.

  David Lyon

  Chief Executive

  Bowater plc.

  Rod Aspinwall

  Chairman

  Aspinwall and Company

  Robert Jones

  Coordinator, Conservation Projects

  British Gas

  Nicholas Hood CBE

  Chairman

  Wessex Water plc.

  Robin Paul

  Managing Director

  Albright and Wilson

  John Baker

  Chief Executive

  National Power

  P. J. Costain

  Group Chief Executive

  Costain Group plc.

  Dorothy MacKenzie

  Chief Executive

  Dragon International

  R. D. Yeomans

  Managing Director

  Wincanton Group Ltd.

  Christopher G. F. Harding

  Chairman

  British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Derek Wanless

  Chief Executive, UK Financial Services

  National Westminster Group plc

  Norman Adsetts

  Chairman

  Sheffield Insulations Group plc.

  Peter A. M. Heath

  Chairman and Chief Executive

  Cleanaway

  A. P. Bird

  Managing Director

  Bird Group of Companies

  Cameron McLatchie

  Chairman and Chief Executive

  British Polythene Industries plc.

  Nigel Palmer

  Chief Executive

  C. W. Pittard and Co.

  Paul J. E. Rink

  Joint Managing Director

  Wolstenholme Rink plc.

  George Simpson

  Chief Executive

  Rover Group

  Sue Green

  Group Communications Director

  Legal and General Group plc.

  D. J. Challen

  Director

  J. Henry Schroder Wagg and Co. Ltd.

  The Gulf (Oil Pollution)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance has been offered by the United Kingdom to the Governments of Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to protect migrating pipers, plovers, redshanks and other birds from oil pollution in the Gulf during their return to the northern hemisphere this spring.

  Mr. Trippier
  The International Council for Bird Preservation, which is based in Cambridge, is currently undertaking, with the support of the Saudi national commission for wildlife conservation and development, a detailed study of the spring migration in the Gulf. This work, which involves ringing and colour marking of birds, will give an indication of how seriously migrating species are likely to be affected by pollution in the Gulf. My Department proposes to contribute £10,000 to the cost of this study which should be completed next month.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the current status of United Kingdom water supplies and their adequacy to supply the demands of the next decade.
  68
  Environment. The committee is to be chaired by John Collins, chairman and chief executive of Shell UK Ltd. The other committee members are as listed.

  The committee is intended to have three central roles: to provide for a strategic level dialogue between Government and business on environmental issues, both of an immediate and topical interest and of a longer-term nature; in liaison with other appropriate organisations, to help mobilise the business community in demonstrating good environmental practice and management, building on existing initiatives and activities, and to provide a link with, and focus attention on, international business initiatives on the environment.

  Mr. Trippier
  We are informed that water resources are satisfactory and water undertakers expect to maintain normal supplies—except in parts of the south east and east of England. In these areas, groundwater levels are well below normal but water companies expect to maintain supplies with restrictions confined to less-essential uses. The position to 2011 is set out in the National Rivers Authority's report "Demands and Resources of Water Undertakers in England and Wales", copies of which are held in the Library.

  Environmental Business Opportunities
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of his Shell lecture on environmental business opportunities given at the Royal Society of Arts on 7 May.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the Shell lecture "The Environment Business" which my right hon. Friend delivered on 7 May.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment further to his answer of 2 May,Official Report, columns 273–74, to the hon. Member for Hendon,

  69
  North (Mr. Gorst) concerning planning appeals, how many of the appeals allowed, following a local authority decision to refuse planning permission, concerned cases in areas with current and properly constituted local plans approved by him.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not available.

  Sulphur Dioxide
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy with respect to the abatement of emissions of sulphur dioxide.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government's policies for the abatement of air pollution were explained in chapter 11 of the White Paper "This Common Inheritance". The United Kingdom is committed, under European Community legislation, to cut emissions of sulphur dioxide from existing power stations and other large combustion plant by 60 per cent. by 2003, compared with 1980 levels. Under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, operators of industrial plant are being required to use best available techniques not entailing excessive cost to reduce harmful emissions, including sulphur dioxide. I am arranging to place in the Library copies of maps which illustrate the expected effects of these policies by 2005. They show that the areas in which our soils and freshwaters are subject to sulphur depositions in excess of "critical loads"—the levels which they can tolerate without adverse effects—should be very substantially reduced by that date: to around 8 per cent. of the United Kingdom surface area in respect of soils and around 4 per cent. of the surface area of Scotland in the case of freshwaters—freshwaters maps are not yet available for the remainder of the United Kingdom.

  The maps have been prepared to inform discussions in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which are intended to lead to a new international agreement on sulphur dioxide by November 1992. My Department will also be issuing shortly a brochure to explain the basis of this mapping work.

  Local Authority Expenditure (Southampton)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) of 27 March,Official Report, column 459, if he will (a) set out the precise basis of his calculation and (b) show the increase between 1988–89 and 1991–92 for Southampton district council using budget figures only.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 10 May 1991]: The components used to calculate the increase between 1988–89 and 1990–91 in the table to which the hon. Member refers were as follows:

  Expenditure in 1988–89 to compare with demand in 1990–91 was taken from information reported by the authority on form RS1B and comprises:

  Total expenditure 1988–89

  less Parish Precepts

  less Rate Fund Contribution to Housing Revenue Account

  less Rent Rebates

  plus Variation in balances

  Demand in 1990–91 was the figure returned by the authority.
  70
  Increase in spending levels 1988–89 to 1990–91 comprises:
  Demand 1990–91/Expenditure in 1988–89 to compare with demand

  Southampton district council's increase in spending from 1988–89 to 1991–92 based on the budget returns is 46 per cent.

  Margaret Thatcher House
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will reimburse Southend borough council for the cost of building Margaret Thatcher house.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 10 May 1991]: It is for local authorities to decide how to finance capital expenditure from the resources available to them. These resources include usable capital receipts, contributions from revenue and borrowing authorised by a credit approval. In the latter case, the capital financing charges are allowed for in revenue support grant.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all Government-owned listed buildings sold into private ownership since 1980, the purchaser and any covenant placed on future usage.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: I regret this information is not readily available and could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  Heveningham Hall
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now serve listed building repair notices on the owner of Heveningham hall.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: No. I have been advised by the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England that the restoration work at Heveningham hall is being carried out to a satisfactory standard.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the sale and present condition of Heveningham hall; and what response he has made.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: Since March of this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has received six letters regarding the sale and present condition of Heveningham hall. All six letters focus on his right of pre-emption in the event of the present owners wishing to sell Heveningham hall or part of it within 21 years from the date of the conveyance—November 1981. However, there is no reason to believe that the present owners will wish to sell the property in the foreseeable future. The owner's agents, Gulf Park Property management Ltd. have advised that the Al Ghazzi family intend to go on using the hall. This information has been passed on to the authors of the letters. In addition, two of the letters mention the poor condition of the gardens and car park and criticise the quality of interior furnishings. We have explained to the authors that these are subjective matters which do not affect the integrity of the property as a listed building. I understand that good progress is being made with the restoration of the building itself.
  71
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to serve a compulsory purchase order on Heveningham hall.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: No. There is no case for serving a compulsory purchase order on Heveningham hall.

  Listed Buildings (Owners)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to require that the name of the ultimate beneficial owner of a listed building is recorded with the address and category of listing of the building.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: No.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to establish the local government commission before the start of the summer recess.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: Our proposals for a new local government commission are set out in our consultation paper on the structure of local government in England published on 23 April. We have no plans to establish the commission before the summer recess.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  House Burglaries, Nottinghamshire
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the figures for house burglaries in the areas served by the police stations at(a) Retford, (b) Southwell and (c) Newark in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1990.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information is not collected centrally for the areas requested.

  Marine Distress Rockets
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of South Yorkshire indicating what inquiries have been instigated into the original ownership of the 20 marine distress rockets found by a builder in Station road, Keadby, near Doncaster, Yorkshire.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable of South Yorkshire that the rockets appear to have been buried for some time, and no inquiries into their original ownership are envisaged.

  Postal and Proxy Voting
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much he intends to spend in the lead-up to the next general election on promoting the use of postal and proxy voting among(a) the sick and disabled and (b) those whose occupation means that they are unable to vote in person.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  When the next general election is announced, we plan to run an advertising campaign to 72
  inform all electors of their right to an absent vote if they are unable to get to their polling stations to vote in person. The campaign will have a budget of £665,000.

  Police Manpower, Nottinghamshire
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the numbers of police attached to the police stations at(a) Retford, (b) Southwell and (c) Newark in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable that no reliable manpower figures for 1979 can be provided because of changes which have occurred to sub-divisional and section boundaries. The figures for December 1990 are given in the table:

  Area

  Police manpower

  Civilians

  Retford

  40

  3

  Southwell

  15

  2

  Newark

  76

  15

  Passport Agency
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the United Kingdom passport agency is being examined as a candidate for privatisation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the United Kingdom passport agency; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This has been passed to the chief executive of the passport agency who will be replying shortly. A copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Forensic Science Service
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the forensic science service; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This has been passed to the director general of the forensic science service, who will be replying shortly. A copy of her reply will be placed in the Library.

  Home Office Spending (Suffolk)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement listing his Department's contribution to police, prisons, fire and other services within Suffolk for each of the past 10 years; and what his forward plans are for the next three years.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Home Office pays specific grant on a proportion of local authorities' expenditure on police, magistrates' courts, probation and civil defence. The proportion varies according to the service. My Department also pays grant under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 to enable local authorities to employ additional staff to meet the specific needs of local communities of Commonwealth origin. Details of some of these grants to individual authorities are not available for all of the last 10 years. The available information, and that on Home Office expenditure on prisons, in respect of
  73
  Suffolk is given in the table. No detailed forecasts are made of grant and other payments to individual local authorities for future years.

  Police1

  Magistrates' courts2

  Probation3

  Civil defence4

  Section 115

  Prisons6

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  1981–82

  9,934

  —

  —

  —

  29

  —

  1982–83

  10,901

  —

  935

  —

  57

  —

  1983–84

  11,613

  —

  1,029

  —

  88

  18,932

  1984–85

  12,411

  1,184

  1,102

  —

  82

  19,331

  1985–86

  13,687

  1,301

  1,205

  223

  113

  19,924

  1986–87

  14,776

  1,448

  1,329

  241

  109

  20,629

  1987–88

  15,701

  1,563

  1,461

  286

  113

  23,164

  1988–89

  17,805

  1,997

  1,568

  356

  119

  22,481

  1989–90

  20,458

  2,485

  1,939

  367

  150

  23,860

  71990–91

  22,291

  2,707

  2,035

  362

  148

  26,263

  71991–92

  24,772

  2,933

  2,298

  324

  173

  28,101

  1 Rate of grant—51 per cent.

  2 Rate of grant—80 per cent.

  3 Rate of grant—Mainly 80 per cent.

  4 Rate of grant—Mainly 100 per cent.

  5 Rate of grant—75 per cent.

  5 Operating costs of the three prison establishments in Suffolk.

  7 Estimates of grant and expenditure.

  The Home Office makes no specific contribution to local authorities' expenditure on fire services. Government support for fire is provided through the revenue support grant system, and decisions on fire expenditure are the responsibility of individual local authorities.

  Foreign Prisoners
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many male and female foreign nationals are serving a sentence or are on remand in a prison establishment in England and Wales; and if he will list the countries from which they emanate;

  Sentenced prisoners on 30 June 1990 who were known to be foreign nationals by sex, nationality and whether sentenced for drugs offences.

  Nationality

  All offences

  Drugs offences

  Males

  Females

  Total

  Males

  Females

  Total

  India

  245

  14

  259

  79

  7

  86

  Pakistan

  252

  2

  254

  125

  —

  125

  Other Asian Commonwealth

  64

  1

  65

  14

  —

  14

  Nigeria

  423

  99

  527

  339

  55

  394

  Ghana

  42

  18

  60

  25

  13

  38

  Other African Commonwealth

  91

  9

  100

  33

  4

  37

  Jamaica

  432

  40

  472

  116

  18

  134

  Other Caribbean Commonwealth

  121

  15

  136

  29

  9

  38

  Cyprus

  54

  2

  56

  18

  2

  20

  Australia, Canada, New Zealand

  38

  3

  41

  9

  1

  10

  Ireland

  412

  10

  422

  24

  1

  25

  Other EC countries

  196

  14

  210

  87

  10

  97

  United States of America

  37

  16

  53

  13

  10

  23

  South America

  110

  29

  139

  90

  20

  110

  Other countries

  347

  31

  378

  85

  12

  97

  Total known foreign nationals

  2,869

  303

  3,172

  1,086

  162

  1,248

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the latest year available, how many foreign nationals sentenced to a period of imprisonment in a gaols in England and Wales have been granted home leave and temporary accommodation to facilitate visiting arrangements.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not held centrally and could he obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  74
  (2) how many males and females convicted or charged with a drug-related offence are currently resident in gaols in England and Wales; and if he will list the countries from which they emanated.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On 30 June 1990, the latest date for which information is readily available, an estimated 2,869 male and 303 female sentenced prisoners in prison service establishments in England and Wales were known to be foreign nationals; of these 1,086 males and 162 females had been sentenced for drugs offences. The nationalities of these prisoners are shown in the table. However, the recording of nationality is not always reliable. Information about nationality is not recorded centrally for the remand population.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals imprisoned in gaols in England and Wales have dependent children with them.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On Friday 10 May, there were 12 foreign nationals in prison service establishments in England and Wales who had their babies with them in a mother and baby unit.
  75
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration the Parole Board gives in its deliberations to the specific difficulties faced by foreign nationals.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is a fundamental principle of the parole scheme that each case is considered on its merits. As far as possible, the cases of foreign nationals are considered on the same basis as domestic prisoners.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements exist for visits from relatives, particularly from children, to foreign nationals in gaols in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The arrangements for visits to prisoners —which apply equally to foreign nationals—are set out in standing order 5, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals in gaols in England and Wales have dependants resident in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is not available.

  Sports Grounds (Safety)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to implement the recommendation of Lord Justice Taylor's final report into the Hillsborough disaster by extending mandatory all-seated accommodation to sports grounds other than football grounds designated under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 as amended by the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987.

  Mr. John Patten
  The question whether it may be necessary or appropriate to extend mandatory all-seated accommodation to sports grounds other than football grounds designated under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 is currently under active consideration, and the subject of consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and other interested parties.

  Mr. John Patten
  Sports grounds designated under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 are as follows. No distinction is now made in designating sports grounds between those which are enclosed and and those which are not. The Act used to distinguish between a "sports stadium" and a "sports ground". The term "sports stadium" was used for a sports ground where the accommodation for spectators wholly or substantially surrounds the playing area, whereas the term "sports grounds" was used for any place where sports take place in the open air. The Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987 removed this distinction and replaced the term "sports stadium" with "sports ground". Information on which grounds would formerly have been defined as sports grounds or sports stadiums is not kept centrally.

THE SAFETY OF SPORTS GROUNDS (DESIGNATION) ORDERS

  Statutory Instrument
  1976 No. 1264 31 July 1976

  Rugby Union

  Twickenham

  National Stadium, Cardiff Arms Park

  Football

  Arsenal

  Aston Villa

  Birmingham City

  Bristol City

  Cardiff City

  Coventry City

  Derby County

  Everton

  Ipswich Town

  Leeds United

  Leicester City

  Liverpool

  Manchester City

  Manchester United

  Middlesbrough

  Newcastle United

  Norwich City

  Queen's Park Rangers

  Stoke City

  Sunderland

  Tottenham Hotspur

  West Bromwich Albion

  West Ham United

  Wrexham

  Wembley Stadium

  1977 No. 1323 29 July 1977

  Chelsea

  Nottingham Forest

  Wolverhampton Wanderers

  1978 No. 1091 28 July 1978

  Bolton Wanderers

  Sheffield Wednesday

  Southampton

  1979 No. 1022 7 August 1979

  Brighton and Hove Albion

  Bristol Rovers

  Burnley

  Cambridge United

  Charlton Athletic

  Crystal Palace

  Fulham

  Luton Town

  Notts Country

  Oldham Athletic

  Orient

  Preston North End

  Shrewsbury Town

  Swansea City

  Watford

  1980 No. 1021 18 July 1980

  Blackburn Rovers

  Grimsby Town

  1981 No. 949 2 July 1981

  Rotherham United

  Barnsley

  1982 No. 1052 27 July 1983

  Carlisle United

  1984 No. 962 4 July 1983

  Huddersfield Town

  Portsmouth

  1984 No. 942 3 July 1984

  Oxford United

  77

  Sheffield United

  Wimbledon

  1985 No. 1063 11 July 1985

  AFC Bournemouth

  Aldershot

  Blackpool

  Bradford City

  Brentford

  Bury

  Chester

  Chesterfield

  Colchester

  Crewe Alexandra

  Darlington

  Doncaster Rovers

  Exeter City

  Gillingham

  Halifax Town

  Hartlepool

  Hereford United

  Hull City

  Lincoln City

  Mansfield Town

  Millwall

  Newport County

  Northampton Town

  Peterborough United

  Plymouth Argyle

  Port Vale

  Reading

  Rochdale

  Scunthorpe1

  Southend

  Stockport County

  Swindon Town

  Tranmere Rovers

  Walsall

  Wigan Athletic

  York City

  1985 No. 1064 11 July 1985

  Rugby League

  Barrow

  Batley

  Bradford Northern

  Castleford

  Dewsbury

  Featherstone Rovers

  Halifax

  Huddersfield

  Hull

  Hull Kingston Rovers

  Keighley

  Leeds

  Leigh

  Oldham

  St. Helens

  Salford

  Swinton

  Wakefield Trinity

  Warrington

  Widnes

  Wigan

  Workington Town

  1986 No. 1296 24 July 1986
  Other association football, rugby and cricket grounds

  Barnet

  Bath

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  Billingham

  Birmingham (Edgbaston)

  Blackpool

  Boston

  Bridgend

  Bristol (Rugby)

  Camborne

  Cardiff (Arms Park)

  Chelmsford

  78

  Chorley

  Cwmbran

  Dartford

  Ebbw Vale

  Exeter

  Gateshead (International Stadium)

  Gloucester

  High Wycombe

  Kettering

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Llanelli

  London Champion Hill

  The Oval

  Lords

  Manchester (County Ground)

  Mitcham

  Morecambe

  Neath

  Newport

  Northwich

  Nottingham (Trent Bridge)

  Nuneaton

  Pontypridd

  Poole

  Port Talbot

  Scarborough

  Sheffield (Owlerton)

  Southall

  Southport

  Sutton

  Swansea

  Telford

  Worcester

  Workington (Borough Park)

  Workington (Ellis Ground)

  Yeovil (Athletics Ground)

  York

  Redruth

  1987 No. 1689 24 September 1987

  Scarborough

  1988 No. 1975 11 November 1988

  Scunthorpe1

  Macclesfield

  1 Previous ground designated by S.I. 1985 No. 1063. New ground designated by S.I. 1988 No. 1975.
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many orders have been made, and on what dates, under section 15A of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 as amended by the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987; what plans there are to make any further orders; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has any plans to make an order under section 15A of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, as amended by the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987, to make mandatory in safety certificates those conditions specified in the original section 2(2) of the 1975 Act.

  Mr. John Patten
  No orders have yet been made under section 15A of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975. The feasibility and appropriateness of proposing an order under section 15A to make mandatory in safety certificates those conditions specified in the original section 2(2) of the 1975 Act are under active consideration. No other possible orders under section 15A are currently under consideration.

  Mr. Liwa Uddin
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he arranged for instructions to be sent to the United Kingdom post in Islamabad for a visa
  79
  to be issued to Mr. Liwa Uddin (Ref: TH/14887/89) enabling him to join his wife in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Office exercised its right to apply for leave to appeal to the immigration appeal tribunal against the adjudicator's decision to allow Mr. Uddin's appeal. Although initially refused by the chairman of the tribunal on 28 February, this application is being reconsidered by the appellate authorities as the Home Office's amplified grounds of appeal had not been placed before the chairman when he reached his decision.

  Prison Suicides
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have died by their own hands, so far this year, in England and Wales; and if he will list the prisons, whether the prisoners were on remand or sentenced, their age and whether the inquest verdict is known.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Twelve prisoners have died at their own hand in England and Wales so far this year. The details requested are set out in the table.

  Deaths of prisoners at their own hand in England and Wales in 1990 (to 12 May)

  Establishment

  Inmate status

  Age

  Inquest verdict

  The Mount

  Sentenced

  19

  Killed himself

  Gloucester

  Sentenced

  42

  Killed himself

  Norwich

  Sentenced

  36

  Killed himself

  Wandsworth

  Sentenced

  29

  Killed himself while the balance of his mind was disturbed and in circumstances aggravated by lack of care

  Full Sutton

  Sentenced

  33

  Awaited

  Manchester

  Unconvicted

  22

  Awaited

  Cardiff

  Unconvicted

  23

  Killed himself

  Liverpool

  Unconvicted

  22

  Awaited

  Bristol

  Sentenced

  31

  Awaited

  Oxford

  Unconvicted

  29

  Awaited

  Garth

  Sentenced

  38

  Awaited

  Leeds

  Unconvicted

  31

  Awaited

  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in England and Wales are being held in police cells for the latest date available.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On Monday 13 May, there were 613 prisoners in police cells in England and Wales.

WALES

  Ysgol Pencae, Llandaff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce his decision on the proposed Welsh medium primary school, Ysgol Pencae, Highfields, Llandaff.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 26 April 1991 his decision to approve the proposal to establish this school.

  Welsh School of Instrument Making
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the representations he has had in respect of the proposed closure of the Welsh school of instrument making at Abertridwr, a branch of the Ystrad Mynach college of further education; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We have had six representations. The Welsh school of musical instrument making and repair is to close at the end of this academic year. The decision is one entirely for Mid Glamorgan local education authority which administers the school and for Ystrad Mynach college of further education.

  Compulsory Redundancies
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many compulsory redundancies have taken place in Wales during 1989 and 1990 and to date in 1991; and if he will publish figures for each secondary and primary school in Wales as well as the overall figures for each local education authority area.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Figures for all confirmed redundancies in all industries for each county are shown in the table. Separate figures for compulsory redundancies are not available. Comprehensive information on redundancies in individual schools or local education authority areas is not held centrally.

  Confirmed redundancies in all industries in Wales by local authority area 1989—March 1991

  1989

  1990

  To March 1991

  South Glamorgan

  825

  1,023

  222

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,945

  2,842

  729

  West Glamorgan

  1,902

  1,760

  269

  Gwent

  2,843

  1,710

  510

  Dyfed

  1,306

  819

  459

  Powys

  97

  92

  0

  Gwynedd

  449

  211

  99

  Clwyd

  1,132

  1,987

  927

  Totals

  11,499

  10,444

  3,215

  Note Figures for 1990 and 1991 are provisional.

  Cadw
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the 1991–92 annual budget for Cadw; and what percentage of that is allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The 1991–92 gross budget for Cadw is £13·71 million of which running costs account for 30 per cent. There are also certain minor running costs for Cadw which are funded centrally by my Department.

  Education Statistics
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children were(a) taught outside normal schools and (b) given tuition in their parental homes in each local education authority area in Wales in each of the last five years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information is not available centrally on children educated other than in school.

  National Environment Week
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what contribution will be made by his Department to National Environment Week.

  Mr. David Hunt
  National Environment Week is run by the Civic Trust to promote environmental action at the local level. I wholly support this campaign, which is in line with the Government's aims as set out in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance". My hon. Friend the Minister of State will be participating in an event associated with the Conwy Valley civic society's contribution to National Environment Week on 17 May.

  Mr. O. J. Williams
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what capacity Mr. O. J. Williams accompanied him on his visits to Aberystwyth and Fishguard on 8 and 1 May; and on which other official visits he has been accompanied by Mr. O. J. Williams.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Mr. O. J. Williams has never been a member of my official party, although he has, of course, been in attendance at political engagements. At both Aberystwyth and Fishguard he attended as a guest of the respective hosts and not as a member of my official party.

  Gwynedd Health Authority
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will give details of the previous experience of all those appointed by Gwynedd health authority as senior managers at salaries in excess of £12,000 during the last 12 months;

  (2) if he will give the total number of senior management appointments made by Gwynedd health authority during the last 12 months where the salary levels exceeded £12,000 per annum in all disciplines;

  (3) if he will give the total sum allocated by Gwynedd health authority to the salaries of senior managers in the current year; and what were the comparable figures in 1990, 1989 and 1988.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  These are matters for the Gwynedd health authority.

  Traffic
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to announce the outcome of the South Wales area and the north east Clwyd traffic studies.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have today announced the addition of eight major schemes to the motorway and trunk road programme for Wales as a result of the conclusions of these studies. The schemes are as follows:

  Scheme

  Estimated cost at current prices £ million

  Planned timing

  M4 Relief Motorway around Newport

  215

  2000

  M4 Castleton-Coryton to three-lane dual carriageway

  35

  2000

  A465 Abergavenny to Hirwaun dualling

  95

  Late 1990s

  A550 Deeside Park to Drome Corner widening

  16

  Mid 1990s

  82

  Scheme

  Estimated cost at current prices £ million

  Planned timing

  A494 Drome Corner to Ewloe Improvement to three-lane dual carriageway

  36

  1

  A494/A55 Ewloe interchange major remodelling

  34

  1

  A494 Ewloe-Mold improvement

  12

  1

  A55 Ewloe-Northop widening to three-lane dual carriageway

  12

  1

  1 Phased from 1996–97 onwards.

  The preferred route for the A550 Deeside park to Drome corner scheme will be announced shortly. For the other schemes consultants will be appointed to carry out feasibility studies and to consider location and design.

  In addition the south Wales area traffic study has shown that relief is needed for the A470 between Pontypridd and M4 at Coryton. The alternatives of widening the A470 or building a relief road are not easy and I have decided to appoint consultants to carry out a transportation study to determine whether improving public transport could achieve traffic relief at a lower cost than road improvement.

  The south Wales study also indicates that there will be capacity problems on the M4 at Port Talbot early in the next century. My officials will be consulting West Glamorgan county council to determine whether its plans for a local distributor road can offer a solution.

  A copy of the summary of the south Wales area traffic study has been placed in the Library of the House. The north-east Clwyd traffic study report is not yet in final form. A summary will be placed in the Library of the House as it is available.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he intends to take to relieve traffic congestion in Newtown, Powys.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have today announced the addition of a bypass scheme to the long term trunk road improvement programme. Consultants will be appointed shortly to study the options and develop the scheme.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Land Registry
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Land Registry; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  The Attorney-General
  Questions on the day-to-day running of executive agencies are best answered by their chief executives. However, the gross expenditure provision for the Land Registry for 1991–92 is £236,067,000 of which 68·7 per cent. has been allocated to staff costs.

  The registry operates a "token" vote, since the whole of its expenditure provision is expected to be fully met by fees paid by applicants.

  Inquests (Legal Aid)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Attorney-General whether legal aid will be available to relatives of the deceased at coroners' inquests.
  83
  The Attorney-General
  Legal aid is available to relatives of deceased at coroners' inquests for advice and assistance under the green form scheme. There are no plans to extend legal aid for representation at inquests.

  Law of Defamation
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he has considered the responses to the consultation papers on the law of defamation in England and Wales.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor has given careful consideration to all the views expressed in the responses to the consultation papers. He has been persuaded by the overall response to the first paper, on the availability of the defence of innocent dissemination, that it would be right to allow printers, as well as distributors, to defend libel claims based on defamatory content of which they were not aware and could not reasonably have been expected to be aware. It is, therefore, his intention to provide that the defence of innocent dissemination should be extended to them as soon as a convenient legislative vehicle is available.

  The responses to the consultation paper on the death of a party to defamation proceedings have disclosed widely diverging views as to whether or not it would be fairer to allow proceedings to be started or continued in the absence of the party who has died, but the response has not persuaded the Lord Chancellor that the present rule ought to be changed.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Open University
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what financial support has been given to the Open university in Scotland and its students in each of the past eight years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Grants from the Department are not given specifically to fund the Open university's activities in Scotland, but to support the university's provision in the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Open university expenditure is incurred both locally and centrally. It is not possible to determine accurately that portion of the university's centrally incurred costs which relates to its activities in Scotland.

  The table shows, in cash terms, the costs incurred by the Open university's regional office in Edinburgh in each of the last eight years. The Edinburgh office co-ordinates Open university activities throughout Scotland and the costs cover the staffing and overhead costs of the office and the university's study centres in Scotland.

  Year

  Amount £ million

  1983

  0·751

  1984

  0·776

  1985

  0·791

  1986

  0·889

  1987

  1·000

  1988

  1·011

  1989

  1·099

  1990

  1·205

  Education Spending, Suffolk
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement listing the money his Department has invested in education in Suffolk(a) on statutory age education and (b) post-16 education for each of the last 10 years; and what his plans are for the next three years.

  Mr. Fallon
  Spending on education in Suffolk is financed by a number of sources, including rates and the community charge, Government revenue support grant and specific grants, and fees and charges for services. Rates, community charge and revenue support grant are made available to fund all of the local authority's services, and are not hypothecated between individual services. Therefore, it is not possible to identify how much of the authority's spending on education is financed by each of these sources.

  Grant Allocations
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the total amount in grant allocation for(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland and the percentage change for the period 1986–87 to the year for which most recent figures are available.

  Mr. Fallon
  The table sets out identifiable general Government expenditure on education and science from 1986–87 to 1989–90, the latest year for which data are available, by territorial area.

  Identifiable general government expenditure on education and science by area1 2

  £ million

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  1986–87

  Education and science

  14,838·6

  924·6

  2,198·4

  1987–88

  Education and science

  16,234·5

  1,018·2

  2,386·5

  Percentage change on previous year

  9·4

  10·1

  8·6

  1988–89

  Education and science

  17,396·3

  1,083·3

  2,604·3

  Percentage change on previous year

  7·2

  6·4

  9·1

  1989–90

  Education and science

  19,153·9

  1,168·8

  2,825·4

  Percentage change on previous year

  10·1

  7·9

  8·5

  1Source: Public Expenditure Analyses to 1993–94: Statistical Supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement (Cm. 1520), Annex E2a Tables Ea to E5b.

  2 Items included in general government expenditure but not included within total expenditure on programmes (privatisation proceeds, general government debt interest and other accounting adjustments) are treated as unidentifiable expenditure and are not allocated to territories.

  Teacher Schemes
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what central Government funds are allocated for(a) the licensed teacher scheme and (b) the articled teacher scheme in the current financial year, for 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Fallon
  In 1991–92 the Government are supporting expenditure by local education authorities of some £5·5
  85
  million on the licensed teacher scheme and £8·0 million on the articled teacher scheme through grants for education support and training—GEST. Grant is paid at a rate of 65 per cent. of expenditure. Funding for the articled teacher scheme is also provided for higher education institutions through the funding councils, but is not separately identified.

  The proposals which my right hon. and learned Friend announced on 3 May for GEST programme expenditure in 1992–93 include £10·1 million for the licensed teacher scheme and £11 million for the articled teacher scheme.

  No decisions have yet been reached on expenditure in support of the licensed and articled teacher schemes in 1993–94.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to issue a White Paper on higher education; and what its terms of reference will be.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I decline to speculate on such matters.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the comparative studies of the effectiveness of different methods of teacher training the Government have commissioned since 1979.

  Mr. Fallon
  The following studies of the effectiveness of different methods of teacher training have been commissioned by the Department since 1979:

  Project title and principal investigator

  Contract period

  A Study of the Structure and Process of Initial Teacher Education within Universities. (Professor G. Bernbaum, University of Leicester).

  1979–83

  School-Based Training in the Postgraduate Certificate of Education (PGCE). (Professor P. H. Hirst, University of Cambridge).

  1983–86

  Teacher Education in a Multi-cultural Society: Training the Trainers. (Professor M. Craft, University of Nottingham).

  1984–86

  Perspectives on the World of Work in Initial Teacher Training. (Professor P. Kelly, University of Southampton).

  1984–88

  Industry—Education Work in Initial Teacher Education Courses. (Dr. W. A. H. Scott, University of Bath).

  1988

  Study of Mature Entrants to the Teaching Profession. (Mr. G. F. Adamson, Sunderland Polytechnic).

  1990–91

  Evaluation of the Licensed Teacher Scheme. (Dr. S. Hegarty, National Foundation for Educational Research).

  1990–92

  Evaluation of the Articled Teacher Pilot Scheme. (Dr. S. M. Storey, National Foundation for Educational Research).

  1991

  Articled Teachers
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers are currently being trained on the articled teachers scheme.

  Mr. Fallon
  There are at present 403 students being trained on the articled teachers scheme.

  Universities and Colleges (Grants)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list figures for the distribution of grant to each university and college for 1986–87, 1987–88, 1989–90 and the provisional figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 and the percentage change in the period between 1986–87 and the year for which the most recent figures are available.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Universities' income from Exchequer grants for years up to the academic year 1988–89, the latest for which this information is available, is set out in successive annual editions of "University Statistics: Volume Three, Finance" published by the Universities Statistical Record. the main distribution figures for the academic years 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 are set out in University Grants Committee circular letter 3/89 and Universities Funding Council circular letters 12/90 and 6/91 respectively. Copies of these documents are in the Library.

  Stratford Grant-maintained School
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied that Stratford GM school is meeting the requirements of the Education Reform Act 1988 in respect of the curriculum and related matters.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is the duty of the governing body and headteacher of Stratford school to secure that the relevant provisions of chapter 1 of part 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988 relating to the curriculum are implemented at the school.

ENERGY

  Windfarm Developments
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many plans for windfarm developments have been shelved following changes in the non-fossil fuel obligation contract terms from 20-year contracts to eight-year contracts.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No viable projects had to be excluded from contracting under the 1990 Renewables Order because of the limitation on the premium price until 1998. Amongst the projects that succeeded in gaining contracts under that order are five new wind projects.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to remove the 1998 deadline for premium payments for windfarm developments by a scheme to make payments over a fixed period commencing from the commissioning of each windfarm project.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Government keep under review whether to seek the Commission's approval to extend the
  87
  fossil fuel levy beyond 1998. However, I am confident that the regional electricity companies will be able to offer generators acceptable contracts under the proposed 1991 Renewables Order. My Department's forthcoming renewables review will provide an opportunity to consider the longer-term implications.

  Renewable Energy Programmes
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many representations he has received concerning the implementation of the first non-fossil fuel obligation order for electricity generation from renewable sources.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend received a number of representations. These were taken into account by my right hon. Friend in deciding to make the next Renewables Order in the autumn of 1991; and by the Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency Ltd., and the Office of Electricity Regulation in deciding the project selection procedure for that order.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the individual appointments excluding casual vacancies he is scheduled to make to quasi autonomous non-governmental organisations in(a) 1991 and (b) 1992 indicating in each case the title of the post, the salary if any and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Secretary of State plans to make the following appointments in 1991 and 1992:

  1991

  1992

  Advisory Council on Research and Development

  2

  4

  Offshore Industry Advisory Board

  2

  0

  Renewable Energy Advisory Committee

  2

  2

  Coal Task Force

  2

  14

  Appointment to these advisory bodies is as a member and carries no title. Members are not paid; and the duration of their appointment varies from one to three years.

  Power Lines
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, further to the statement made on his behalf,Official Report, 29 April, column 150, he will state the results of past work relating to connections between power lines and health and the nature, purpose, cost and timetable of further work now proceeding in that regard.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Research into whether electromagnetic fields at power frequencies create a hazard to health has been going on worldwide for more than 10 years. Although there have been some claims which link exposure to these fields to the incidence of cancer and other health effects, to date the findings of such research have been inconclusive.

  The national or international bodies such as the World Health Organisation, the International Radiation Protection Association, the United States Office of Technology Assessment and the United Kingdom's National Radiological Protection Board have not concluded that these fields are a danger to human health, but recommend a continuation of research.
  88
  In the United Kingdom much of the research is funded by the National Grid Company which is spending about £1 million per year for this purpose. Most of the research work is being done by independent laboratories in various universities and a teaching hospital. Current research work is expected to last for several years.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  During 1991–92 there will be some £26 million available under the home energy efficiency scheme for low income households. We and the energy action grants agency are monitoring the initial operation of the scheme closely.

  Magnox Reactors
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the proposals of Nuclear Electric to extend the operating lives of its Magnox reactors.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In his statement to the House on 9 November 1989, Official Report, column 1176 the Secretary of State for Energy stated:
  "In the light of their performance to date, it should be possible, subject to the views of the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate, for the lifetime of at least some of the Magnox stations to be extended. The Government will make available funds for any justifiable investment for this purpose."
  That remains the Government's policy.

  National Parks: Limestone Quarrying
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what undertakings he has received from PowerGen plc that limestone will not be quarried from national parks.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend, when granting his consent for the installation of flue gas desulphurisation plant at PowerGen plc's Ratcliffe-on-Soar 2,000 MW coal-fired power station, included a condition that limestone extracted from a National Park or regional park cannot be used in the operation of the FGD plant. Any future consent which he may grant for the installation of FGD plant using the limestone/gypsum process will include a similar condition.

  Electricity Generation (Environmental Research)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to use the Government's share holding in each of the generating companies to ensure that the environmental research programmes currently undertaken by these companies will be maintained at their present level over the next two years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. The Government do not intend to use their rights as an ordinary shareholder to intervene in the commercial decisions of National Power or PowerGen.

  PowerGen plc
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will propose a senior official from his Department for appointment as a non-executive director of PowerGen plc; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No.

  North Sea Gas
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his current estimate of the reserve life of British North sea gas fields.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The reserves in British North sea gas fields at present rates of production are expected to last in excess of 25 years.

  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement listing his Department's role and its spending on activities concerned with the North sea gas and oil industry in Suffolk and Norfolk for each of the past 10 years; and what his forward plans are for the next three years.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department's Report to Parliament of April this year on the "Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom", also known as the "brown book", is available in the House of Commons Library. I was pleased to be able to record encouragingly high levels of activity. The breakdown of activity affecting Suffolk and Norfolk is not readily available, although, my Department's offshore supplies office has funded research and development projects with five different contractors in Suffolk and Norfolk in the past 10 years. Great Yarmouth is an important supply centre for the southern basin and Bacton is an important gas terminal, both producing economic and employment benefits to the region. Details of producing fields linked by pipeline to Bacton are included in table 11(b) of the report.

  Boiler Efficiency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the EC directive on boiler efficiency; and what representations he has received from interested parties in the United Kingdom on this draft directive.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government support the aim of improving boiler efficiency. However, we have substantial reservations about the draft directive, which, if implemented, would result in wasteful misallocation of resources; several other member states also have reservations and discussions are continuing in the Council. We are pressing for extensive changes to the draft directive, and this line also reflects representations received from several interested parties.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to the statement he issued on 1 May in support of nuclear power, he will set out the criteria on which he based his conclusion that nuclear energy remains an important environmental insurance for the future of this planet.
  90
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Government policy on nuclear power is set out in the environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance" Cm. 1200.

  Kuwait (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish a summary of the decisions taken during his visit to Kuwait at the end of April.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My visit to Kuwait emphasised the ability of United Kingdom companies to assist the Kuwaitis with the reconstruction of their energy and related industries. In particular, my group included a number of firms offering expertise to deal with the burning oilwells. One of the main outcomes was to secure the agreement in principle of the Kuwait Oil Company to a proposal from the Kuwaiti British Fire Group—KBFG—a joint venture of AMEC, Taylor Woodrow and Wimpey to undertake a damage assessment survey of a number of wells in northern Kuwait. It is hoped that a formal contract will be awarded to KBFG in the near future.

  Hinkley Point
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department has begun the review of nuclear power indicated in his decision letter on the Hinkley Point C reactor.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My decison letter on the Hinkley Point C reactor referred to the statement I made to the House on 9 November 1989. In that statement I made clear that the Government will review the prospects of nuclear power in the United Kingdom in 1994. The precise remit of the review will be set nearer the time. The review will be wide ranging and will take account of all relevant factors.

  Belvedere Waste Disposal Plant
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received to date about the proposed waste disposal plant in Belvedere.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend has directed Cory Environmental Limited to advertise its application for his consent to construct a waste-fired generating station at Belvedere and has allowed a period up to June 1991 in which objections can be made to him. To date, my Department has registered three objections to the application.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  CBI, Staffordshire
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the CBI in north Staffordshire to discuss the state of the local economy.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Secretary of State last met representatives of the CBI (midlands) during his visit to the region on 30 April 1991, when a wide range of business matters was discussed.

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Laboratory of the Government Chemist; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Laboratory of the Government Chemist budget for 1991–92 was published in estimates on 12 March 1991 and the gross total is £13·612 million. Of this sum the proportion allocated to staff costs, defined as salary, earnings-related NI contribution—ERNIC—superannuation and overtime costs for both permanent and casual staff, is around 53 per cent. The Laboratory of the Government Chemist is funded on a net running cost basis, so the final expenditure outturn will depend on income generated during the year. This in turn may slightly affect the proportion of total expenditure accounted for by staff costs.

  Patent Office
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Patent Office; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Patent Office budget for 1991–92 was published on 12 March 1991 and the gross total is £47·085 million. Of this sum the proportion allocated to staff costs, defined as salary, ERNIC, superannuation and overtime costs for both permanent and casual staff, is around 55 per cent. The Patent Office has, since 1 April 1991, been funded on a net running cost basis and the final expenditure outturn will thus depend on income generated during the year; this in turn may slightly affect the proportion of total expenditure accounted for by staff costs.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the insolvency service; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Department's estimates were published on 12 March. Within these the Insolvency Service executive agency has been allocated a budget of £45·1 million. Of this the proportion allocated to staff costs, defined as salary, ERNIC, superannuation and overtime for both permanent and casual staff, is about 65 per cent.

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the National Weights and Measures Laboratory; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Department's estimates were published on 12 March. Within these the National Weights and Measures Laboratory executive agency has been allocated a budget of £1·942 million. Of this, the proportion allocated to staff costs, defined as salary, ERNIC, superannuation and overtime for both permanent and casual staff, is about 52 per cent.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the National Engineering Laboratory; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Department's Estimates were published on 12 March. Within these the National Engineering Laboratory executive agency has been allocated a budget of £21·119 million. Of this, the proportion allocated to staff costs, defined as salary, ERNIC, superannuation and overtime for both permanent and casual staff, is about 41 per cent.

  Radiocommunications Agency
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Radiocommunications Agency; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Radiocommunications Agency budget for 1991–92 was published in estimates on 12 March 1991. The gross total is £30·587 million. Of this sum the proportion allocated to staff costs, defined as salary, ERNIC, superannuation and overtime costs for both permanent and casual staff is 42 per cent.

  The Radiocommunications Agency has, since 1 April 1990, been funded on a net running cost basis and the final expenditure outturn will thus depend on income generated during the year; this in turn may slightly affect the proportion of total expenditure accounted for by staff costs.

  Companies House
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the 1991–92 annual budget for Companies House; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Redwood
  Companies House's budget for 1991–92 was published in estimates on 12 March 1991 and the gross total is £35·811 million. Of this sum, the proportion allocated to staff costs, defined as salary, ERNIC, superannuation and overtime costs for both permanent and casual staff, is around 46 per cent. Companies House is funded on a net running cost basis and the final expenditure outturn will thus depend on income generated during the year; this in turn may slightly affect the proportion of total expenditure accounted for by staff costs.

  National Physical Laboratory
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the National Physical Laboratory; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Leigh
  The National Physical Laboratory expenditure budget for 1991–92 was published in estimates on 12 March 1991 and the gross total is £45·193 million. Of this sum, the proportion allocated to staff costs, defined as salary, ERNIC, superannuation and overtime costs for both permanent and temporary staff, is 43 per cent. The NPL has, since 1 April 1991, been funded on a net running
  93
  cost basis and the final outturn will therefore depend on income generated during the year. This may affect the proportion of total expenditure accounted for by staff costs.

  Warren Spring Laboratory
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Warren Spring Laboratory; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Warren Spring Laboratory budget for 1991–92 was published in estimates on 12 March 1991 and the gross total is £8·45 million. Of this sum, the proportion allocated to staff costs, defined as salary, ERNIC, superannuation and overtime costs for both permanent and casual staff is around 78 per cent. The Warren Spring Laboratory has, since 1 April 1990, been funded at a net running cost basis and the final expenditure outturn will thus depend on income generated during the year; this in turn may slightly affect the proportion of total expenditure accounted for by staff costs.

  National Environment Week
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contribution will be made by his Department towards National Environment Week.

  Mr. Leigh
  During National Environment Week my Department will be holding environment seminars for business at Birmingham and Slough in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, Department of Energy and Business in the Environment. These seminars are part of a wider regional programme to fulfil the commitment in last autumn's environmental White Paper "This Common Inheritance" to explain developments on environmental regulation and other environmental issues affecting business and to encourage businesses to use help which Government Departments can offer them.

  Poland (Pollution Control)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what matters relating to the sale of United Kingdom environmental pollution control to Poland were agreed during the visit of the President of Poland.

  Mr. Leigh
  The sale of such equipment was not discussed during President Walesa's visit, but my Department will be exploring the opportunities in this sector with the Polish authorities on 23 May at the joint commission talks in Warsaw.

  Remote Sensing Satellite
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contribution Her Majesty's Government have made to the development and use of(a) the European remote sensing satellite and (b) the along-track scanning radiometer.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Government have contributed almost £69 million to the European Space Agency's first European remote sensing satellite, ERS-1, which is due to be launched shortly. The Science and Engineering Research Council has also spent some £6 million in developing and supplying the along-track scanning 94
  radiometer—ATSR—instrument which will be flown on this satellite. Through the British developed synthetic aperture radar instrument to be carried on ERS-1, we will gain the capability to observe the earth's surface through cloud and in darkness. The ATSR will provide unprecedently accurate measurement of sea surface temperature.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), on 2 May,Official Report, column 283, he will give an estimate for the total sum to be paid out in fees by the Export Credits Guarantee Department to management consultants in connection with the proposed privatisation of the short-term insurance business of ECGD.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: About £3·5 million has been paid out in fees by ECGD to professional advisers up to 31 March 1991. Expenditure in 1991–92 will depend on progress with the privatisation, but current indications are that further costs of between £2 million and £3 million will be incurred.

  The costs of the current privatisation of the short-term business of ECGD, including fees paid to advisers, will be reported to Parliament after the sale is completed.

  Export Credits (Soviet Union)
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the current review of medium-term export credits for the Soviet Union to be completed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: Shortly.

  Exports (USSR)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what efforts he is making to improve the level of United Kingdom exports to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: Overseas Trade Services staff in the United Kingdom and Moscow provide a range of services to assist companies exporting to the USSR.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service which of the 50 executive agencies are run on a trading fund basis; which are subject to gross running costs control; and which are subject to net running costs control.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is as follows.

  Next Steps—Established Agencies

  Financial Regimes

  Building Research Establishment

  NRC

  Cadw (Welsh Historic Monuments)

  GRC

  Central Office of Information

  TF

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  NRC

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment

  GRC

  95

  Next Steps—Established Agencies

  Financial Regimes

  Civil Service College

  NRC

  Companies House

  NRC

  Defence Research Agency

  GRC

  Directorate General of Defence Accounts

  GRC

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  GRC

  Driving Standards Agency

  OVTB

  Employment Service

  GRC

  Forensic Science Service

  GRC

  Historic Royal Palaces

  NRC

  Historic Scotland

  GRC

  HMSO

  TF

  Hydrographic Office

  GRC

  Information Technology Services Agency

  GRC

  Insolvency Service

  GRC

  Intervention Board

  GRC

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  NRC

  Land Registry

  NRC

  Meteorological Office

  GRC

  Military Survey

  GRC

  National Engineering Laboratory

  GRC

  National Physical Laboratory

  NRC

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  GRC

  Natural Resources Institute

  NRC

  NHS Estates

  GRC

  Occupational Health Service

  GRC

  Ordnance Survey

  NRC

  Patent Office

  NRC

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  NRC

  Radiocommunications Agency

  NRC

  RAF Maintenance

  GRC

  Rate Collection Agency (Northern Ireland)

  GRC

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency

  GRC

  Registers of Scotland

  NRC

  Resettlement Agency

  GRC

  Royal Mint

  TF

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  GRC

  Service Children's Schools (North West Europe)

  GRC

  Agency

  Chief Executive

  Civil Service Grade

  Method of Appointment

  Origin

  Building Research Establishment

  Dr. Roger Courtney

  3

  Internal appointment

  serving civil servant

  CADW (Welsh Historic Monuments)

  John Carr

  5

  open competition

  direct entrant

  Central Office of Information

  Michael Devereau

  4

  internal appointment

  serving civil servant

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  Tony Little

  3

  open competition

  serving civil servant

  Chemical Biological Defence Establishment

  Dr. Graham Pearson CB

  3

  internal appointment

  serving civil servant

  Civil Service College

  Marianne Neville-Rolfe

  3

  internal appointment

  serving civil servant

  Companies House

  David Durham

  4

  open competition

  direct entrant

  Defence Research Agency

  Nigel Hughes

  2

  open competition

  serving civil servant

  Directorate General of Defence Accounts

  Michael Dymond

  4

  internal appointment

  serving civil servant

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Stephen Curtis

  3

  open competition

  serving civil servant

  Driving Standards Agency

  Dr. Christopher Woodman

  5

  internal appointment

  serving civil servant

  Employment Service

  Michael Fogden

  31

  internal appointment

  serving civil servant

  Forensic Science Service

  Dr. Janet Thompson

  4

  open competition

  serving civil servant

  Historic Royal Palaces

  David Beeton

  3

  open competition

  direct entrant

  Historic Scotland

  Graeme Munro

  3

  internal appointment

  serving civil servant

  HMSO

  Dr. Paul Freeman

  2

  open competition

  serving civil servant

  Hydrographic Office

  Rear Admiral John Myers

  —

  armed forces appointment

  armed forces

  Information Technology Services Agency

  John Kenworthy

  3

  internal appointment

  serving civil servant

  Insolvency Service

  Peter Joyce

  3

  open competition

  serving civil servant

  Intervention Board

  Guy Stapleton

  3

  internal appointment

  serving civil servant

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  Dr. Richard Worswick

  3

  open competition

  direct entrant

  Land Registry

  John Manthorpe

  2

  open competition

  serving civil servant

  Meteorological Office

  Dr. John Houghton CBE

  2

  open competition

  direct entrant

  Military Survey

  Major General Roy Wood

  —

  armed forces appointment

  armed forces

  National Engineering Laboratory

  William Edgar

  3

  open competition

  direct entrant

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  Dr. Seton Bennett

  5

  open competition

  serving civil servant

  National Physical Laboratory

  Dr. Peter Clapham

  3

  open competition

  serving civil servant

  Natural Resources Institute

  Anthony Beattie

  3

  internal appointment

  serving civil servant

  96

  Next Steps—Established Agencies

  Financial Regimes

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  GRC

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  GRC

  Training & Employment Agency (Northern Ireland)

  GRC

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  GRC

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  NRC

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  TF

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  GRC

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  NRC

  50 in number

  Key:

  GRC—Gross Running Costs.

  NRC—Net Running Costs.

  TF—Trading Fund.

  OVTB—Driving Standards Agency is a non-statutory on-Vote trading body whose current expenses are not classified as public expenditure.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list all agency chief executives, and their grade stating whether they were appointed through open competition and whether they were serving civil servants or direct entrants.

  Mr. Renton
  The table provides the information requested in respect of the 50 existing "next steps" agency chief executives at 10 May 1991. The Government's objective is to secure the right person for each of these important jobs, and open competition is now the presumption in doing so. With the exception of the defence support agencies, chief executives are directly accountable to the appropriate Minister; and many chief executives have pay arrangements tailored to their particular employment.
  97

  Agency

  Chief Executive

  Civil Service Grade

  Method of Appointment

  Origin

  NHS Estates

  John Locke

  3

  open competition

  direct entrant

  Occupational Health Service

  Dr. George Sorrie

  3

  open competition

  serving civil servant

  Ordnance Survey

  Peter McMaster

  3

  open competition

  direct entrant

  Patent Office

  Paul Hartnack

  3

  open competition

  serving civil servant

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  Roy Kendrick

  5

  open competition

  direct entrant

  Radiocommunications Agency

  John Michell

  3

  internal appointment

  serving civil servant

  RAF Maintenance

  Air Vice Marshall Don Campbell

  —

  armed forces appointment

  armed forces

  Rate Collection Agency (Northern Ireland)

  David Gallagher

  6

  open competition

  serving civil servant

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency

  Michael Geddes

  3

  open competition

  direct entrant

  Registers of Scotland

  James Barron

  4

  open competition

  serving civil servant

  Resettlement Agency

  Tony Ward

  6

  internal appointment

  serving civil servant

  Royal Mint

  Tony Garrett

  3

  open competition

  direct entrant

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  Andrew McLeod

  5

  internal appointment

  serving civil servant

  Service Childrens' Schools (North West Europe)

  Ian Mitchelson

  4

  open competition

  direct entrant

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  Michael Bichard

  2

  open competition

  direct entrant

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  Ann Chant

  5

  internal appointment

  serving civil servant

  Training and Employment Agency (Northern Ireland)

  Julian Crozier

  3

  open competition

  serving civil servant

  UK Passport Agency

  John Hayzelden

  5

  internal appointment

  serving civil servant

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  Derek Harvey

  5

  internal appointment

  serving civil servant

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Ron Oliver

  4

  internal appointment

  serving civil servant

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  Dr. Michael Rutter

  4

  open competition

  direct entrant

  Warren Springs Laboratory

  Dr. John Reay

  3

  internal appointment

  serving civil servant

  1 Defence Support Agency

  Civil Service College
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Civil Service College; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Renton
  The management of the college's annual budget is a matter for the chief executive and I have asked her to write to the hon. Member direct.

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Renton
  The management of the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency annual budget is a matter for the chief executive and I have asked him to write to the hon. Member direct.

  Efficiency Scrutinies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many efficiency scrutinies there have been since 1979.

  Mr. Renton
  A total of 309 efficiency scrutinies have been completed by Government Departments, in association with the efficiency adviser and the efficiency unit, since 1979, Twenty interdepartmental studies have also been completed over the same period. A number of scrutinies have also been conducted by other public sector organisations according to full scrutiny disciplines and with guidance from the efficiency unit.

  Occupational Health Service
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Occupational Health Service; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Renton
  The management of the Occupational Health Service's annual budget is a matter for the chief executive and I have asked him to write to the hon. Member direct.

  Agency Staff
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will clarify the numbers included in the table of staff employed in existing executive agencies which appeared in the Official Report, 30 April 1991, columns 112–13.

  Mr. Renton
  I apologise for the fact that, owing to an administrative error, the final '0' was omitted from the numbers given in this table. The correct figures are included in the following table.

  Next Steps—Executive Agencies established as of April 1991

  Number

  Building Research Establishment

  690

  Cadw (Welsh Historic Monuments)

  220

  Central Office of Information1

  730

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  580

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment2

  580

  Civil Service College

  210

  Companies House

  1,150

  Defence Research Agency

  11,700

  Directorate General of Defence Accounts2

  2,100

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  5,450

  Driving Standards Agency

  2,050

  Employment Service

  35,600

  Forensic Science Service

  580

  99

  Number

  Historic Royal Palaces

  300

  Historic Scotland

  580

  HMSO1

  3,300

  Hydrographic Office2

  880

  Information Technology Services Agency

  3,350

  Insolvency Service

  1,450

  Intervention Board

  910

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  320

  Land Registry

  10,400

  Meteorological Office

  2,250

  Military Survey2

  850

  National Engineering Laboratory

  430

  National Physical Laboratory

  820

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  50

  Natural Resources Institute

  390

  NHS Estates

  120

  Occupational Health Service

  100

  Ordnance Survey

  2,500

  Patent Office

  1,150

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  70

  Radiocommunications Agency

  500

  RAF Maintenance2

  5,700

  Rate Collection Agency (Northern Ireland)

  280

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency

  320

  Registers of Scotland

  1,100

  Resettlement Agency

  510

  Royal Mint1

  1,050

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  230

  Service Children's Schools (North West Europe) 2

  2,300

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  68,000

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  6,600

  Training and Employment Agency (Northern Ireland)

  1,700

  UK Passport Agency

  1,200

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  70

  Vehicle Inspectorate1

  1,650

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  70

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  320

  50 in number

  183,460

  Customs and Excise3 (30 Executive Units)

  26,800

  210,260

  1 Trading funds.

  2 Defence Support Agency. Figure does not include service personnel.

  3 Moving towards full operation on next steps lines following publication of framework documents.

  Staffing figures are based on staff in post 1 October 1990

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Natural Resources Institute
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Natural Resources Institute; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have asked the chief executive of the Natural Resources Institute to write to the hon. Member.

  Iraq (Sanctions)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Overseas Development Administration has to contribute to the United Nations Security Council appeal issued on 29 April for assistance to the 21 countries with special economic problems arising from their compliance with sanctions imposed against Iraq.
  100
  Mrs. Chalker
  Many of the countries adversely affected by the Gulf crisis are recipients of substantial British aid. It is primarily for the international financial institutions to tackle additional financing needs arising from the crisis, in the context of each country's overall balance of payments situation and economic adjustment efforts. We have supported the provision of additional finance through the International Monetary Fund and the World bank and are accelerating our International Development Association contributions to help finance increased World bank lending to the poorest countries.

  Disaster Relief Appeals
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the Overseas Development Administration contributions made during 1991 to disaster relief appeals; and if he has any plans to contribute to any further appeals in the near future.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Since 1 January 1991, the Overseas Development Administration has made the following contributions to international agency and other appeals.

  US$1 million to UNDRO Gulf Contingency Planning appeal

  £2·5 million to ICRC Gulf appeal

  £5 million to UNHCR Africa appeals

  £3 million to UNHCR Mozambique Refugees appeal

  £3 million to ICRC for Horn of Africa appeals

  £2 million to ICRC for Iraqi refugees in Iran

  £10 million to 'Simple Truth' Appeal

  US$10 million to UN appeals for Iraqi refugees

  £0·25 million to LRCS for Bangladesh appeal

  £0·5 million to UNDRO for Bangladesh appeal

  The Government are considering further responses to appeals by the international agencies.

  Botswana
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what part the senior veterinary officers, funded by his Department in Botswana, have played in the development and implementation of that country's policy of veterinary cordon fencing.

  Mrs. Chalker
  These officers are employed by the Government of Botswana: the United Kingdom aid programme helps the Botswana Government meet part of their costs. They are engaged in a variety of duties relating to livestock production, including the provision of professional advice on issues such as cordon fencing where relevant to their duties.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding his Department provides in respect of the principal hydrological adviser for the southern Okavango integrated water development scheme in Botswana.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The salary of the principal hydrological adviser, who is an employee of the Government of Botswana, is part-funded under the aid programme at a cost of some £15,000 per annum.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there has been an independent environmental impact assessment of the proposed southern Okavango integrated water development scheme which is receiving ODA funding.

  Mrs. Chalker
  A full environmental impact assessment was carried out in connection with the first phase of the
  101
  project in the mid-1980s. A further investigation has recently been undertaken by Greenpeace at the invitation of the Botswana Government and its report is now being considered. The ODA was not involved in the funding of either study.

  Environmental Assessments
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what level of environmental assessment is conducted for activities undertaken by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  All programme managers in the Overseas Development Administration are required to ensure the environmental soundness of projects. Some projects may only require an initial environmental screening, whilst others may require a full environmental impact assessment. A manual of environmental appraisal to help programme managers judge the level of environmental assessment required was issued in March 1989 and is accompanied by a mandatory training seminar. A copy of the manual is in the Library. The manual is currently being up-dated.

  Kurdistan and Bangladesh
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimates he has of the cost to the Overseas Development Administration of the use of Ministry of Defence forces in humanitarian relief in(a) Kurdistan and (b) Bangladesh.

  Contributions in 1979 and 1989 at current and constant prices

  £ thousands

  1979 (current prices)

  1979 (at constant 1989 prices)

  1989

  Percentage change in 1989 prices

  Percentage change in current prices

  UNDP

  28·533

  59·058

  26·001

  -55·9

  -8·9

  UNICEF1

  5·800

  12·005

  8·000

  -33·4

  +37·9

  UNDRO

  100

  207

  391

  +88·9

  +391·0

  UNHCR

  8·987

  18·601

  19·316

  +3·8

  +214·9

  WFP2

  7·017

  14·524

  15·674

  —

  —

  1 Contribution to core programme only.

  2 Figures for 1979 and 1989 for WFP are not comparable. Prior to 1987 some food aid through the world food programme was classified as bilateral aid and therefore is not included in the 1979 figure. It is not possible retrospectively to identify these amounts. Therefore the percentage change has not been calculated.

  Note: Information is based on 1989 prices, using 1989 expenditure figures. This is the most recent year for which firm figures are available.

PRIME MINISTER

  Turkey (British Journalists)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government have made representations to Turkey over the detention and expulsion of Robert Fisk, a journalist working for The Independent, and the banning of all journalists of The Independent from working in Turkey.

  The Prime Minister
  The detention and expulsion of Mr. Fisk and the future of The Independent's representation in Turkey have been discussed by the British ambassador in Ankara with the Turkish authorities. We naturally wish for The Independent to have effective representation in Turkey.
  102
  Mrs. Chalker
  Under longstanding arrangements for cost-sharing, the Overseas Development Administration refunds to the Ministry of Defence only the additional costs incurred as a direct result of the armed forces' involvement in disaster relief operations overseas.

  The cost to the ODA of service participation in relief operations for Iraqi refugees up to and including 9 May is estimated at £5 million. Continuing costs thereafter, at present rates of activity, are estimated at £500,000 per week. The initial estimate of the total cost to ODA of the armed forces' contribution to cyclone relief in Bangladesh is £250,000.

  United Nations Organisations
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a chart showing the United Kingdom's contribution to the United Nations Development Programme, the UNICEF core programme, the United Nations disaster relief coordinator, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Food Programme, in 1979 and 1991, in current prices, and in constant 1991 prices, showing for each the percentage change between 1979 and 1991.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 9 May 1991]: The information is as follows:

  Inaccurate Information
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list in the Official Report each instance of inadvertently inaccurate information given to Parliament since 1979 by Ministers of Her Majesty's Government which was subsequently corrected in the Official Report; and what steps he is taking to improve the accuracy of information given to Parliament by Her Majesty's Government.

  The Prime Minister
  Records are not maintained of corrections to the Official Report. Ministers seek the highest standards of accuracy in the information they give to Parliament.

  Occupied Territories (Education)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has made to the Israeli Prime Minister about the continuing closure of Palestinian schools, colleges and universities in the territories occupied by Israel; and if he will make a statement.
  103
  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made representations on education in the occupied territories when he saw the Israeli Foreign Minister last on 5 March. This issue was also raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State during his visit to Israel and the occupied territories from 6 to 9 May.

  Report:

  Department

  Title of scrutiny

  Completed

  Publicly available

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Career Management

  Yes

  No

  Cabinet Office

  Ministerial Correspondence

  Yes

  Yes

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

  Inland Customs Activity

  Yes

  Yes

  Ministry of Defence

  Electronics Trades Training

  Yes

  No

  Equipment Policy Committee

  No

  —

  Department of Education and Science

  Research Councils' Support Services

  No

  —

  Department of Employment

  Communications within the ED Group

  Yes

  No

  Industrial Tribunal System

  No

  —

  Department of Environment

  Review of the Housing Defects Act

  No

  —

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Training in Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  No

  —

  Department of Health

  Medical Divisions

  Yes

  No

  Home Office

  In-Service Probation Training

  Yes

  Yes

  National Collection of Criminal Records

  Yes

  No

  Inland Revenue

  Departmental Print Output

  Yes

  No

  Electronic Data Capture and Data Matching

  Yes

  No

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Public Record Office

  Yes

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Civil Service

  Creditor Payments

  Yes

  No

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Fairs and Promotions Branch

  No

  —

  Department of Transport

  Relationship between Agencies and the Centre of the Department

  Yes

  Yes

  Welsh Office

  Land Procedures

  No

  —

  Decisions on the publication of scrutiny reports are taken by the Ministers responsible for the scrutinies concerned. In a number of cases where a scrutiny has been recently completed, no decision on publication has been made.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 14 May.

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

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church Urban Fund
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners if the Church Commissioners have changed their policy of contributing £1 million annually to the church urban fund.

  Mr. Alison
  The primary call on the Commissioners' income is the provision of clergy pensions and thereafter

  Scrutiny Programme
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Prime Minister what topics have been covered in the efficiency unit's central scrutiny programme in the last financial year; and which scrutiny reports have been published.

  The Prime Minister
  Twenty efficiency scrutinies have been undertaken by Departments in 1990–91 in association with the efficiency adviser and the efficiency unit. The programme of scrutinies, including those which are not yet completed, is as follows:

  clergy stipends and housing. Each year they may make grants for other purposes from any surplus income they may have. They have in each of the past four years, voted a grant of £1 million for the church urban fund; it is not, however, an automatically recurring "annual" grant.

  The Commissioners will, at their annual general meeting in June, carefully consider, in the light of their overall financial position and other demands on their income, whether they can make a contribution in 1991 and, if so, at what level.

  Their substantial administrative help to the fund, totalling around £300,000 a year, will, in any event, continue.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Building Societies
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis he has calculated that building societies would not be repaid £250 million if the House accepts his proposal, retrospectively, to reverse the House of Lords decision in the Woolwich case.

  Mr. Maples
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on 22 April, at columns 300–1.
  105
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether building societies have agreed that the 1986 change in accounting for tax does not mean they have paid extra tax.

  Mr. Maples
  It would not be appropriate to comment on statements made by individual building societies about their tax affairs.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what response or acknowledgement has been given to the demand on 25 October 1990 for repayment of tax unlawfully demanded from a building society, following the judgment in the Woolwich case;

  (2) how much tax has been received each financial year and for each financial year from building societies since 1983–84; how much was paid with the qualification that the payment was made under protest; how much is now known to have been demanded unlawfully; and how much has been repaid.

  Mr. Maples
  It would not be appropriate to comment on the tax affairs of individual building societies.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the probable cost of acknowledging letters(a) directly and (b) via an hon. Member to each or any member of a building society adversely affected by clause 50 of the Finance Bill.

  Mr. Maples
  The cost of replying to letters, whether received directly, or through hon. Members, depends upon the complexity of the issues raised and the research necessary to deal with them.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which building societies did not challenge the double taxation damand under the 1986 legislation on building societies.

  Mr. Maples
  The 1986 building societies legislation did not involve double taxation. It would not be appropriate to comment on the tax affairs of individual building societies.

  Retrospective Legislation
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when, other than following the Woolwich case, the Treasury has proposed retrospective legislation to have the effect of reversing a granted application for judicial review or a successful appeal against assessment.

  Mr. Maples
  There have been two instances of such legislation in recent years: section 62 of the Finance Act 1987 and section 116 of the Finance Act 1989.

  Leeds Building Society
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions Treasury Ministers met representatives of the Leeds building society in 1985; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Maples
  There is no record of any such meeting. If my hon. Friend has a particular meeting in mind, perhaps he could let me know.

  Soft Drinks (VAT)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make an estimate of the revenue from value added tax on soft drinks at the rate of 17·5 per cent. for the 106
  current financial year; and what the comparable figures would be if the rate were to be (a) 4 per cent. and (b) 9 per cent.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The following are estimates of the value added tax receipts in 1991–92 assuming the rates apply to a full year's expenditure.

  VAT rate

  Revenue yield from soft drinks £ million

  17·5 per cent.

  520

  4·0 per cent.

  120

  9· per cent.

  270

  Beer Duty
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the comparable rates of beer duty in each country of the European Community at present; when it is proposed to harmonise these rates; and if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy and proposals in this matter.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Rates of excise duty on beer in other member states of the Community, according to the latest information available, are set out in the table. The Commission's revised excise duty rate proposals for alcoholic drinks envisage minimum rates of duty to be applied by 1 January 1993 with higher, target rates to be reached by an unspecified later date. The Government's view remains that centrally determined duty rates are neither necessary nor appropriate to achieve the single market.

  Country

  Beer at 3·65 per cent. alc. by vol. 1038° OG (p per pint)

  Belgium

  4

  Denmark

  31

  France

  1

  Germany

  2

  Greece

  2

  Ireland

  33

  Italy

  5

  Luxembourg

  2

  Netherlands

  7

  Portugal

  3

  Spain

  1

  United Kingdom

  23

  Rates of exchange as at 8 May 1991.

  Source: EC Inventory of Taxes.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amounts of public funding allocated by his Department or through other Departments after Treasury sanction to United Kingdom companies for research and development projects and direct Government contracts in each of the fiscal years 1979–80 and 1989–90.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: The figures for total research and development, including development studies, spending by Her Majesty's Treasury are as follows:

  £'000s

  1983–84

  1,930

  1984–85

  4,122

  1985–86

  4,007

  107

  £'000s

  1986–87

  3,321

  1987–88

  4,038

  1988–89

  4,509

  1989–90

  2,578

  Figures for earlier years are unavailable and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The table does not include Treasury-sanctioned expenditure by other Government Departments. Information on Government spending as a whole is set out in the Cabinet Office publication "Annual Review of Government Funded Research and Development", published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  Live Animals and Birds (Imports)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those United Kingdom ports of entry which received consignments of live animals or birds in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: Consignments of live animals or birds have been received at the following ports of entry in the years indicated.

  Table of ports receiving live animals and birds

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Ports

  Cardiff

  /

  /

  Dover

  /

  /

  /

  Felixstowe

  /

  /

  /

  Fishguard

  /

  /

  /

  Folkestone

  /

  Great Yarmouth

  /

  /

  /

  Grimsby

  /

  /

  /

  Harwich

  /

  /

  /

  Holyhead

  /

  /

  /

  Hull

  /

  /

  /

  Immingham

  /

  /

  /

  Ipswich

  /

  Liverpol

  /

  /

  /

  London

  /

  Londonderry

  /

  Medway

  /

  /

  /

  Middlesbrough

  /

  Milford Haven

  /

  /

  /

  Newhaven

  /

  Poole

  /

  /

  /

  Portsmouth

  /

  /

  /

  Plymouth

  /

  Ramsgate

  /

  /

  Sharpness

  /

  Silloth

  /

  Southampton

  /

  /

  /

  Swansea

  /

  /

  Tyne

  /

  /

  /

  Airports

  Belfast

  /

  /

  Birmingham

  /

  /

  Bristol

  /

  East Midlands

  /

  /

  /

  Glasgow

  /

  /

  /

  London Gatwick

  /

  /

  /

  London Heathrow

  /

  /

  /

  London Stansted

  /

  /

  /

  Luton

  /

  /

  /

  Manchester

  /

  /

  /

  Prestwick

  /

  /

  Southend

  /

  Other

  /

  /

  /

  Irish Land Boundary

  /

  /

  /

  108
  Note 1990 details are provisional

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish details of all endangered species products currently held by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise following seizures made(a) from 1979 to 1986 and (b) from 1986 to date.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: Records of endangered species products held by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are not kept centrally and the information sought could be obtained only at disproportionate expense.

  Reptile Imports
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state(a) the total number of live reptiles confiscated or seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in 1990 (b) the number of prosecutions entered from such seizures and (c) the number of resulting convictions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: A total of 1,567 live reptiles and amphibians were seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in 1990. There were no prosecutions entered from those seizures.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Turtles
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom intends to take out reservations under the specially protected areas and wildlife protocol of the Cartagena convention on any of the sea turtle species.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Decisions on the proposed listings of species on the annexes to the SPAW protocol of the Cartagena convention will be made at a meeting of the plenipotentiaries in Kingston in June.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the position of the sea turtle farm on the British dependent territory of the Cayman Islands in relation to the Annex II listing of green turtles under the specially protected areas and wildlife protocol of the Cartagena convention.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In advance of the meeting of signatories to the SPAW protocol in Kingston next month we shall be discussing with our interested dependent territories the implications of the listing of species on the annexes to the protocol.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom will be supporting the listing of each of the(a) green turtle (Chelonia mydas), (b) Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), (c) Kemp's Ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), (d) Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), (e) Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and (f) Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) on annex II of the specially protected areas and wildlife protocol of the Cartagena convention.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom delegation will be participating fully in the discussions at the
  109
  conference of plenipotentiaries for the adoption of annexes of the SPAW protocol of the Cartagena convention. The listing of the various species of turtle will be one of the issues under discussion.

  Turkey (British Journalists)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Turkish Government concerning the arrest of the British journalists Robert Fisk of The Independent and Robert Fox of The Daily Telegraph, and the declaration of The Independent staff Christopher Bellamy, Phil Reeves and Richard Wayman as persona non grata in Turkey.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The detention and expulsion of Mr. Fisk and the future of The Independent's representation in Turkey have been discussed by the British ambassador in Ankara with the Turkish authorities. We naturally wish for The Independent to have effective representation in Turkey.

  Kuwait (Human Rights)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has taken any steps to obtain independent verification of Kuwaiti observance of human rights.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are in close touch, both here and in Kuwait, with international humanitarian agencies and human rights organisations monitoring the position of vulnerable groups in that country.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), raised Israeli membership of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty during his meeting with the Israeli Foreign Minister in Israel on 6 May.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I met the deputy Foreign Minister on 8 May. The issue was not raised on this occasion.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters were raised during his recent meeting with his Saudi counterpart and other Ministers and officials of the Saudi Arabian Government.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on 8 May,Official Report, column 473–75.

  Occupied Territories (Education)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently made to his Israeli counterpart to open the Palestinian schools, colleges and universities of the occupied territories; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made 110
  representations on education in the occupied territories when he saw the Israeli Foreign Minister last on 5 March. This issue was also raised by me during my visit to Israel and the occupied territories from 6 to 9 May.

  Hostages
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact Her Majesty's Government has had with the Iranian Government on the question of hostages in the Lebanon.

  Mr. Hurd
  We are keeping in close touch with the Iranian Government on the hostage issue. As we have made clear, we wish to see the release of the hostages as soon as possible. The Iranian Government have said that they will continue to use their influence to achieve this. We obviously hope that they will be successful, and that we can finally close a sad chapter of hostage taking.

  South Africa
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place in the United Nations committee against apartheid regarding his planned visit to South Africa later this year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are not aware of any discussions of this matter within the United Nations special committee against apartheid.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Library Facilities
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when the Library facilities in I Derby Gate will be available for hon. Members and their staff; what services they will provide; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have been asked as Chairman of the Services Committee to inform Members that the new Library facilities established in 1 Derby Gate, at the northern end of the phase I building, will open on Monday 17 June at 10 am. Leaflets explaining the effects of the move and the facilities available thereafter are to be sent to every Member and will also be available in the Library.

  The move will begin during the spring recess. As a consequence service from the Norman Shaw branch library will cease at 4.30 pm on Friday 24 May. Because of the need to relocate equipment there will be no Library facilities available for Members' staff for a period of 14 working days thereafter, except for those with category 9B passes who will retain their usual right of access to the Members' Library.

  During the move, services in the Oriel and Reference Rooms will continue unaffected. Representatives from the international affairs and research sections will be available in room A, while representatives from the statistical section will attend in room C.

  The move will enable the research sections to be brought together in Derby Gate and will allow improvements to be made in the service provided in the Members' Library. From autumn 1991 the Library will also have its own video viewing room in the North Curtain area, which will contain facilities for individuals and groups.
  111
  Full details of the move and its consequences are contained in the Library's leaflet.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Clerk's Department
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will set out the educational qualifications of staff in the Clerk's Department of the House of Commons showing, for the graduates, degree subject and university or college attended.

  Mr. Beith
  Much of the information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The educational qualifications required of Clerk of the House Department staff on entry to the service are broadly in line with those required of analogous grades in other Departments of the House and in the civil service.

TRANSPORT

  Motor Vehicles (Crime Prevention)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department are taking to achieve in-built motor vehicle crime prevention and to have part I and part VI of the relevant British standards made obligatory for manufacturers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  We presented proposals to the European Commission first in 1988 and in revised form in May 1990 to include in the EC directive on vehicle security requirements for mechanical locking systems based on part 1 of the British standard BS AU 209. These proposals have so far been resisted by some other member states; but with the co-operation of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders we intend to submit later this year further proposals and press for their early adoption. We are also preparing proposals for further amendment to the EC directive based on parts 5 and 6 of BS AU 209 covering central and dead locking systems. We are currently considering other possibilities for improving vehicle security but until we obtain agreement to an amended EC directive, our freedom to regulate is limited.

  Smoking
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what are the penalties attaching to the offence of(a) a passenger smoking on a London bus and (b) a London taxi driver refusing to allow smoking by a passenger;

  (2) under what powers London Regional Transport prohibits smoking; and what powers are available for London taxis to prohibit smoking.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  London Transport prohibit smoking on buses under section 6 of the Passenger Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 and a fine of up to £400 can be imposed for non-compliance with the ban. London taxi drivers have no powers to prohibit smoking in their vehicles; drivers who refuse to carry passengers without reasonable grounds may be fined up to £50 by the courts.
  112
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether airline, bus, cab or rail operators require any authorisation or parliamentary or police approval to prohibit smoking by passengers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Airlines and bus operators have discretionary powers under statute to restrict or prohibit smoking by passengers. British Rail, London Underground and the Tyne and Wear Metro have powers under byelaws to do the same. Licensed taxi operators and drivers have no powers to prohibit or restrict smoking in their vehicles.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received asking him to maintain the regulation requiring London taxi drivers to allow passengers to smoke.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will introduce legislation to allow London taxi drivers to forbid smoking in cabs;

  (2) what regulations govern whether a London cab passenger can insist on smoking; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what information he has as to cities and towns in which the police can require taxi drivers to allow passengers to smoke;

  (4) what advice the Metropolitan police have given licensed London taxi drivers on allowing passengers to smoke in their cabs; and whether under current regulations the Metropolitan police have the discretion to change the rule.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In law, taxi drivers throughout England and Wales must accept hirings for journeys of a prescribed distance within the licensing area unless they have reasonable grounds for refusing. Ultimately it is for the courts to decide what are reasonable grounds. To specify in law reasons for refusal runs the risk of undermining this vital rule of taxi operation. Taxi drivers can only request passengers to refrain from smoking in their cabs, which is the advice offered to London drivers by the Metropolitan police. There are at present no plans to legislate further in this area.

  Taxi Drivers
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the present restrictions upon continuous driving by taxi drivers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There are no restrictions on the hours which taxi drivers may work. The nature of their operations is such that drivers are mostly employed on numerous short journeys between which there can often be long idle periods. However, consultation is currently being undertaken to gauge whether this is considered to be a problem which is posing a serious safety hazard. If it is, we shall have to identify appropriate remedial measures.

  Highway Reconstruction
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much the Yorkshire Water Company has contributed during(a) the last 12 months and (b) the previous 12 months to costs of highway reconstruction for roads within his responsibility following water main bursts;
  113
  (2) how much the Yorkshire Electricity Company has contributed during (a) the last 12 months and (b) the previous 12 months to costs of highway reconstruction for roads within his responsibility, following cable repairs.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Transport Privatisation
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett),Official Report, 23 April, columns 392–93, if he has received any further representations regarding the privatisation of municipal airports, ports, harbours and bus companies.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Not as far as I am aware.

  Train Deaths
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement as to the steps he is taking both to investigate and to curb the number of movement accidents, involving 19 deaths, arising from intermittent faults on slam-shut doors on British Rail passenger coaches.

  Mr. Freeman
  I greatly regret the 19 deaths which occurred in 1990—the same number as in the previous two years—due to passengers falling from trains, but there is no direct evidence that faulty doors were responsible. We are concerned to find out the cause of the accidents. With the agreement of my right hon. and learned Friend, the Health and Safety Commission has asked the Health and Safety Executive to undertake an independent investigation into the pattern of falls from trains, and to see whether, or the extent to which, they could be attributable to the design of the doors or locks. The investigation will be led by Her Majesty's railway inspectorate.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Driving Standards Agency; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Chope
  The Driving Standards Agency plans ,to spend £50·4 million in 1991–92, 68 per cent. of which would be direct staff costs.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the vehicle inspectorate; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Chope
  The 1991–92 annual cash budget for the vehicle inspectorate is £41,202,000. Of this annual budget, 60 per cent. is allocated to staff costs.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is being considered as a candidate for privatisation.
  114
  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Chope
  The DVLA's gross voted provision for 1991–92 is £178·056 million of which £159·074 million is for running costs. Salaries are not ring fenced within running costs, but are expected to absorb about one third of the total budget.

  Vehicle Certification Agency
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Vehicle Certification Agency; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Chope
  The 1991–92 annual budget for the Vehicle Certification Agency is £2,625,000. Of that, approximately 63 per cent. is allocated to staff costs.

  Hazardous Chemicals (Shipment)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out all regulations in place to cover the shipment of toxic and hazardous chemicals, including wastes, in the English, Irish and Bristol channels.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The regulations covering the shipment of toxic and hazardous chemicals by sea are as follows:

  The Merchant Shipping (Tankers) (EEC Requirements) Regulations 1981.

  The Merchant Shipping (Tankers) (EEC Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations 1982.

  The Merchant Shipping (Gas Carriers) Regulations 1986.

  The Merchant Shipping (IBC Code) Regulations 1987.

  The Merchant Shipping (BCH Code) Regulations 1987.

  The Merchant Shipping (IBC Code) (Amendment) Regulations 1990.

  The Merchant Shipping (BCH Code) (Amendment) Regulations 1990.

  Road Schemes, Waveney
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement listing the money his Department has contributed to road schemes in Waveney for each of the past 10 years; and what are his forward plans on spending for the next three years.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department pays 50 per cent. transport supplementary grant—TSG—towards accepted expenditure on local authority road schemes.

  Before 1985–86 transport supplementary grant was a general grant and not linked to individual projects. Under the present system, expenditure on specified major road schemes may be accepted for grant. Since 1985–86 accepted expenditure for such schemes in the Waveney district council area has been as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  Nil

  1986–87

  Nil

  1987–88

  0·385

  1988–89

  3·360

  1989–90

  1·582

  1990–91

  1·532

  1991–92

  6·741

  115
  Block transport supplementary grant allocations are also given for expenditure on minor works in the county as a whole, but it is for the county council to decide how much to spend in each district council's area.

  I cannot say exactly how much expenditure in any county or district area will be accepted for transport supplementary grant in future years as this is decided in the light of information in highway authorities' annual transport policies and programme submissions. However on the basis of forecasts in Suffolk's last submission accepted expenditure on the Mutford Bridge scheme in Lowestoft, for which the works contract was recently let, will be £1·775 million in 1992–93 and £0·075 million in 1993–94.

  In addition, the Department has carried out a number of minor improvement schemes on the A12 in the Lowestoft area.

  Maritime Works, Waveney
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement listing the role of his Department and the money it has spent on maritime activities in the constituency of Waveney for each of the past 10 years; and what his forward plans are for the next three years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The work undertaken by the Department of Transport's surveyor general's organisation in the constituency of Waveney includes the survey, certification and inspection of United Kingdom registered seagoing ships, fishing vessels and passenger craft; the inspection of foreign flag ships under the memorandum of understanding on port state control; the examination of candidates for the issue of statutory seagoing certification; and, as necessary, the investigation of ship accidents. The Department's marine pollution control unit is responsible for planning contingency arrangements and taking charge of operations to deal with pollution arising from shipping casualties. Her Majesty's coastguard is responsible for initiating and co-ordinating civil maritime search and rescue measures from two coastguard stations within the constituency, at Lowestoft and Southwold. The Department manages the general lighthouse fund, which finances Trinity House's expenditure on general navigational aids in the area. These comprise two lighthouses and 12 lighted buoys. Trinity House also regularly surveys the Holme channel approaches to Lowestoft and inspects some 219 local aids to navigation, including many on the River Waveney.

  All these activities form part of the Department's forward plans for the next three years. Information about expenditure on them in the constituency of Waveney could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, in 1990–91, £42,000 was spent on aquiring new premises for the coastguard station at Southwold and the Department paid £325,000 in 1989–90 and £14,000 in 1990–91 towards the cost of compensation of redundant dock workers at Lowestoft.

  Alitalia Near Miss
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the CAA to conclude its investigation of the near miss between an aircraft and a missile, reported by the captain of an Alitalia flight on 21 April; and if he will make a statement.
  116
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin
  The statutory responsibility for the safety regulation of United Kingdom civil aviation rests with the Civil Aviation Authority.

  This incident was initially reported to the CAA under its mandatory occurrence reporting scheme and has not been reported by the pilot or the operating company as an "airmiss". The investigation is continuing but the technical facts which have been established indicate that the object sighted was almost certainly not a missile.

  I have drawn the hon. Member's question to the attention of the Civil Aviation Authority and will ask it to write to him direct when its investigations are concluded.

  Aircraft Accidents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contingency plans exist to deal with the accidental downing of aircraft.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The responsibility for dealing with any accident that brings an aircraft to earth outside an airport lies with the local emergency services who will have appropriate contingency plans. The Department's air accidents investigation branch is responsible for investigating the cause of the accident.

  British Rail Investments
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all British Rail current investments approved by his Department which are being delayed or deferred due to falling British Rail revenue.

  Mr. Freeman
  The timing and implementation of investment schemes are matters for British Rail within the overall funds available to the board. But I am not aware of any schemes that we have previously approved which are currently being delayed for financial reasons.

  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the number of investment proposals over £100,000 submitted to him by British Rail which await decision; and if he will give the date of submission of each proposal.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: In general, only certain British Rail investment projects costing over £10 million require specific approval of the Secretary of State. We have just approved 86 class 466 Networker electric vehicles for south-east London and north-west Kent services. We ate currently considering proposals for a further 188 class 465 Networkers and for Ashford international station, both originally submitted in January, in the light of subsequent information from British Rail.

  Local Improvement Schemes
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all current local improvement schemes approved by his Department which are being delayed or deferred due to the current economic climate.

  Mr. Chope
  The timing of expenditure on each of the 304 major local authority highway schemes currently accepted for transport supplementary grant support, is a matter for the individual authorities concerned. Like most major projects, such schemes may be delayed for a variety of reasons before and after the start of construction.
  117
  Around 150 new schemes were put forward for transport supplementary grant acceptance last year but, despite a 17 per cent. increase in the overall amount of grant available, it was possible to accept only 35 of them for grant.

  Radioactive Materials (Transport)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what incidents of radioactive contamination have occurred since 1979 involving the import of foreign spent fuel into British ports and subsequent road and rail transport to Sellafield or Dounreay.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: During the period 1979 to the present day there has been only one reported incident of radioactive contamination involving the import of foreign spent fuel. This occurred in January 1991 and involved a shipment of irradiated test reactor fuel from India to Dounreay. The level of contamination on both the spent fuel flask and the transport frame was found to be low but nevertheless, the frame was removed to the Atomic Energy Authority establishment at Harwell to be decontaminated. It has since been returned to use.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions each year since 1979 irradiated test reactor fuel from Harwell has been transported by road to Dounreay; what safeguards provisions covered the fuel in transit; and whether any accident has taken place in the road transport of nuclear materials from Harwell to Dounreay.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: During the period 1979 to the present day there have been 99 such movements as follows:

  Shipments per year

  Year

  Total

  1979

  8

  1980

  10

  1981

  12

  1982

  6

  1983

  9

  1984

  0

  1985

  10

  1986

  13

  1987

  4

  1988

  10

  1989

  7

  1990

  10

  1991

  0

  The fuel in transit was subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the United Kingdom/International Atomic Energy Authority/Euratom safeguards agreement.

  There have been no accidents reportable under the Radioactive Substances (Carriage by Road) (Great Britain) Regulations 1974—SI No. 1735—during this period, but I am aware of two minor road traffic accidents, neither of which involved any injuries to people or damage to the flasks or their contents.

  British Rail (Capital Projects)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the approvals for capital projects given by the Secretary of State for Transport to British Rail over the last three years and the principal contractors and consultants chosen to undertake the work.
  118
  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 13 April 1991]: Since May 1988 we have approved the following British Rail investment projects:

  100 Class 60 diesel locomotives for freight

  200 Class 319/321 electric multiple unit (EMU) coaches for NSE

  128 Class 158 Sprinter Express diesel multiple unit (DMU) coaches for Regional Railways

  77 Class 165 Networker DMU coaches for Chiltern line Cambridge-Kings Lynn electrification and 28 EMU coaches

  124 Class 321 EMU coaches for NSE

  31 additional Mk IV coaches for East Coast Main Line Manchester Airport rail Link and 6 DMU coaches

  400 class 465 Networker EMU coaches for SE London and NW Kent

  103 Class 165 Networker DMU coaches for Thames and Chiltern lines

  Intercapitals passenger trains for Channel Tunnel services

  Birmingham Cross city electrification

  700 container wagons for Railfreight Distribution

  30 Class 92 electric locomotives for Channel Tunnel freight

  Tonbridge-Redhill electrification

  Waterloo international terminal and North Pole maintenance depot

  Chislehurst-Folkestone resignalling

  69 Class 159 DMU coaches for Waterloo-Exeter Hooton-Chester-Ellesmere Port electrification

  65 Class 165 Networker DMU coaches for Paddington services

  86 Class 466 Networker EMU coaches for SE London and NW Kent

  The appointment of contractors and consultants for investment projects is a matter for BR.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Local Offices, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans there are to(a) reduce and (b) increase staffing levels in his Department's offices covering the Doncaster area; and if he will show in his answer the grades in both (a) and (b) that will be affected.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Staffing levels in the Department's offices covering the Doncaster area is a matter for 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.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to alter the operations, or reduce workloads, of his Department's offices in the Doncaster area.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The operations and workloads of the Department's offices in the Doncaster area is a matter for 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.

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Information Technology Services Agency; and what percentage of that is allocated to staff costs;

  (2) what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Resettlement Agency; and what percentage of that is allocated to staff costs;
  119
  (3) what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Benefits Agency; and what percentage of that is allocated to staff costs;

  (4) what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Contributions Agency; and what percentage of that is allocated to staff costs.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The 1991–92 annual budgets initially allocated to the Department's four agencies are in the table. Allocations differentiate between capital and running costs but the latter are not split between staff and non-staff costs. It is for agency chief executives to determine, within the framework of Government accounting, how their administration budget is actually spent and this includes flexibility to vary the amounts spent on staff and other running costs.

  Agency

  Initial budget (£ million)

  Information Technology Services Agency

  406·566

  Resettlement Agency

  25·959

  Benefits Agency

  1,707·336

  Contributions Agency

  111·493

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the computer consultancy companies currently employed by the Information Technology Services Agency, together with the purpose of each contract, total cost of each contract and number of non-civil servants employed in each contract.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of the Information Technology Services Agency is a matter for Mr. John Kenworthy, the agency chief executive. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answers of 1 May,Official Report, column 254, on the overpayments recovery guide and column 255, on deductions from income support, when the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East might expect replies from the Benefits Agency; whether it will be normal practice for the agency to reply on the same date for which a question was tabled for answer; whether the agency will contact Members to explain the delay in cases where a question is not answered on that date; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I understand from the chief executive of the Benefits Agency that replies were sent to the hon. Member on 8 and 10 May respectively. Replies should normally reach the hon. Member concerned within a day of the question being answered. The chief executive will be writing to the hon. Member about the delay which occurred in replying to the two questions to which he refers.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cold weather payments were claimed and made in each month from January to April 1991; and how many claims were outstanding at the end of each month.

  Mr. Scott
  The information will be placed in the Library as soon as it is available.

  Local Offices, Scotland
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to visit the local offices of his Department in Stranraer, Greenock and Port Glasgow to assess the effectiveness and efficiency with which the offices deal with claims; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has no plans to do so, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has recently visited other offices in the Glasgow area. All three offices are meeting delivery and accuracy targets for benefits administered locally.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the present value of the adjustments to means-tested benefit levels referred to in paragraph 3.7 of the consultation paper entitled "A New Tax for Local Government".

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Oldham West (Mr. Meacher) on Friday 3 May 1991 at column 351.

  Personal Allowances
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of(a) increasing the personal allowances for income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit by 60p for a single person over 18 years and £1·20 for a couple, (b) reducing the taper for rent rebates and allowances from 65 to 60 per cent. and (c) making both these changes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest estimates suggest that these measures would cost(a) £210 million, (b) £90 million, and (c) £300 million in Great Britain in 1991–92.

  Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1986/7/8 family expenditure surveys and the 1989 annual statistical survey.

  State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have now opted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme at the latest convenient date; what was his Department's main working assumption as to the numbers by that date; what has been the total cost of encouraging people to opt out of the scheme, at the latest convenient date; what was his Department's main working assumption of the cost by that date; what would be the implications for national insurance contributions from 1993 per person to meet the cost of these general incentives; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 6 March 1991 at columns 170–71. It was not possible to estimate in advance the numbers who would choose to opt out of SERPS or the revenue likely to be forgone by the NI fund. The cost of incentive payments has been absorbed by the NI fund and it is expected that this will continue to be the case until 1992–93, the last year for which incentive payments will be made under existing legislation.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the total cost to the national
  121
  insurance fund in the financial year 1991–92 and in a full year of the 2 per cent. banded earnings offered as an incentive to opt out of SERPs, giving figures for Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [pursuant to the reply, 2 May 1991, c. 330]: The estimate of the reduction in gross public expenditure of £2 billion a year in 2010, rising to £14 billion a year in 2035 refers to estimates of the effects of the changes in SERPs contained in the 1986 Social Security Act, at 1990 prices, as given in reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 26 July 1990, column 486, and not to the effect of encouraging people to take out personal and occupational pensions.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assumptions were made, for the purposes of his answers to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 2 May,Official Report, column 330, as to the future rates of contracted-out rebates, the ages at which members of personal and money-purchase occupational schemes would resume full contributions to the state scheme and the numbers who would do so;

  (2) what assumptions as to numbers contracted out and contributing to personal pension schemes in each year were made in arriving at the estimated reductions in gross public expenditure in 2010 and 2035 given in his answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 2 May, Official Report, column 330; how much of the reduction relates to personal pension schemes, money-purchase occupational schemes and other occupational schemes; what would be the net reduction, taking account of contributions forgone; and what would be the gross and net reductions if those assumed to commence contributing to personal and other money-purchase schemes after 1991–92 continued paying full contributions to the state scheme instead.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) today.

  Tax Withdrawal Rates
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing for 1991–92 (i) the number of working heads, (ii) dependants and (iii) families with children facing marginal tax and benefit withdrawal rates in excess of 40 per cent., in the manner of his answer to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) of 23 January,Official Report, column 249.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 30 April 1991]: The information is in the table:

  Combined marginal deduction rates 1991–92 benefit units where at least one parent works full time (000)

  Great Britain

  Per cent.

  Families with children

  Couples and single people

  Total

  100

  0

  0

  0

  90 to 99

  50

  0

  50

  80 to 89

  130

  20

  150

  70 to 79

  140

  50

  190

  60 to 69

  0

  5

  5

  50 to 59

  0

  0

  0

  40 to 49

  10

  20

  30

  Notes:

  Projection based on 1986, 1987 and 1988 family expenditure
  122
  surveys, uprated to 1991–92 prices, taxes and benefits.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 5,000. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  Benefits
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost in the financial year 1991–92 of reducing the deduction for tariff income under the housing benefit and community charge benefit schemes from £1 to 50p for every £250 or part thereof of capital, giving figures for Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 30 April 1991]: The latest available estimates suggest that the cost in 1991–92 would be around £90 million for Great Britain. Information relating to Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1986–87–88 family expenditure surveys.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) of 1 February,Official Report, column 663, regarding the current cost of exempting all those people on income support from paying 20 per cent. of the poll tax.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 8 May 1991]: To exempt all people on income support from paying 20 per cent. of the community charge, without changing the benefit position of people with incomes above income support levels, would now cost around an estimated £200 million in 1991–92. This estimate assumes that no reductions are made in the income-related benefit levels which were adjusted in April 1989 to include help towards the 20 per cent. contribution at an estimated cost of £500 million.

  Source: Modelled using data drawn from 1986, 1987 and 1988 family expenditure surveys.

EMPLOYMENT

  Repetitive Work
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many improvement notices and how many prohibition notices have been issued by health and safety inspectors in each year since 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 in relation to workplace health and safety problems associated with repetitive work.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not readily available centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are his plans to publicise the risks and remedies in relation to musculo-skeletal disorders which are associated with repetitive work.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive is currently undertaking a major publicity initiative on musculo-skeletal disorders at work. It has recently published a booklet "Work Related Upper Limb Disorders—a guide to prevention" which gives advice on the prevention of
  123
  musculo-skeletal disorders caused by work activities, and in August this year will be launching a year long campaign aimed at raising the awareness of musculo-skeletal injuries and their prevention.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will show for(a) full-time workers, (b) part-time workers and (c) all workers (i) the number and

  April 1990

  Full lime employees on adult rates with weekly earnings excluding overtime less than £130

  Number in the sample

  Percentage of total

  Women

  Men

  Total

  Women

  Men

  Total

  Scotland

  1,205

  719

  1,924

  28·6

  9·7

  16·6

  Borders

  49

  16

  65

  59·8

  1—

  33·2

  Central

  74

  29

  103

  35·1

  7·6

  17·3

  Dumfries and Galloway

  39

  24

  63

  40·6

  11·4

  20·6

  Fife

  80

  39

  119

  32·3

  9·2

  17·8

  Grampian

  115

  72

  187

  31·3

  7·9

  14·6

  Highland

  48

  27

  75

  32·4

  11·0

  19·1

  Lothian

  175

  120

  295

  21·5

  9·2

  13·9

  Strathclyde

  497

  311

  808

  27·0

  9·8

  16·1

  Tayside

  118

  72

  190

  32·5

  12·8

  20·5

  Islands

  10

  9

  19

  1—

  11·7

  17·0

  Highland and Islands

  58

  36

  94

  31·7

  11·2

  18·6

  Great Britain

  10,056

  6,308

  16,364

  23·0

  7·6

  13·0

  1 Sampling error too large or numbers too small for reliable estimates.

  Part time employees on adult rates with weekly earnings excluding overtime less than £130

  Number in the sample

  Percentage of total

  Women

  Men

  Total

  Women

  Men

  Total

  Great Britain

  22,763

  3,117

  25,880

  89·8

  85·0

  89·2

  All employees on adult rates with weekly earnings excluding overtime less than £130

  Number in the sample

  Percentage of total

  Women

  Men

  Total

  Women

  Men

  Total

  Great Britain

  32,819

  9,425

  42,244

  47·6

  10·9

  27·2

  Source: New Earnings Survey 1990.

  Note:

  The survey excludes significant numbers of part-time employees with low weekly earnings.

  Footwear and Textile Industries
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in the footwear and textile industries in each month since September 1990.

  Mr. Jackson
  The number of employees in employment in the footwear and textile industries in Great Britain was as follows:

  Thousands unadjusted for seasonal variations

  Footwear SIC Group 451

  Textile SIC Class 43

  1990

  September

  44·5

  190·4

  October

  44·6

  193·8

  November

  44·3

  193·3

  December

  44·1

  188·2

  1991

  January

  44·2

  185·0

  February

  44·1

  185·6

  124
  (ii) the percentage earning less than £130 for (1) women, (2) men and (3) all workers, excluding overtime pay in (x) Scotland, (y) the regions of Scotland and (z) Great Britain.

  Mr. Jackson
  For Scotland and the regions of Scotland, the information requested is available only for full-time employees. For Great Britain, figures are also available for part-time employees and all—full-time and part-time employees.

  The figures from the new earnings survey are given in the tables.

  Health and Safety Legislation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation covering health and safety in the agricultural industry for the(a) distance from private housing, (b) distance from public highways and footpaths and (c) size and height, of bales or wheels of straw and hay stored in open fields.

  Mr. Forth
  I have no current intentions of doing so. The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for enforcing the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 which applies to agricultural undertakings. The HSE recommends that stacks should always be placed at a reasonable distance from property and roads to minimise potential risks. The HSE has produced a guidance booklet "The Killing Fields" which deals with the siting and stacking of bales in relation to other fire hazards.

  Existing general duties and enforcement powers under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 are considered adequate to deal with any problems that may arise on this matter.

  Geomagnetic Survey
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the funding of the geomagnetic survey and its contribution to North sea safety.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive is contributing up to a maximum of £475,000 over a five-year period towards the funding of the geomagnetic survey being undertaken by the British Geological Survey. This contribution will assist in enhancing the safety of offshore drilling.

  Employment Service
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Employment Service; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fodgen, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Factory Fire, Mansfield Woodhouse
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment the Health and Safety Executive has made of the dangers posed to the health of local people of Mansfield Woodhouse from the fumes from the fire at a plastics factory on 6 May.

  Mr. Forth
  As this fire was not reportable to the Health and Safety Executive under the Reporting of Incidents, diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985, the HSE is not carrying out an investigation. However based on its knowledge of the factory, the HSE has advised the emergency services and other official bodies involved that the health of the people of Mansfield Woodhouse is unlikely to have been put at risk by the fumes from the fire.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Heart Surgery
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients in Northern Ireland are at present awaiting heart surgery.

  Mr. Hanley
  A total of 901 as at 31 December 1990.

  Gynaecological Services, Belfast
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many admissions for gynaecology were recorded at(a) the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast, (b) the Mater hospital, Belfast and (c) the Belfast city hospital during 1989.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not held in precisely the format requested. The data held relate to discharges rather than admissions.

  The numbers of in-patient discharges (including deaths) in gynaecology were as follows:

  1989

  RVH

  1,604

  Mater Hospital

  795

  Belfast City Hospital

  2,435

  Rate Collection Agency
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Rate Collection Agency; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Needham
  The budget for the Rate Collection Agency for 1991–92 is £5·925 million of which £4·83 million—81·5 per cent.—relates to running costs of the agency.

  Training and Employment Agency
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Training and Employment Agency; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Needham
  The approved 1991–92 main estimates provision for the Training and Employment Agency is £172 million of which almost 15 per cent. is allocated to staff costs.

  Deaf People
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many deaf people are registered in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  There is no statutory register of deaf people in Northern Ireland. The number of deaf people in contact with the health and social services boards during year ending 31 March 1990 was 1,120.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many deaf people in Northern Ireland are in receipt of attendance allowance in each age bracket(a) under 10 years, (b) 10 to 18 years, (c) 18 to 65 years and (d) over 65 years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Inter-party Talks
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at what location will the third strand of the Northern Ireland talks relating to the British and Irish relationship be held.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: No decisions have yet been taken.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what facilities, travelling allowances, and daily allowances are paid to those participating in the inter-party talks at Parliament buildings, Stormont.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: Each party has been provided with a suite of three offices consisting of one for the party leader, one for delegates and a fully equipped office. Delegates are entitled to claim travel and subsistence allowances at normal civil service rates in respect of days when talks take place. A daily allowance of £78·50 is payable to those delegates who lose earnings or incur additional business overheads because of their attendance at the talks.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons from each political
  127
  party qualify for allowances and expenses in connection with the inter-party talks at Parliament buildings, Stormont.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: Each of the four parties has accredited a delegation of 10 persons who are entitled to claim allowances and expenses. In addition, up to three members of each party's support staff may claim travel and subsistence allowance at normal civil service rates.

HEALTH

  National Health Service Trusts
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further progress he can report on the establishment of self-governing hospital trusts.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Fifty-seven trusts became operational on 1 April this year. In total, 130 expressions of interest have been received for trust status for April 1992, of which 88, as at close 13 May, have so far submitted applications.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to name the chairmen or chairwomen-designate for the second wave of national health service trusts.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to appoint chairpersons-designate for the second wave of national health service trust hospitals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No national health service chairpersons or non-executive directors can be formally appointed until an NHS trust is established. Our current programme for second wave NHS trusts envisages formal establishment in the autumn of this year, the names of the chairpersons will be provided around the same time.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has made any assessment of possible job losses as a result of national health service trust applications for 1991–92.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. Trust applications discuss service developments and their consequences in broad terms only.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instruct the management of the national health service to cease all progress towards the establishment of trust hospitals pending a full inquiry into the business plans of those trusts so far constituted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no intention of stopping the establishment of national health service trusts. We are greatly encouraged that 57 trusts have already been established; and that we have received approximately 130 expressions of interest in the second wave.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assumptions he made about the future activity levels of national health service trusts in reaching his decisions on trust status.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  When reaching a decision about whether each hospital or unit was suitable for trust 128
  status my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considered its application against four criteria. Each trust gained approval by demonstrating that: it would deliver benefits and quality of service to its patients; had effective leadership and management; key professional staff, especially clinicians, would be involved in management; and it would be financially viable.

  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospitals within Wessex region which have applied for trust status under the first and second phases of the trust programme, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Applications in the first wave which were approved and became operational on 1 April 1991 are as follows:

  The Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases NHS Trust

  West Dorset Mental Health NHS Trust

  The West Dorset General Hospitals NHS Trust

  West Dorset Community Health NHS Trust

  Second wave expressions of interest have been received from:

  Bath and District (Mental Health Unit)

  Bournemouth and Christchurch Acute Unit

  Poole Acute Unit

  East Dorset Community Services

  Royal United Hospital, Bath

  Wiltshire Healthcare (Bath and Wiltshire Community Unit)

  Avon and Somerset Community Unit

  Formal applications for NHS trust status have now been submitted from all the above.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that hon. Members are given the opportunity to debate the draft code of practice to be adopted by the Human Fertilisation Embryology Authority before he takes a decision on whether to approve it.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The question of a debate at this stage is a matter for the Leader of the House. In any event, hon. Members have the opportunity to comment on the draft code of practice, copies of which are available in the Vote Office.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will add myalgic encephalomyelitis to the list of notifiable diseases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. The main considerations for making an infectious disease notifiable are that it should be capable of clear diagnosis, and intervention to limit its spread should be feasible. At present, myalgic encephalomyelitis does not meet these criteria.

  GPs (Computers)
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent by general practitioners on computers over the last five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information in the form requested is not available. However, a scheme to encourage the development of GP computing, by reimbursing GPs a
  129
  proportion of their costs, was introduced from 1 April 1989. An estimated £17 million was reimbursed in the period to 31 March 1991 and a further £19 million is available in 1991–92. In the period from January 1988 to March 1990 the number of computerised practices increased from 9·8 to 47·5 per cent.

  NHS Salaries
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of current national health service expenditure is accounted for by salaries and wages.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The summarised accounts of regional and district health authorities in England for 1989–90—the latest year available—shows that salaries and wages costs accounted for some 75·6 per cent. of the total revenue expenditure.

  NHS Funding
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on the national health service in 1979, and how much this year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This year expenditure on the national health service in England is expected to be some £26·6 billion, a real-terms increase of 51 per cent. over the 1978–79 figure of £6·5 billion.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current proportion of gross domestic product that is being spent on health; and what the comparable figure was in 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Total United Kingdom national health service spending as a proportion of GDP was 5·2 per cent. in 1989 compared with 4·7 per cent. in 1979.

  Nottingham Health Authority
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure of the Nottingham health authority in 1978–79 and in 1990–91 in real terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Nottingham health authority was established on 1 April 1982. Between 1982–83 and 1989–90, the latest year for which figures are available, revenue expenditure increased from £113·1 million—cash—to £184·3 million—cash—and capital expenditure from £6·6 million—cash—to £15·3 million—cash. These represent increases in real terms of 13 per cent. for revenue and 59–9 per cent. for capital, measured at 1989–90 prices.

  Day Care Centres
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authorities charge for attendance at day care centres.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  During the year 1988–89, the latest for which records are available, 84 local authorities were charging for attendance at day care centres. These centres include family centres, day centres, social clubs and adult training centres.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total annual savings for domestic cleaning, catering and laundry services, covered by the national competitive tendering initiative for the national health service since their inception.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Total annual savings achieved since the introduction of the Government's competitive tendering initiative for these three services is estimated to be in the order of £120 million.

  Health Inequalities
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce targets for the reduction of inequalities in health between social classes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A forthcoming consultation document will set out proposals for the development of health targets covering the whole population in England. The counties of the rest of the United Kingdom either have or are developing their own strategies, which include health targets.

  Bristol NHS Trust
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future funding of Bristol united hospital national health service trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The United Bristol Healthcare national health service trust, like all other trusts and directly managed units, obtains its income from contracts to provide health services to health authorities and GP fund holders who purchase such services on behalf of their residents.

  The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Thomas Durie, the chairman of the trust, for details.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to ensure that there has been sufficient preparation for the implementation of the Children Act 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) on 13 May at columns 33–35.

  South Yorkshire Ambulance Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current establishment by rank for the South Yorkshire ambulance service; what is the number of vacancies in each rank; and what were the comparable figures 10 years ago.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Michael Carlisle, the chairman of Trent regional health authority for details.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current number of(a) emergency and (b) non-emergency ambulance vehicles in the ownership of the South Yorkshire ambulance service; and what were the figures for 10 years ago.
  131
  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally in exactly the form requested. The table shows the number of vehicles, by type, owned by the South Yorkshire metropolitan ambulance service in 1985–86 and 1988–89. These are the earliest and latest years for which this information is available.

  Ambulance service vehicles for Yorkshire ambulance service

  Year

  1985–86

  1988–89

  Ambulances

  Two-trolley Emergency

  131

  12

  Two-trolley Dual Purpose

  95

  187

  Sitting case seats only (under 14)

  102

  31

  Sitting case stretcher capacity

  —

  —

  Sitting case seats plus lift mechanism

  —

  128

  Car (with or without stretcher capacity)

  28

  23

  Bus—14 or more seats with or without stretcher or wheelchair capacity

  —

  —

  Total ambulance service vehicles used to transport patients

  356

  381

  Other Ambulance Services Vehicles

  Major incident vehicles—radio and/or equipment vehicles (trailers, caravans, etc.)

  3

  3

  Recovery vehicles (Land Rover type or converted ambulance)

  1

  3

  Other ambulance service vehicles

  18

  25

  Total other ambulance service vehicles

  22

  31

  Total ambulance service vehicles

  378

  412

  Source: National ambulance service surveys district finance department, York health authority.

  Doncaster Health Authority (Loans)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by each quarter for the financial year 1990–91, and for the first quarter 1991–92, the loans he has authorised or made to Doncaster health authority; and if he will state over what period.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No such loans have been made during the periods specified.

  World Health Organisation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the matters discussed and decisions taken at the annual meeting of the World Health Organisation in Geneva.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The world health assembly closes on 17 May. I will write to the hon. Member soon afterwards.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for each year since 1979, how many children in England were in care where the specific cause was homelessness.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of children in voluntary care under section 2 of the Child Care Act 1980 in England for the years ending 31 March 1979 to 31 March 1989 where the specific cause was family homelessness is given in the table.
  132

  Children in care under section 2 of the Child Care Act 1980 where the specific cause was family homelessness England, 1979–19891

  At 31 March

  Number in care under S2 Child Care Act 1980 where family homelessness was the specific cause

  1979

  1,379

  1980

  1,308

  1981

  1,115

  1982

  981

  1983

  825

  1984

  713

  1985

  604

  1986

  519

  1987

  408

  1988

  346

  19891

  304

  1 1989 figures are provisional.

  Triazolam
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to withdraw from sale in Britain the sleeping pill triazolam following recent studies on the drug and its side effects.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines—CSM—has been asked to examine the new evidence in relation to the drug triazolam. This follows the recent publication of results from a study carried out in the United States of America involving higher doses than those recommended for use in the United Kingdom. The Committee on Safety of Medicines will advise the licensing authority if any action is required.

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the manufacturers of benzodiazepines about their addictive characteristics.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The problem of addiction with benzodiazepines has been recognised for a number of years. The Committee on Safety of Medicines recommended restrictions on the use of these substances in order to reduce the risk of dependence associated with their use. These recommendations have been communicated to manufacturers of licensed medicinal products containing a benzodiazepine and appropriate statements are incorporated in product particulars.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the labelling of benzodiazepines will be amended to include information on the side-effects and withdrawal symptoms caused by the drugs.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. and learned Freind the then Minister for Health gave him on 24 April 1989 at column 381.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the expenditure per head on benzodiapezines in each national health service region for the most recent available period within the prescribing analyses and costs data system.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 30 April 1991]: The information requested is as follows:

  133

  Cost (thousands) £

  List size

  Cost per head £

  Northern RHA

  339,342

  3,181,402

  0·11

  Yorkshire RHA

  387,335

  3,793,708

  0·10

  Trent RHA

  398,875

  4,875,982

  0·08

  East Anglia RHA

  152,008

  2,084,700

  0·07

  North West Thames RHA

  249,600

  4,137,667

  0·06

  North East Thames RHA

  248,703

  4,254,350

  0·06

  South East Thames RHA

  298,234

  4,052,797

  0·07

  South West Thames RHA

  258,328

  3,222,530

  0·08

  Wessex RHA

  252,943

  3,012,328

  0·08

  Oxford RHA

  174,731

  2,663,876

  0·07

  South Western RHA

  322,435

  3,587,414

  0·09

  West Midlands RHA

  402,830

  5,468,708

  0·07

  Mersey RHA

  255,100

  2,524,886

  0·10

  North Western RHA

  536,543

  4,157,513

  0·13

  Note:

  For PACT purposes every FHSA within each region is permanently allocated to one of three quarterly processing cycles. The information provided is based on data relating to the following PACT periods:

  *October 1990—December 1990

  *November 1990—January 1991

  *December 1990—February 1991

  NHS (Gulf War Costs)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional costs were incurred by the national health service in 1990–91 as a result of the Gulf war.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 23 April at column 397.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the impact of the Children Act on the way in which child abuse cases are dealt with.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) earlier today.

  NHS Estates
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the 1991–92 annual budget for NHS Estates; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is an operational matter and I have asked the chief executive of NHS Estates to write to the hon. Member.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what medical assistance has been sought by Kuwait and other nations in the Gulf regions to help people with asthma and other breathing disorders suffering from oil fire-polluted air from the burning Kuwait oil fields; and what assistance has been given.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received no direct request from any country in the Gulf region. The World Health Organisation, however, is co-ordinating advice and assistance from a number of countries including the United Kingdom in handling potential medical problems 134
  arising from oil fires in Kuwait. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment, is currently visiting Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to visit Kuwait at the end of this month. These visits will enable the Government to assess whether any additional assistance is required.

  Bexley Health Authority
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received about the funding of Bexley health authority;

  (2) what representations he has received about the funding of Queen Mary's hospital, Sidcup.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My hon. Friend wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State on 7 November 1989 and a group of consultants at Queen Mary's hospital, Sidcup wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 16 April 1991.

  Value Added Medical Products
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support he intends to give those doctors who are holding Value Added Medical Products to the contracts it signed with them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The arrangements between general practitioners and Value Added Medical Products are private commercial transactions.

  Erith and District Hospital
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the future development of Erith and District general hospital.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since the reply that my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend on 9 March 1990 at column 901, a letter has been received from Bexley community health council and I met the chairman of Bexley district health authority on 31 August 1990.

  Calcium Supplements
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table, using PACT data, to show the average expenditure per head on general practitioner prescribed calcium supplements in each regional health authority area for the most recent available period.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 30 April 1991]: The information requested is as follows.

  Regional health authority

  Cost (£ thousands)

  List size

  Cost per head (£)

  Northern

  101,022

  3,181,402

  0·03

  Yorkshire

  88,777

  3,793,708

  0·02

  Trent

  137,619

  4,875,982

  0·03

  East Anglia

  47,045

  2,084,700

  0·02

  North West Thames

  102,037

  4,137,667

  0·02

  North East Thames

  85,277

  4,254,350

  0·02

  South East Thames

  87,379

  4,052,797

  0·02

  South West Thames

  88,080

  3,222,530

  0·03

  Wessex

  72,937

  3,012,328

  0·02

  Oxford

  50,556

  2,663,876

  0·02

  135

  Regional health authority

  Cost (£ thousands)

  List size

  Cost per head (£)

  South Western

  107,547

  3,587,414

  0·03

  West Midlands

  146,726

  5,468,708

  0·03

  Mersey

  78,575

  2,524,886

  0·03

  North Western

  123,458

  4,157,513

  0·03

  Note: For PACT purposes every FHSA within each Region is permanently allocated to one of three quarterly processing cycles. The information provided is based on data relating to the following PACT periods:

  October 1990 to December 1990

  November 1990 to January 1991

  December 1990 to February 1991

DEFENCE

  RAF Community Relations Officers
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will name the date when the appointment of an RAF community relations officer for the Highlands and Islands will take place.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  As the Government reply—HC 659/90—to the report on low flying by the Defence Committee last year made clear, it is planned to establish three RAF regional community relations officers in southern Scotland/the Borders, the Lake District and in Wales on a trial basis. If this scheme should prove to be a success, the affordability of extending it to other areas will be considered.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the duties assigned to RAF community relations officers in Wales, the Lake District and the Borders.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The introduction of RAF regional community relations officers in southern Scotland/the Borders, the Lake District and in Wales is intended to improve the presentation of low flying in areas remote from RAF stations; to improve liaison with members of the public and organisations such as Riding for the Disabled, schools, national parks, wildlife reserves, regional farmers organisations and other local bodies and to enable information on the low-flying system to be distributed more widely.

  Low Flying
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what means local authorities can have areas under their jurisdiction designated as avoidance areas for low-flying training purposes.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Requests that low-flying military aircraft should avoid a particular location should be made direct to my Department giving a full justification. Each case is considered on its merits, but bearing in mind the considerations set out in the Government's reply—HC 659/90 page v—to the Defence Committee's report on low flying last year.

  Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what support he has received within the European Community intergovernmental conference for his rapid reaction force proposals: and if he will make a statement,136
  (2) whether he will give further details of his concept of a rapid reaction force under the auspices of the Western European Union.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As part of moves towards a stronger European contribution to collective defence, which the United Kingdom supports, western European nations are discussing the idea of a European reaction force, able to operate autonomously outside the NATO area to complement the Atlantic alliance's role in defence of NATO territory. It would draw units from the NATO integrated military structure, and from national forces.

  Meteorological Office
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Meteorological Office is being examined as a candidate for privatisation.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  In line with Government policy on "next steps", the option of privatisation was considered before the Meteorological Office was established as an agency. It is the intention, as with other parts of the defence support area, to extend the market testing of Meteorological Office support services. There are no current plans to privatise the office.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Meterological Office; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This is a matter for the Meteorological Office, under its framework document. have therefore asked the chief executive of the Meteorological Office, Dr. J. T. Houghton, to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, CBDE, under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive of the CBDE, Dr. G. S. Pearson to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Defence Research Agency
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Defence Research Agency; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This is a matter for the Defence Research Agency under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive of the DRA, Mr. Nigel Hughes, to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Directorate General of Defence Accounts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Directorate General of Defence Accounts; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.
  137
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This is a matter for the Directorate General of Defence Accounts, DGDA, under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive of the DGDA, Mr. M. J. Dymond, to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Hydrographic Office
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Hydrographic Office; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Hydrographic Office. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  Military Survey
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the 1991–92 annual budget for Military Survey; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This is a matter for the chief executive of Military Survey. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  RAF Maintenance
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the 1991–92 annual budget for RAF Maintenance; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the RAF Maintenance Group. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  Service Children's Schools (North-West Europe)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the 1991–92 annual budget for Service Children's Schools (North-West Europe); and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This is a matter for the chief executive of Service Children's Schools (North-West Europe). I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal Team
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Army explosive ordnance disposal team are currently working in(a) Kuwait, (b) southern Iraq and (c) Kurdish Iraq; and how long the team is expected to continue in the region.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are currently 10 explosive ordnance disposal—EOD—personnel in Kuwait, none in southern Iraq and nine in northern Iraq. In addition. there are two in Al Jubayl, Saudi Arabia. An advance party of 21 EOD squadron arrives in Saudi Arabia today with the remainder, up to a total of 200, arriving a week later. They will move to Kuwait after acclimatisation. These deployments are likely to be of varying lengths, but are not expected to exceed four months.

  Naval Procurement (Anglo-French Co-operation)
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Anglo-French naval procurement co-operation.
  138
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We place importance on Anglo-French equipment co-operation and continue to explore opportunities for collaboration. The United Kingdom is collaborating with France, Spain and Italy in the project definition phase of the family of anti-air missile systems to meet the air defence requirements of the replacement ship for the type 42 frigate. Joint discussions with France are currently taking place about the possibility of collaboration on the ship and its systems.

  Military Risks, Wales
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the risk posed to Welsh civilians and tourists from military training, testing and storage facilities in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All reasonable measures are taken to ensure that the risk to the general public from every kind of military activity is kept to a minimum.

  Operation Safe Haven
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average flying time of one relief flight of(a) a Hercules and (b) Chinook involved in Operation Safe Haven.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The duration of both C-130 Hercules and Chinook sorties has varied considerably depending upon the location to which supplies are being delivered and the nature of the task being undertaken. Between 8 and 30 April, C-130 Hercules aircraft flew 58 airdrop sorties, accumulating about 240 flying hours—giving an average flight time of just over 4 hours. Up to 29 April, Chinook helicopters had flown 231 sorties on relief operations, accumulating over 400 flying hours—giving an average flight time of about one hour 45 minutes.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost so far of building and supplying camps for Kurdish refugees under Operation Safe Haven; and from what votes the cost is being funded.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Along with other allied troops, British Army engineers have been erecting tents, laying on water supplies and providing sanitation for camps, including at Zakho and Al Amadiyah. The cost will be shared between defence and ODA votes. An estimate of the cost is not yet available, but the additional costs involved are unlikely to be significant.

  Kurdistan and Bangladesh
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any of the costs of Ministry of Defence assistance in humanitarian relief in Kurdistan and Bangladesh will be attributed to the Ministry of Defence's training budget.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As the Department responsible for providing United Kingdom Government aid, the ODA refunds any additional costs which MOD incurs as a direct result of providing such assistance. All other costs lie where they normally fall on defence votes.

  Bangladesh
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he has of the cost of sending the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship, Fort Grange, and two Sea King helicopters to Bangladesh; and from what votes this is being funded.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The initial estimate of the additional cost of deploying RFA Fort Grange to Bangladesh, complete with four Sea King helicopters, is currently about £250,000. This cost will be met by the Overseas Development Administration.

  Rolls-Royce (Leavesden)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what value was put on the Leavesden site by the district valuer before it was sold to Rolls-Royce;

  (2) whether his Department was aware that Rolls-Royce intended to close its Leavesden factory and redevelop the site before the factory and its site were sold to Rolls-Royce;

  (3) how much was paid by Rolls-Royce for the Leavesden site.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The details of the sale of the Leavesden site to Rolls-Royce are commercial-inconfidence. Although we did not know in advance that Rolls-Royce intended to close its Leavesden factory, we were aware that it wished to rationalise its operations on the site and our arrangements for sale took account of this.

SCOTLAND

  Agricultural Land (Ownership)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of agricultural land in Scotland is owned by overseas investors; and if he will list(a) the countries concerned and (b) the percentage of land owned by each.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Statistics on overseas ownership of agricultural land are not available.

  Seed Potatoes
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the two recent successful prosecutions under the Seed Potatoes Regulations 1984 and 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In December 1988 at Forfar sheriff court a firm of Scottish seed potato merchants admitted to a breach of regulation 6(1) of the Seed Potatoes Regulations 1984 after marketing seed potatoes which were neither basic nor certified seed potatoes. The firm was fined £1,000. In July 1989 at Perth sheriff court a Scottish seed potato producer was similarly prosecuted. The court found the firm guilty, but was unable to impose a penalty because of a legal technicality, the notice of penalty not having been served on the accused.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide figures of the production of seed potatoes in Scotland for(a) the estimated crop tonnage, (b) the actual crop tonnage, (c) the crop average under the seed potato classification and labelling schemes and (d) the number of labels printed and issued for each year over the past 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The crop average under the seed potato classification and labelling schemes in each of the last 10 years is 25 to 30 tonnes per hectare.

  Producers are required to apply for labels against the volume of seed potatoes they expect to sell. The table sets out the total annual tonnage and the corresponding total number of labels printed and issued for individual consignments within the total tonnage.

  Expenditure within the Secretary of Slate's responsibility1

  £ million

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  Actual

  3,712

  4,552

  5,383

  5,839

  6,509

  6,845

  In 1989–90 prices2

  8,691

  9,134

  9,128

  9,029

  9,398

  9,446

  As percentage of Scottish GDP3

  29·12

  31·29

  32·31

  31·92

  32·56

  31·27

  £ million

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Actual

  6,994

  7,167

  7,513

  7,805

  8,458

  8,919

  9,725

  In 1989–90 prices2

  9,185

  8,928

  9,045

  8,921

  8,997

  8,919

  9,026

  As percentage of Scottish GDP3

  30·68

  28·71

  27·51

  26·52

  25·61

  24·96

  n.a.

  1 No direct comparison can he made with the years from 1978–79 to 1983–84 because of the changes in the definition of the Planning Total announced in Cm. 441. An estimate of expenditure for 1978–79 on the new planning total basis was given in the answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) on 30 October 1990. In addition, changes in my responsibility are not necessarily reflected in the figures.

  142

  000 tonnes

  Number of labels

  1981

  375

  —

  1982

  375

  —

  1983

  329

  —

  1984

  392

  —

  1985

  344

  —

  1986

  333

  6,674,055

  1987

  291

  4,819,952

  1988

  274

  4,507,481

  1989

  287

  4,675,456

  1990

  1227

  23,191,642

  1 Provisional.

  2 To date.

  Records in respect of labels for the period 1981–85 are no longer available. Figures relating to the estimated and actual crop tonnages are not held centrally.

  Rents-to-Mortgages Scheme
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many tenants have applied to join the rents-to-mortgages scheme; what has been the cost of the counselling arrangements for them; and who is paying for those arrangements.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  More than 20,000 tenants have expressed an interest in Scottish Homes' pilot rent-to-mortgage scheme. From the introduction of the limited pilot scheme in October 1989 until 31 March 1991 a total of 228 formal applications have been submitted by tenants of Scottish Homes and the new town development corporations. Since the extension of the pilot scheme to local authority tenants from 1 April 1991, a total of 119 formal applications have already been made. In the first instance, more than 1,400 tenants have received or will shortly receive counselling to help them to decide whether to proceed to make a formal application. The responsibility for the counselling arrangements and their cost rests with Scottish Homes.

  Expenditure
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the expenditure expressed (1) at 1989–90 prices and (2) as a percentage of the Scottish gross domestic product by him in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Lang
  The figures are in the table:
  143
  2Using the GDP deflator at market prices adjusted to remove the distortion caused by the abolition of domestic rates.

  3Estimates of the Scottish gross domestic product (GDP) are only available by calendar year. The figures are expenditure for the financial year as a proportion of the Scottish GDP for the calendar year of which it forms a major part. Scottish GDP figures for 1990 are not yet available.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table, comparable to that on page 231 of the "Commentary of the Scotland Programme 1992–93", on expenditure within the Secretary of State's responsibility in real terms,

  Expenditure within the Secretary of State's responsibility in real terms1

  £ million

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  185

  243

  261

  234

  219

  226

  240

  252

  Industry, Energy, Trade and Employment

  197

  201

  205

  193

  634

  407

  338

  354

  Tourism

  14

  14

  14

  14

  16

  15

  13

  11

  Transport

  705

  696

  660

  694

  693

  680

  335

  375

  Housing

  1,358

  1,473

  1,324

  1,110

  993

  989

  688

  645

  Other Environmental Services

  730

  791

  748

  722

  705

  734

  263

  255

  Law, Order and Protective Services

  454

  492

  521

  554

  576

  622

  370

  376

  Education

  2,283

  2,276

  2,350

  2,406

  2,366

  2,367

  359

  377

  Arts and Libraries

  80

  74

  93

  96

  92

  88

  26

  27

  Health

  2,402

  2,474

  2,642

  2,736

  2,762

  2,372

  2,420

  2,434

  Social Work2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  435

  43

  41

  Other Public Services

  126

  120

  125

  124

  113

  123

  121

  125

  Central Government Grants:

  Revenue Support Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rate Support Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,179

  2,064

  Community Charge Transitional Relief

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rate Rebates

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24

  49

  Non-Domestic Rates

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,274

  1,274

  Nationalised Industries External Financing Limits

  155

  283

  185

  147

  230

  382

  494

  289

  Total

  8,691

  9,134

  9,128

  9,029

  9,398

  9,446

  9,185

  8,928

  £ million

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  213

  194

  194

  197

  210

  216

  220

  220

  Industry, Energy, Trade and Employment

  394

  280

  255

  224

  236

  457

  450

  420

  Tourism

  11

  10

  11

  11

  11

  11

  10

  10

  Transport

  343

  328

  241

  342

  357

  330

  320

  320

  Housing

  672

  741

  621

  609

  613

  619

  580

  590

  Other Environmental Services

  259

  273

  281

  289

  293

  316

  340

  350

  Law, Order and Protective Services

  397

  423

  441

  472

  486

  492

  480

  490

  Education

  392

  387

  390

  390

  429

  480

  490

  490

  Arts and Libraries

  31

  30

  30

  29

  32

  36

  40

  40

  Health

  2,493

  2,569

  2,660

  2,721

  2,775

  2,848

  2,860

  2,860

  Social Work2

  30

  31

  33

  37

  37

  49

  50

  50

  Other Public Services

  126

  127

  124

  126

  131

  138

  140

  140

  Central Government Grants:

  Revenue Support Grant

  —

  —

  —

  2,244

  2,316

  2,299

  3,430

  3,390

  Rate Support Grant

  2,062

  1,952

  2,135

  102

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Charge Transitional Relief

  —

  —

  —

  —

  41

  22

  40

  20

  Rates Rebates

  43

  37

  29

  25

  30

  27

  —

  —

  Non-Domestic Rates

  1,334

  1,415

  1,372

  1,219

  1,103

  1,205

  —

  —

  Nationalised Industries External Financing Limits

  283

  157

  135

  -103

  -83

  43

  40

  10

  Total

  9,045

  8,921

  8,997

  8,919

  9,026

  9,586

  9,510

  9,420

  1 Base year 1989–90 using the GDP deflator at market prices adjusted to remove the distortion caused by the abolition of domestic rates.

  2 Health and Social Work figures not held separately prior to 1983–84.

  Note: No direct comparison can be made with the years from 1978–79 to 1983–84 because of the changes in the definition of the Planning Total announced in Cm 441.

  An estimate of expenditure for 1978–79 on the new planning total basis was given to the hon. Member on 30 October 1990. In addition, changes in my responsibilities are not necessarily reflected in the figures.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the individual appointments excluding casual vacancies he is scheduled to make to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations in(a) 1991 and (b) 1992 indicating in each case the title of the post, the salary if any and the duration of the appointment.
  144
  beginning in 1978–79 and taking account of the expenditure plans laid out in "Serving Scotland's Needs, "Cm. 1515

  Mr. Lang
  The information is shown in the table.

  Mr. Lang
  The tables show, as at 1 July 1990, appointments expiring in 1991—table 1—and 1992—table 2—for each executive and advisory body and tribunal for which I have responsibility, with the title of the post and the salary, if any. The duration of future appointments is decided at the time of the renewal. Since July I have
  145
  appointed a chairman and 11 members to the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland until 31 March 1992 when Scottish Natural Heritage is due to come into being.

  Table 1 Appointments expiring in 1991

  Rank

  Remuneration as at 1 July 1990 £

  Advisory Committee on Dental Establishments

  1 Member

  0

  Advisory Committee on Scotland's Travelling People

  Chairman

  0

  Deputy Chairman

  0

  10 Members

  0

  Ancient Monuments for Scotland

  Chairman

  0

  4 Members

  0

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board

  Chairman

  16,005

  Vice Chairman

  0

  14 Members

  0

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board

  Vice Chairman

  0

  16 Members

  0

  Borders Health Board

  Vice Chairman

  0

  13 Members

  0

  Central Advisory Committee of Justices of the Peace (Scotland)

  17 Members

  0

  Childrens Panel Advisory Committee for Borders Region

  Chairman

  0

  1 Member

  0

  Childrens Panel Advisory Committee for Central Region

  1 Member

  0

  Childrens Panel Advisory Committee for Dumfries and Galloway Region

  Chairman

  0

  2 Members

  0

  Childrens Panel Advisory Committee for Fife Region

  Chairman

  0

  1 Member

  0

  Childrens Panel Advisory Committee for Grampian Region

  1 Member

  0

  Childrens Panel Advisory Committee for Highland Region

  1 Member

  0

  Childrens Panel Advisory Committee for Lothian Region

  1 Member

  0

  Childrens Panel Advisory Committee for Shetland Islands Area

  Chairman

  0

  1 Member

  0

  Childrens Panel Advisory Committee for Strathclyde Region

  3 Members

  0

  Childrens Panel Advisory Committee for the Tayside Region

  3 Members

  0

  Childrens Panel for the Dumfries and Galloway Region

  Deputy Chairman

  0

  Childrens Panel for the Fife Region

  Deputy Chairman

  0

  146

  Rank

  Remuneration as at 1 July 1990 £

  Childrens Panel for the Lothian Region

  Chairman

  0

  Childrens Panel for the Shetland Islands Area

  Chairman

  0

  Childrens Panel for the Strathclyde Region

  Chairman

  0

  Deputy Chairman

  0

  Childrens Panel for the Tayside Region

  Chairman

  0

  2 Deputy Chairmen

  0

  Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland

  Chairman

  7,939

  Deputy Chairman

  5,030

  Commons Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service Management Committee

  Chairman

  12,355

  7 Members

  0

  Cumbernauld Development Corporation

  2 Members

  3,525

  Dumfries and Galloway Health Board

  Chairman

  10,810

  Vice Chairman

  0

  15 Members

  0

  East Kilbride Development Corporation

  2 Members

  3,525

  Edinburgh New Town Conservation Committee

  8 Members

  0

  Fife Health Board

  Chairman

  13,415

  Vice Chairman

  0

  16 Members

  0

  Forth Valley Health Board

  Vice Chairman

  0

  11 Members

  0

  General Teaching Council for Scotland

  4 Members

  0

  Glenrothes Development Corporation

  3 Members

  3,525

  Grampian Health Board

  Vice Chairman

  0

  16 Members

  0

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  Chairman

  22,730

  Vice Chairman

  0

  17 Members

  0

  Highland Health Board

  Chairman

  13,415

  Vice Chairman

  0

  16 Members

  0

  Historic Buildings Council for Scotland

  Chairman

  0

  2 Members

  0

  Irvine Development Corporation

  2 Members

  3,735

  Jordanhill College of Education Governing Body

  Chairman

  0

  3 Members

  0

  147

  Rank

  Remuneration as at 1 July 1990 £

  Lanarkshire Health Board

  Chairman

  16,005

  Vice Chairman

  0

  17 Members

  0

  Livingston Development Corporation

  4 Members

  3,525

  Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland

  1 Member

  1,573

  Local Review Committee HM Prison Aberdeen

  Chairman

  0

  5 Members

  0

  Local Review Committee HM Prison Cornton Vale

  Chairman

  0

  5 Members

  0

  Local Review Committee HM Prison Dungavel

  Chairman

  0

  5 Members

  0

  Local Review Committee HM Prison Edinburgh

  Chairman

  0

  8 Members

  0

  Local Review Committee HM Prison Glenochil

  Chairman

  0

  7 Members

  0

  Local Review Committee Her Majesty's Prison Penninghame

  Chairman

  0

  3 Members

  0

  Local Review Committee Her Majesty's Prison Perth

  Chairman

  0

  6 Members

  0

  Local Review Committee Her Majesty's Prison Peterhead

  Chairman

  0

  4 Members

  0

  Local Review Committee Her Majesty's Prison Shotts

  Chairman

  0

  10 Members

  0

  Local Review Committee Her Majesty's YO Institution Dumfries

  Chairman

  0

  5 Members

  0

  Local Review Committee Her Majesty's YO Institution Polmont

  Chairman

  0

  5 Members

  0

  Local Review Committee Her Majesty's YO Institution Castle Huntly and Her Majesty's Prison Noranside

  Chairman

  0

  5 Members

  0

  Lothian Health Board

  Chairman

  20,490

  16 Members

  0

  Moray House College of Education Governing Body

  Chairman

  0

  3 Members

  0

  National Galleries of Scotland Board of Trustees

  2 Members

  0

  National Museums of Scotland—Board of Trustees

  8 Members

  0

  Northern College of Education—Governing Body

  Chairman

  0

  148

  Rank

  Remuneration as at 1 July 1990 £

  3 Members

  0

  Orkney Health Board

  Chairman

  6,510

  Vice Chairman

  0

  12 Members

  0

  Parole Board for Scotland

  Chairman

  0

  3 Members

  0

  Police Advisory Board for Scotland

  1 Member

  0

  Red Deer Commission

  1 Member

  0

  Scottish Agricultural Statistics Consultative Committee

  5 Members

  0

  Scottish Agricultural Wages Board

  Chairman

  0

  Scottish Committee for Staff Development in Education

  Chairman

  0

  14 Members

  0

  Scottish Community Education Council

  Chairman

  0

  7 Members

  0

  Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum

  17 Members

  0

  Scottish Dental Practice Board

  1 Member

  0

  Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board

  Chairman

  0

  5 Members

  0

  Scottish Economic Council

  1 Member

  0

  1 Member

  0

  Scottish Health Service Advisory Council

  9 Members

  0

  Scottish Homes

  3 Members

  5,330

  Scottish Legal Aid Board

  Chairman

  17,170

  7 Members

  8,529

  Scottish Records Advisory Council

  Chairman

  0

  Scottish Sports Council

  Chairman

  0

  Scottish Tourist Board

  1 Member

  5,385

  Scottish Valuation Advisory Council

  Chairman

  0

  Deputy Chairman

  0

  10 Members

  0

  Scottish Vocational Educational Council

  Chairman

  0

  Vice Chairman

  0

  7 Members

  0

  Shetland Health Board

  Vice Chairman

  0

  149

  Rank

  Remuneration as at 1 July 1990 £

  12 Members

  0

  State Hospital Management Committee

  Chairman

  11,955

  3 Members

  0

  St. Andrew's College of Education Governing Body

  Chairman

  0

  2 Members

  0

  Tayside Health Board

  Chairman

  18,250

  17 Members

  0

  Western Isles Health Board

  Chairman

  6,510

  Vice Chairman

  0

  13 Members

  0

  Table 2

  Appointments expiring in 1992

  Rank

  Salary as at 1 July 1990

  Advisory Committee on Dental Establishments

  3 Members

  0

  Advisory Committee on Medical Establishments

  1 Member

  0

  Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland

  7 Members

  0

  Caledonian MacBrayne

  Chairman

  15,000

  2 Members

  4,500

  Childrens Panel Advisory Committee for Borders Region

  1 Member

  0

  Childrens Panel Advisory Committee for Central Region

  Chairman

  0

  3 Members

  0

  Childrens Panel Advisory Committee for Dumfries and Galloway Region

  3 Members

  0

  Childrens Panel Advisory Committee for Fife Region

  3 Members

  0

  Childrens Panel Advisory Committee for Grampian Region

  1 Member

  0

  Childrens Panel Advisory Committee for Highland Region

  1 Member

  0

  Childrens Panel Advisory Committee for Orkney Islands Area

  1 Member

  0

  Childrens Panel Advisory Committee for Shetland Islands Area

  1 Member

  0

  Childrens Panel Advisory Committee for Strathclyde Region

  1 Member

  0

  150

  Rank

  Salary as at 1 July 1990

  Childrens Panel Advisory Committee for the Tayside Region

  Chairman

  0

  1 Member

  0

  Childrens Panel Advisory Committee for Western Isles Islands Area

  Chairman

  0

  2 Members

  0

  Childrens Panel for the Borders Region

  Chairman

  0

  Childrens Panel for the Central Region

  Deputy Chairman

  0

  Childrens Panel for the Dumfries and Galloway Region

  Chairman

  0

  Childrens Panel for the Fife Region

  Chairman

  0

  Childrens Panel for the Grampian Region

  Chairman

  0

  Deputy Chairman

  0

  Childrens Panel for the Highland Region

  Chairman

  0

  Deputy Chairman

  0

  Childrens Panel for the Lothian Region

  Deputy Chairman

  0

  Childrens Panel for the Orkney Islands Area

  Chairman

  0

  Deputy Chairman

  0

  Childrens Panel for the Shetland Islands Area

  Deputy Chairman

  0

  Childrens Panel for the Strathclyde Region

  Deputy Chairman

  0

  Childrens Panel for The Western Isles Island Area

  Chairman

  0

  Deputy Chairman

  0

  Clyde River Purification Board

  8 Members

  0

  Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland

  3 Members

  2,500

  Consultative Committee on Freshwater Fisheries

  Chairman

  0

  8 Members

  0

  Countryside Commission for Scotland

  Chairman

  15,365

  Deputy Chairman

  6,422

  12 Members

  0

  Crofters Commission

  Chairman

  36,848

  2 Members

  9,393

  Cumbernauld Development Corporation

  1 Member

  3,525

  Dumfries and Galloway Health Board

  Chairman

  10,810

  East Kilbride Development Corporation

  3 Members

  3,525

  Edinburgh New Town Conservation Committee

  1 Member

  0

  151

  Rank

  Salary as at 1 July 1990

  Forth River Purification Board

  6 Members

  0

  Hannah Research Institute—Governing Body

  1 Member

  0

  Highland River Purification Board

  4 Members

  0

  Highlands and Islands Development Board

  Chairman

  56,540

  1 Member

  46,695

  1 Member

  8,123

  Historic Buildings Council for Scotland

  5 Members

  0

  Irvine Development Corporation

  2 Members

  3,735

  Lay Observer for Scotland

  1 Member

  13,737

  Livingston Development Corporation

  Deputy Chairman

  8,272

  2 Members

  3,735

  Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland

  Vice Chairman

  11,122

  1 Member

  1,573

  Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

  7 Members

  0

  Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland

  Member

  69,745

  Member

  32,551

  Member

  1,348

  6 Members

  1,420

  National Galleries of Scotland Board of Trustees

  4 Members

  0

  National Museums of Scotland—Board of Trustees

  2 Members

  0

  National Panel of Specialists

  17 Members

  0

  North East River Purification Board

  3 Members

  0

  Parole Board for Scotland

  5 Members

  0

  Police (Scotland) Examinations Board

  Chairman

  0

  1 Member

  0

  Police Advisory Board For Scotland

  1 Member

  0

  Red Deer Commission

  Chairman

  15,173

  17 Members

  0

  Rowett Research Institute—Governing Body

  2 Members

  0

  Royal Botanic Garden—Board of Trustees

  4 Members

  0

  Scottish Advisory Committee on Top Grade Scientific Posts

  2 Members

  0

  Scottish Agricultural Wages Board

  152

  Rank

  Salary as at 1 July 1990

  1 Member

  0

  Scottish Council For Post Graduate Medical Education

  11 Members

  0

  Scottish Council For Research In Education

  Chairman

  0

  2 Members

  0

  Scottish Crop Research Institute—Governing Body

  Chairman

  0

  14 Members

  0

  Scottish Development Agency

  1 Member

  0

  1 Member

  60,500

  Scottish Economic Council

  1 Member

  0

  Scottish Examination Board

  14 Members

  0

  Scottish Film Council

  Chairman

  0

  1 Member

  0

  Scottish Homes

  1 Member

  5,385

  Scottish Hospital Endowments Research Trust

  3 Members

  0

  Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board

  4 Members

  0

  Scottish Legal Aid Board

  7 Members

  8,528

  Scottish Medical Practices Committee

  1 Member

  0

  Scottish Record's Advisory Council

  5 Members

  0

  Scottish Sports Council

  Vice Chairman

  0

  Scottish Studentship Selection Committee

  Chairman

  0

  3 Members

  0

  Scottish Tourist Board

  1 Member

  0

  2 Members

  5,385

  Solway River Purification Board

  3 Members

  0

  State Hospital Management Committee

  7 Members

  0

  Tay River Purification Board

  3 Members

  0

  Tweed River Purification Board

  3 Members

  0

  Local History
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what initiatives he intends to take to encourage the teaching of local history in Scottish primary and secondary schools;
  153
  (2) what initiatives he intends to take to encourage primary and secondary schools to create awareness in the cultural heritage which is relevant to the localities in which the schools are located.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Local history and heritage form part of environmental studies in the curriculum for the five to 14 age group. Guidance to education authorities and schools will be issued later this year in a Scottish Office Education Department working paper.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the percentages of disabled staff employed within the health service in Scotland in each year since 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out in the table. Health boards and the Common Services Agency are expected like other employers, to comply with the provisions of the disabled persons employment Acts.

  Percentage of disabled employees in the national health service in Scotland

  Year

  Percentage

  1981

  0·5

  1982

  0·5

  1983

  0·4

  1984

  0·4

  1985

  0·5

  1986

  0·4

  1987

  0·3

  1988

  0·3

  1989

  0·2

  1990

  0·2

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of adults with(a) mental handicap, (b) mental illness and (c) physical handicap in the format most convenient to his Department.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is not possible to give precise figures of the total number of people in these categories, since not all will have come into contact with the health service or social work authorities. However, in 1988 the number of disabled adults in Scotland was estimated as 611,000. It is also believed that a similar number of people in any one year might consult a general practitioner about some form of mental ill-health.

  Robert Burns
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives he intends to take to encourage the teaching of the works of Robert Burns in Scottish schools.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The advice to education authorities and schools contained in Scottish Office Education Department working paper No. 2 on the teaching of English language is that Scottish texts should be actively sought and used.

  Renfrew
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many burglaries there were in Renfrew district in each of the last three years; and what percentage those were of all reported crimes in the area.
  154
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is given in the table.

  Recorded cases of housebreaking in Renfrew district

  1 Housebreaking as a percentage of all crimes recorded by the police in Renfrew district

  1988

  4,867

  22·4

  1989

  5,303

  22·5

  1990

  25,675

  221·8

  1 In Scotland, information is collected on "housebreaking", rather than "burglary".

  2 Source: Report of the Chief Constable of Strathclyde, 1990.

  Victim Support Schemes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the applications for financial support received from victim support schemes during the current financial year which(a) have been approved, (b) have not been approved and (c) are still pending consideration.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Association of Victim Support Schemes—SAVSS—submits a single annual grant application to the Scottish Office to cover both its headquarters costs and the provision of aid for the appointment of co-ordinators, or towards running costs, in local schemes where demand warrants it. For the financial year 1991–92, the Scottish Office has awarded SAVSS a total grant of £405,000 made up of £320,000 for the development of local schemes and £85,000 for headquarters running costs.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the expenditure on each victim support scheme within Scotland in the current financial year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Of the £405,000 awarded to the Scottish Association of Victim Support Schemes in the current financial year, £320,000 has been allocated for the development of local schemes. A funding panel, independent of the Scottish Office and the SAVSS, determines applications for grant submitted by local victim support schemes and may award grant aid either for the appointment of co-ordinators or towards running costs.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the places in Scotland where drinking water is or has recently been contaminated with cryptosporidium organisms.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The organism is widespread in the natural environment and small numbers may be present from time to time in drinking water without giving rise to outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis. Only two such outbreaks have been associated with drinking water supplies in Scotland in recent years. One occurred in the Saltcoats and Stevenston area of Ayrshire in 1988 and the other in parts of Renfrewshire, Lanarkshire and West Lothian in 1989. In the latter case, the evidence was not conclusive that the water supply was the source of the infection.

  Strathclyde
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the provision of special needs education in Strathclyde.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Strathclyde education authority is statutorily responsible for the provision of special educational needs for children in their area.

  Planning Policies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he gives to those local authorities which wish to include planning gain policies in their local plans; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Development Department issued a circular to local authorities on planning gain in August 1984—circular 22/84. The circular provides authorities with guidance on the circumstances in which they might reasonably seek an agreement with a developer under section 50 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 and on the inclusion in development plans of policies on the use of such agreements.

  Mental Patients
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give(a) the total number of patients discharged from psychiatric hospitals or mental health units in each year since 1979 and (b) the number of places in mental health units in the community in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The table shows the number of discharges from psychiatric hospitals or mental health units in each year since 1979. The number of places in mental health units in the community in each year since 1979 is not held centrally.

  Year

  Numbers of discharges from mental illness and psychiatric units in Scotland

  1979

  25,116

  1980

  26,258

  1981

  26,512

  1982

  24,008

  1983

  26,271

  1984

  26,989

  1985

  27,675

  1986

  27,817

  1987

  28,613

  1988

  29,758

  1989

  29,620

  1990

  29,189

  Sports Facilities
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many indoor and outdoor sports facilities were managed by local authorities in Scotland at 1 January.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest available information is set out in the table.
  156

  Management type

  Sport facility

  District council

  Regional council

  Total

  Athletic tracks1

  65

  46

  111

  Dry ski slopes

  4

  7

  11

  Golf courses

  69

  0

  69

  Ice rinks

  3

  0

  3

  Sports halls/leisure centres

  292

  928

  1,220

  Swimming pools

  120

  230

  350

  Playing pitches2

  1,004

  625

  1,629

  Indoor bowling halls

  19

  26

  45

  1 Including grass.

  2 Excluding synthetic pitches.

  Ministerial Visit
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to visit the Paisley, South constituency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I have no plans at present to visit the Paisley, South constituency.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of drink-driving-related offences within(a) Scotland, (b) Strathclyde region and (c) Renfrew district in each year since 1980.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is given in the table.

  Number of recorded drink driving related offences 1980–89

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Scotland

  Strathclyde region

  Renfrew district

  1980

  15,876

  6,995

  507

  1981

  13,765

  6,193

  459

  1982

  13,982

  6,014

  516

  1983

  15,373

  6,701

  408

  1984

  14,976

  6,566

  510

  1985

  15,379

  6,657

  477

  1986

  14,623

  6,374

  475

  1987

  13,484

  5,926

  467

  1988

  11,353

  4,875

  368

  1989

  10,916

  4,763

  390

  1990

  n/a

  14,809

  1380

  n/a not available.

  1 Source: Report of the Chief Constable of Strathclyde, 1990.

  Green Belts
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to introduce a scheme for classifying green belt sites according to their environmental and amenity value.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. Such a scheme could imply that some parts of the green belt were less protected than others.

  Opticians
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many opticians in Scotland registered with the national health service for each year since 1974.
  157
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of opticians registered with health boards in Scotland to provide general ophthalmic services for each year since 1974 is set out in the table.

  Ophthalmic opticians

  Ophthalmic medical practitioners

  1974

  536

  69

  1975

  517

  69

  1976

  484

  65

  1977

  477

  73

  1978

  468

  69

  1979

  467

  69

  1980

  503

  80

  1981

  500

  74

  1982

  519

  79

  1983

  535

  90

  1984

  548

  107

  1985

  670

  106

  1986

  674

  119

  1987

  776

  115

  1988

  709

  122

  1989

  744

  114

  1990

  1—

  1—

  1 Not yet available.

  Judges (Appointment)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the criteria used for the appointment of judges in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  For any judicial appointment, the best available candidate is selected from among those who meet the statutory requirements.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 26 April,Official Report, columns 614–16, if he will provide the same information in real terms.

  Mr. Lang
  The following figures are deflated to 1989–90 prices using the Central Statistical Office's GDP deflator, adjusted to remove the distortion caused by the abolition of domestic rates.

  In real terms, the figures for 1989–90 to 1990–91 were:

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  TV advertising

  613,000

  974,000

  800,000

  Radio advertising

  42,500

  85,000

  203,000

  Newspaper advertising

  402,000

  1,022,000

  662,000

  Other promotional material

  992,500

  1,001,000

  1,186,000

  As indicated in the previous answer, an analysis in the form requested is not available for the years 1979–80 to 1987–88. However, total expenditure on information publicity at constant 1989–90 prices was:

  £

  1979–80

  527,000

  1980–81

  613,500

  1981–82

  607,000

  1982–83

  557,000

  1983–84

  496,500

  158

  £

  1984–85

  924,000

  1985–86

  843,000

  1986–87

  1,031,000

  1987–88

  1,249,000

  For 1991–92 the provision for expenditure is £2,519,000 in real terms, at 1989–90 prices.

  Historic Scotland
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the 1991–92 annual budget for Historic Scotland; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Total gross expenditure of £30,589,000 by Historic Scotland is provided for in the supply estimates 1991–92—Class XV vote 5. Running costs, which include salaries and wages, and allied costs such as travel and subsistence payments and general administrative expenditure, represent 31·9 per cent. of that expenditure.

  Registers of Scotland
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the department of the Registers of Scotland; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Total expenditure for Registers of Scotland in 1991–92 is estimated at £30,087,000 of which 70 per cent. is for total staff costs.

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Total expenditure for the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency in 1991–92 is estimated at £10·313 million of which 47 per cent. is for staff costs, which include salaries, wages and general administrative expenditure.

  Missing Persons
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals to establish a national database of missing persons aged(a) under 18 years and (b) over 18 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Criminal Records Office holds, on behalf of the police, details of all reported missing persons in Scotland who have been missing for one month or longer. Age, where known, is among the information recorded.

  Marine Nature Reserves
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals concerning the creation of marine nature reserves; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have no such proposals. Marine nature reserves may be designated
  159
  under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 on recommendations from the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland. So far, no formal recommendations for designation have been put forward.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made concerning the proposed marine nature reserve at Loch Sween; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The Nature Conservancy Council issued a discussion document on 4 October and meetings with interested parties were held locally. A number of concerns were expressed by local people, landowners and organisations. Further consultation will take place before any formal recommendation is made for designation of the loch.

  Parole
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prisoners serving custodial sentences were reviewed for parole in 1988, 1989 and 1990; how many were released under licence; and how many reviewed and/or released were serving sentences of(a) seven years or more and (b) 10 years or more.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of prisoners reviewed for parole in 1988 and 1989 and released under licence is set out in appendix A of the annual report of the Parole Board for Scotland for 1989, copies of which are available in the Library. The figures for 1990 will be published in the annual report of the Parole Board for Scotland for 1990, which will be available later this year. The other information is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many recommendations by the Parole Board for the release of prisonerss under licence serving sentences of(a) less than seven years, (b) seven years and more and (c) 10 years or more have been rejected by the Secretary of State in each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Workers Educational Association
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals concerning the development of further education involving the Workers Educational Association; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have no such proposals.

  Kvaerner-Kincaid plc
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received calling for action by his Department following the announcement of proposed job losses at Kvaerner-Kincaid plc of Greenock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I met a delegation led by the hon. Member today to discuss the situation at Kvaerner-Kincaid. The hon. Member was accompanied by representatives of the work force and Inverclyde district council.

  Demolition Control
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes to introduce planning controls over the demolition of houses; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have today tabled amendments to the Planning and Compensation Bill that would enable the Government to bring the demolition of houses within planning control in Scotland.

  Until recently the Government believed that demolition did not usually constitute development and therefore did not fall within planning control. However, a recent High Court decision in England held that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the demolition of dwelling houses was development. That decision is subject to an appeal.

  For buildings listed as of historical or architectural importance and buildings in conservation areas, demolition is already covered by other controls. Most other demolitions of houses are not contentious and do not justify additional planning controls.

  However, the Government are aware of the concern that has been expressed in particular cases. For example, some potential developers have demolished perfectly sound houses before having the necessary planning permission to erect replacement buildings. Rather than leave a vacant site that may blight neighbouring properties, the local planning authority can feel pressured to grant planning permission for an out-of-character development for which planning permission should be refused.

  We do not believe that there is a widespread problem, but we have concluded that the time is now right to allow the selective introduction of controls on demolition where problems do exist.

  The proposed amendments would extend the definition of development to include the demolition of all buildings. They would also incorporate a direction-making power, which would enable the Secretary of State to provide that the demolition of particular types of building is not development and would not, therefore, be subject to planning control. Since the problem that these amendments are designed to tackle relates in particular to dwelling houses, our intention is to use this power to exclude from control all demolitions except demolitions of dwelling houses.

  Because most demolitions of dwelling houses would not justify the full application of the new controls, we propose amending the Town and Country Planning General Development (Scotland) Order 1981 to grant permitted development rights for the demolition of dwelling houses in most circumstances. This would mean that planning permission would not normally be required for such demolition.

  However, if a local planning authority wished to prevent demolition in a particular case or in a vulnerable area, it could use its power to give a direction which would require the developer to seek planning permission before proceeding with demolition. Such a direction would require the confirmation of the Secretary of State if it is to remain effective for longer than six months.

  By these measures we believe that it will be possible to control these undesirable cases of demolition without putting an undue burden either on developers or on local planning authorities.

  A82 (Accidents)
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a detailed list of accidents which have taken place on the A82 between the Fort William boundary and the Ballachulish bridge in each of the last three years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 May 1991]: The information requested is provided in the table. Figures for 1990 are provisional.

  Number of recorded injury accidents on the A82 between Fort William boundary and Ballachulish Bridge in the years 1988 to 1990

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Fatal

  1

  2

  1

  Serious

  5

  11

  4

  Slight

  12

  17

  10

  Total

  18

  30

  15

  Mentally Handicapped People (Health Services)
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the guidance given by his Department in relation to the use which hospitals boards make of funds derived from the sale of capital assets which were specifically devoted to services for the mentally handicapped.

  Restricted farms in Scotland

  April 1990

  April 1991

  Region and District

  Holdings

  Sheep

  Hectares

  Acres

  Holdings

  Sheep

  Hectares

  Acres

  Central

  Stirling

  19

  48,200

  29,900

  73,900

  17

  39,300

  25,500

  63,000

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Total

  16

  25,600

  11,100

  27,400

  10

  19,100

  9,500

  23,500

  Nithsdale

  6

  3,500

  700

  1,700

  2

  1,900

  400

  1,000

  Stewarty

  5

  8,700

  2,500

  6,200

  3

  3,800

  1,200

  3,000

  Wigtown

  5

  13,400

  7,900

  19,500

  5

  13,400

  7,900

  19,500

  Strathclyde

  Total

  38

  59,500

  26,000

  64,200

  36

  57,900

  25,200

  62,200

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  5

  4,900

  2,600

  6,300

  5

  4,900

  2,600

  6,300

  Cumnock and Doun Valley

  19

  35,300

  15,800

  39,100

  18

  35,000

  15,100

  37,400

  Kyle and Carrick

  2

  5,600

  2,300

  5,700

  2

  5,600

  2,300

  5,700

  Cunninghame

  2

  2,000

  1,700

  4,200

  2

  2,000

  1,700

  4,200

  East Kilbride

  4

  4,900

  1,400

  3,400

  4

  4,900

  1,400

  3,400

  Eastwood

  6

  6,800

  2,200

  5,500

  5

  5,500

  2,100

  5,200

  Scotland

  Total

  73

  133,300

  67,000

  165,500

  63

  116,300

  60,200

  148,700

  Figures for sheep numbers and area are rounded.

  Lanarkshire Health Board
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many hospital patients residing within the Hamilton/East Kilbride unit area of the Lanarkshire health board were placed in a hospital in the Monklands/Cumbernauld unit over each of the last 12 months;

  (2) how many hospital patients residing within the Hamilton/East Kilbride unit area of the Lanarkshire
  162
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: The use which is to be made of the proceeds of sales of a particular category of property is not generally specified, but health boards are aware that they should give a high priority to the care of mentally handicapped and mentally ill patients.

  Individual health boards are able to retain proceeds from the disposals they achieve—currently at the rate of 80 per cent. with the balance of 20 per cent. being allocated by the management executive to benefit the NHS capital programme.

  Chernobyl
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, further to the answer to the hon. Member for South Shields on 25 April,Official Report, column 547, if he will list each region and district in Scotland giving the number of acres and hectares, numbers of sheep and numbers of farms under restriction following the Chernobyl accident as at (a) April 1990 and (b) April 1991; and if he will make a statement about the changes in the restrictions in each case.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: The information is set out in the table. In each case holdings, or part holdings, were released from restrictions only after extensive monitoring had shown that animals leaving these areas no longer posed a threat to the food chain.

  health board were placed in a hospital in the Motherwell/Clydesdale unit over each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 13 May 1991]: The following table sets out the number of patients resident within the Hamilton/East Kilbride unit area discharged from both the Monklands/Cumbernauld and Motherwell/Clydesdale units in 1990. The figures relate to discharges in the acute, maternity and geriatric sectors.
  163

  Number of Patients residing within the Hamilton East Kilbride unit area discharged from Monklands/Cumbernauld and Motherwell/Clydesdale in 1990

  Month

  Number of discharges Monklands/Cumbernauld

  Number of discharges Motherwell/Clydesdale

  January

  352

  203

  February

  323

  186

  March

  363

  232

  April

  360

  162

  May

  366

  204

  June

  375

  179

  July

  346

  148

  August

  391

  191

  September

  378

  176

  October

  395

  203

  November

  402

  186

  December

  356

  200

  Total

  4,407

  2,270

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients were placed in an acute medical bed within the Hamilton/East Kilbride unit from outwith the unit area in each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The table sets out the number of patients residing outwith the Hamilton/East Kilbride unit area discharged from acute beds within the unit in 1990.

  Month

  Number of discharges

  January

  68

  February

  72

  March

  85

  April

  74

  May

  73

  June

  79

  July

  68

  August

  78

  September

  57

  October

  87

  November

  67

  December

  50

  TOTAL

  858

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the intervention board; and what percentage is allocated to staff costs;

  (2) what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate; and what is the percentage allocated to staff costs;

  (3) what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Central Veterinary Laboratory; and what percentage is allocated to staff costs.

  Mr. Curry
  These are operational matters for the chief executives who will write to the hon. Member.

  Farming and Livestock
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement listing the public money his Department has invested in all aspects of 164
  farming and livestock work in the constituency of Waveney in the past 10 years; and how much he expects to contribute over the next three years.

  Mr. Curry
  No. The range of schemes involved is extremely wide and information does not exist in a form enabling such a list to be compiled for individual constituencies.

  Fishing
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement listing the public money his Department has invested in all aspects of the fishing industry; and what range of services has been covered, in the constituency of Waveney for the past 10 years; and how much he expects to contribute over the next three years.

  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry's departmental report— Cm. 1503—shows that estimated expenditure on support for the fishing industry in 1990–91 was £19 million and that this is planned to increase to £20 million in 1993–94. In addition, the Department carries out research and other scientific work in relation to marine fisheries: this cost some £7 million in 1990–91. Details of expenditure in the fishing industry in individual constituencies are not available.

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement listing the public money his Department has contributed to sea defence and coastal protection schemes in the constituency of Waveney during the past 10 years; and how much he expects to contribute over the next three years.

  Mr. Curry
  This Department has contributed nearly £2 million by way of direct grant to sea defence and coast protection schemes in the constituency of Waveney during the past 10 years. A further contribution of approximately £2·5 million is likely to he made over the next three years.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether any source of BSE other than scrapie has been identified by his Ministry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  No. The detailed epidemiological study continues to show that the most likely cause of BSE was the scrapie agent in cattle feed.

  Farm Animal Welfare Council
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department has considered an exhibition relating to the Farm Animal Welfare Council to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities in the House for an exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 10 June to Friday 14 June. I hope that as many hon. Members as possible will avail themselves of the opportunity to see at first hand the excellent work the Farm Animal Welfare Council does.

  Agriculture Expenditure
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the amount spent in each of the last 10 years in supporting British agriculture both in(a) direct and (b) indirect expenditure, in both cash and real terms.

  Mr. Gummer
  Details of direct agriculture support, including national grants and subsidies, in the United Kingdom for the 10 years from 1980–81 are given in the table:

  Financial Year

  Cash terms (£ million)

  Real terms (£ million) (1989–90 baseline)

  1980–81

  1,012

  1,715

  1981–82

  972

  1,502

  1982–83

  1,433

  2,068

  1983–84

  1,729

  2,385

  1984–85

  1,712

  2,247

  1985–86

  2,165

  2,693

  1986–87

  1,449

  1,744

  1987–88

  1,630

  1,861

  1988–89

  1,380

  1,467

  1989–90

  1,258

  1,258

  11990–91

  1,958

  21,843

  166
  1 forecast

  2 using estimated deflator

  Sources: 1980–81 to 1985–86—Annual Review White Papers.

  1986–87 to 1990–91—Agriculture in the United Kingdom

  Over the period 1988–90, expenditure under the CAP fell due to favourable world and EC market conditions.

  Various items could be seen as offering indirect support. Details of all expenditure of each of the agriculture Departments appear in the supply estimate and appropriation accounts which are in the Library of the House. Those for this Department are published in class III.

  Food Additives
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the food additives for which he has withdrawn approval since 1979, giving in each case the year when the additive was withdrawn; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 21 December 1989,Official Report, column 457. Since then, the approval for the use of potassium bromate as a flour treatment agent has been withdrawn.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

Windscreen Cleaning Nuisance
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation to ban itinerant and uninvited windscreen cleaners.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, it is not illegal to offer services in the street so long as it is not for gain or reward. However, to obstruct the highway or to use threatening or insulting behaviour is a criminal offence. There are no plans to make windscreen cleaning itself an offence.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does my noble fiend accept that, whereas I am not opposed to enterprise or initiative, it is the unexpected and uninvited nature of the service which causes alarm and anger? A torso suddenly appears in front of the windscreen, followed by waves of grey water which totally obliterate the driver's view. It is a nuisance and a potential hazard. Does my noble friend agree that if they would only ask whether the service was required it would not be so objectionable?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what my noble friend says. However, it is difficult to pass legislation telling people that they have to ask whether they can do something. Nevertheless, if they use threatening behaviour, demand money with menaces or cause criminal damage, those are offences.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since I wrote to him about this matter on 14th November last year the situation has got worse? Is he aware that many people now feel intimidated by the gangs of people—sometimes eight or nine of them—who come up to a car and when waved away shout abuse and use threatening gestures? Is he also aware that when this subject was mentioned on LBC Newstalk the programme was inundated with calls from listeners complaining about how they had been treated by such people and about the danger to motorists and others? Finally, can the noble Earl confirm that the police already have powers under the Metropolitan Police Act 1939 to deal with this awful nuisance?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, on the last point the noble Lord is entirely correct. It is not so much a question of the law as of collecting evidence. I agree that intimidation is very disagreeable, but one does not have to be a windscreen wiper to intimidate people. The other day I was intimidated in the street by a beggar who pushed me when I did not give him a pound. That is just as intimidating.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, would my noble friend, with his expert knowledge of these matters, advise setting about the offender with a walking stick?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, they are very useful on appropriate occasions.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, if at traffic lights a person came up and offered to tell one a joke or to play a musical instrument would that be considered to be a service which one could accept or reject? Would that fall into the same category of service to be offered?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that would be for the courts to decide. My interpretation is that if that were to happen and the person did not ask for a reward for doing so it would not be an offence.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, with due respect to my noble friends and others who have supported the suggestion, does my noble friend agree that there are already too many criminal offences on the statute book and that it should be a general rule of thumb that if one wants to introduce a new one one should suggest two more for repeal?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sure that my noble and learned friend did so when he was Lord Chancellor. On the substance of the point, it is not the law which is at fault; the problem is finding the evidence on which to prosecute people.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that I feel threatened? There is a group which operates permanently on the Embankment and late in the evening they are quite aggressive. They do not say anything that one can pin down but one feels threatened. How far do they have to go before one can report them for threatening behaviour?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a matter for the police. I accept that some people are threatening. I remember that in the days of National Service there used to be a charge of dumb insolence, which meant that one could be extremely offensive without having said anything. Equally one can be very threatening without saying anything. How threatening one has to be before one is charged would be a matter for the police.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, would the noble Earl be prepared to ban all Questions which contain the phrase "introduce legislation to ban"?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that that would be going a little too far.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that when a lot of money was spent by the garages on improving forecourts we were told that we should receive tremendous service, windscreens would be wiped and so on? Nothing has happened to implement that intention. I wonder whether there is a garage which still does that. Does my noble friend agree that, if so, it ought to be a protected species and not be vilified as these people are?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if there were such a garage I am sure that even the Government would not claim responsibility. This problem falls under the heading of what one might call initiative.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I do not want my windscreen washed and nor do I want services offered free in the street? Is he also aware that, just like many events in life, it is humorous and enjoyable when in moderation but becomes irritating and annoying when taken to excess? Is he further aware that the Question asks whether he will ban such action? Does he not think that to ban it would be a bit sledgehammerish in the circumstances? Can he perhaps persuade the Metropolitan Police to exercise a certain gentle dissuasion in the affair?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am so glad that the noble Lord and I see eye to eye on this. It would be a pity to ban such action for the very reasons that I have given. The answer is that you have to obtain evidence and, if you obtain evidence, the law is in order.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, given that most motorists drive with dirty windscreens, these enterprising young men are perhaps contributing to road safety?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is the other side of the coin.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that by banning such action the Government might in future put noble Lords in a difficult situation because when this place is finally closed down we may all be looking for jobs cleaning windscreens?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sure that if that were so the noble Lord would not need to fear because he would get a larger pourboire than most of the people who dance up and down trying to offer their services.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, referring to what my noble friend Lord Montagu said, is my noble friend the Minister aware that if a motorist had a dirty windscreen he would cause a major obstruction because it would take a long time to clean and the lights would be changing once or twice?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, he would then be causing an obstruction in the street, which is an arrestable offence.

Yugoslavia: Protection of Minorities
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the protection of minorities in Yugoslavia can best be ensured.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we believe that Yugoslavia's minorities can best be protected under a constitutional system guaranteeing liberal democracy and full respect for human rights in accordance with Yugoslavia's obligations under CSCE.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply and particularly for mentioning CSCE. Does
1474
he agree that there is now an urgent need for negotiations to prevent further loss of life? Will the Government endeavour to persuade both the Government of Yugoslavia and the constituent republics to apply the 10 principles of Valetta for the peaceful settlement of their disputes?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that CSCE provides an opportunity. Yugoslavia is a member of CSCE. The Valetta 10-point plan outlined a dispute settlement mechanism for member countries of CSCE. However, the settlement mechanism addresses only disputes between states and is therefore not applicable to Yugoslavia. Nevertheless, the committee of senior officials of CSCE, which is next due to meet on 23rd and 24th May, has the remit to review the current issues whenever it meets.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, although there is an obvious limit to what Her Majesty's Government or any one government can do, does the Minister agree that the objective must be to seek to create stability in that part of Europe? Is the matter being raised by Her Majesty's Government in the meeting of Community Foreign Ministers which I believe is being held today? Furthermore, as I understand it, the meeting of CSCE will be held in Geneva on 19th July. Will the Minister say whether the matter can also be raised on that occasion?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the meeting of the European Foreign Affairs Council took place yesterday and there was a full discussion on Yugoslavia. Mr. Delors, the President of the Commission, and Mr. Santer, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, are due to visit Yugoslavia in the near future. We call on the Yugoslav Federal Government and republics to settle their differences peacefully. We deplore the use or threat of force by the federal army against the democratically elected governments of Slovenia and Croatia. The borders between the Yugoslav republics should be changed only by agreement between the republics concerned.

NHS Purchasing Arrangements
2.48 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington Lord Hunter of Newington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the National Health Service supplies organisation should take more concerted action to achieve substantial recurrent savings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, major initiatives are already in progress on a national basis within the National Health Service supplies function to strengthen purchasing arrangements, to extend the use of electronic trading, to reduce stockholding and the number of warehouses, and to improve management information systems so as to better monitor progress in performance. All those measures can be expected to achieve substantial recurrent savings.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that hopeful reply. Does she agree that in the past health authorities have been largely tied to their local supply services? Does she also agree that the department has exercised only limited oversight through the supplies organisation from the centre and that it has issued little guidance on the implications for the supplies organisation of the changes proposed in the White Paper, now reflected in the National Health Service and Community Care Act?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the department's policy in supplies purchasing is to improve value for money based on competitive procurement and to assist the competitiveness of suppliers. We consider that some things are best done at local level, otherwise it may be necessary to introduce district, regional or national levels. Nevertheless, we are taking steps to improve further the purchasing record, which we believe in any event is a good one. A new national purchasing unit is being set up to make better use of purchasing muscle in those cases in which a national approach is the most cost effective. Already the embryonic unit has achieved savings of over £80 million in the past two years; for example, in energy, syringes, needles, vaccines and paper products.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the hospitals which have opted out of the National Health Service or established themselves as trusts are expected to use the National Health Service supplies organisation or to go it alone? Does she agree that if they are expected to go it alone, it could create a multiplicity of demand which may well force prices up rather than down?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that my original Answer replied to some extent to the point raised by the noble Lord. He must take into account the fact that about 200,000 different items have been identified as purchased through the national health system from at least 20,000 different suppliers. It is, therefore, very big business. The National Health Service trusts will be expected to show that they can obtain the best value for money. We believe that they will do so by using the existing and improved mechanisms of the National Health Service supplies unit.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, has the Minister studied the report of the National Audit Office which suggests that the new changes in the NHS could waste "massive amounts of money" if buying policies become more fragmented? It describes NHS disarray in terms of health authorities which operate without any real knowledge of their own or any other authorities' spending priorities.
Yesterday the Minister refused to comment on the report of the Universities Funding Council. Will she now be more forthcoming on the report of the National Audit Office?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I always try to be forthcoming when it is appropriate. I am certainly aware of the recent National Audit Office report on NHS supplies. The report acknowledged the
1476
significant improvements that have taken place in recent years within the NHS supplies function. It recommends that the National Health Service should press ahead with existing initiatives in relation to purchasing, storage, new technology and performance measurement. The action programme set in hand some months ago by the National Health Service Management Executive is specifically geared to achieve a continuing process of improvement which again is specifically geared to meet the supply needs of the newly reformed National Health Service.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in the same way that monopolies can distort the market place so can monopsonists—the monopoly purchasers? They beat down prices so much that they may put many firms out of business. Does she further agree that the report referred to has gone over the top just a little?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it may be that in the view of my noble friend the National Audit Office report went over the top, although in terms of the main acknowledgements of what is being done and its recommendations we believe that it very much supports our efforts to streamline the supply arrangements for the National Health Service.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, given that hospital trusts are very much and very firmly part of the National Health Service, will my noble friend confirm that there is no bar to them using the central purchasing services of the regional health authorities? Indeed, on the advice of the central department concerned with this matter, that can be done within the Minister's own department, can it not?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for underlining that point. There is certainly no bar and National Health Service trusts will be encouraged, as will any other unit within the National Health Service, to purchase through the supplies purchasing arrangements. We believe that that gives the best value for money.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the National Audit Office is a very responsible organisation which is most unlikely to go over the top? In a most recent Act did we not give more powers to the National Audit Office in order to supervise work in the National Health Service? Does she not think that it is a little early to start accusing the National Audit Office of going over the top?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that is precisely why I was delighted to acknowledge that the National Audit Office substantially supported what we are doing and what we intend to do.
Lord Morris: My Lords, in answer to a previous question my noble friend suggested that the size of the task, with 200,000 different products and 20,000 different sources, posed a considerable problem. It is the sort of problem that is handled every day by companies such as Booker McConnell Ltd., a wholesale purchaser and distributor. Will my noble

1477
friend consider very carefully privatising that particular operation because it is a classic commercial operation?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we believe that the streamlining that is being brought into effect will make the best use of supplies produced by the private sector. The regional arrangements are being carried out through the National Health Service with the support of the private sector in producing the goods that are being bought.

The Atomic Weapons Establishment: Policy
2.56 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their policy that nuclear weapons for the United Kingdom armed forces should be produced by the private sector.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Government's policy is that nuclear warhead production in the United Kingdom should take place at the Atomic Weapons Establishment and that the land, facilities and other assets of that establishment should be owned by the Secretary of State for Defence. We believe, however, that the establishment would benefit from being operated under contract by a private sector company.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Am I to understand that the contracting out of the production, research and development of nuclear warheads, particularly for Trident submarines, will be to the private sector? Am I further to understand that the Government still consider that the defence of the realm is of total importance and that they will be able to superimpose any contract let out under the circumstances? Am I still further to understand that under the European Community rules any European contractor will be able to bid for a contract to run Aldermaston and Burghfield.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the defence of the realm is of vital importance. The contractorisation will mean that we retain all the assets of AWE in the ownership of the Secretary of State for Defence, as I said, but that a private sector company or consortium will be introduced to operate the establishment under contract. In our view no other solution can offer the combination of access to private sector production management expertise and the fullest flexibility to deal with the difficulties which AWE has had in recruiting and retaining staff.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the innuendo behind the Question is rather unreal? Is it not a fact that in any monopolies, including government monopolies, it is common form to contract out various parts in order to get supplies as well as obtaining the efficiency on line?
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is a solution which we believe is the best one in this case.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the Minister agree, given that we have to continue to produce weapons of mass destruction, that Ministers should remain fully responsible and fully answerable to Parliament for that activity?
Lord Reay: My Lords, indeed, that situation will continue.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, since the Government are committed to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, does the Minister feel that we should take advantage of this opportunity to cease manufacture of nuclear weapons in this country, whether by private or public means?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that is a very different question.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that nuclear warheads fall into a quite different category to any other armaments? Secondly, is he aware that there is considerable public disquiet that under the government arrangements those nuclear warheads can now be manufactured privately? Is he not aware that that is an extremely important step to take? Will he give the House an undertaking that private companies who manufacture the warheads and who have them under their control will not be able to sell them abroad?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition about this being a special case. That is one of the reasons why we are not privatising: we believe that the solution of contractorisation is most appropriate in this instance.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister answer the latter part of the question of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition? Will the firms concerned be able to sell the expertise thus acquired, perhaps abroad?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not sure that I can answer that question. It may be a matter that will be dealt with in the contract that will be reached.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in light of the fact that General Pinochet is coming to this country apparently to buy arms, is that not a question that the Government ought to be able to answer?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that matter does not arise. General Pinochet is the commander-in-chief of, I believe, a democratic country.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Reay: However, that point goes wide of the Question on the Order Paper, and does not apply at the present time.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, under the government proposals will it not be possible from 1992 for any European country to bid for and possibly achieve the contract to manage the AWE at any of the four, or perhaps all, of the establishments? Is it

1479
satisfactory that the Germans may be running our nuclear arms industry? How does security come into the situation?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the most important consideration is that the contractor should meet our stringent security requirements. The most sensible and effective course is to safeguard security through the careful application of security criteria to those companies which tender for the contract. If undesirable foreign interests were to obtain influence over a contracting company, the contract would be terminated and AWE would be run by the MoD until a new contractor could be found.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, what studies have the Government made of the public health and safety record of nuclear weapons manufacture in the United States, which is largely private compared with that in France, where it is almost entirely public? What have been the results of those studies?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence will continue to be responsible for security standards and for carrying out and funding the vetting of AWE staff who will have to meet the same stringent security requirements that apply now. I am informed that they will not be able to sell information abroad.
Noble Lords: Answer the question!
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Lord may not have heard my question. I inquired not about the security record but the public health record.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord made a reference to the United States. The United States nuclear weapons plants have been operated as a government-owned, contracted-out system since they were se: up in the 1940s and continue to be operated under that system.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister take into consideration a matter that has been considered by the United Nations Security Council: that the most frightening thing that could happen would be terrorist organisations gathering information which enabled them to get hold of nuclear weapons for their terrorist activities?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is entirely right. I have absolute confidence that the MoD will be able to prevent any such happening.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord take it from me that we shall oppose this measure root and branch? We believe that the product ion of nuclear warheads is a most sensitive question. The Government have not taken into account matters such as security, vetting and other factors. There are plenty of ways of increasing efficiency at Aldermaston and Burghfield without resorting to this rather ridiculous contraction. Does the noble Lord also accept that we shall oppose anything in the contract which allows foreigners to manufacture our nuclear warheads?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Arran looks forward to the debate on a
1480
Bill later in the week. I am sure that he will be able to satisfy any of the concerns of reasonable people in this matter.

Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about an hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the River Calder (Welbeck Site) Bill and the Education Reform Act 1988 (Application of Section 122 to Institutions in Wales) Order 1991 will be taken.

Business of the House: Debates, 22nd May
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Holme of Cheltenham set down for 22nd May shall be limited to 2 hours and that in the name of the Baroness Seear set down for the same day to 3 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to both debates.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gaming (Bingo) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Criminal Justice Bill
3.7 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Restrictions on imposing custodial sentences]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 9 to 13 and insert ("punishable with a custodial sentence other than one fixed by law.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I believe that it would be helpful to speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 26.
When the Bill was debated in Committee, your Lordships felt that we did not have it quite right and there were some areas where it could be further improved. I hope that I shall be able to show that we listened to what was said and have tried to meet your Lordships on a number of points of concern even if we were unable to do so in every case.
When we discussed Clauses 1 to 3 in Committee your Lordships made a strong case for bringing indictable-only offences within the sentencing framework. You argued that the clear and simple principles governing the aptness and length of custodial sentences should apply in all cases. This would avoid

1481
the possibility of anomalies arising from parallel but different sentencing regimes for indictable-only offences as opposed to other offences.
Having reflected upon what noble Lords said, we accept those arguments. Amendment No. 1 to Clause 1(1) extends the restrictions on custody to all offences except those where the sentence is fixed by law. That includes indictable-only offences, whether or not the offender has previously received a prison sentence. Since previous prison sentences are no longer to be relevant, Amendment No. 6 deletes Clause 1(6) (which allows certain previous prison sentences to be disregarded for the purposes of Clause 1).
Amendment No. 1 has the same effect as Amendment No. 2 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. However, I fear that it will not please the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, whom I see in his place. I had thought that he was not there. He was merely bowing below the level of the seat and not at me. The amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord would take out of Clause 1 not only those offenders aged 21 or over convicted of an indictable-only offence who had previously received a prison sentence, but also such offenders as had previously received a custodial sentence in a young offenders' institution. The sentencing principles in Clause 1 are important and valuable. We are persuaded that they should extend to all offenders, including those convicted of the most serious offences, who have received a prison sentence in the past. This is consistent with the Bill's philosophy that an offender should not be placed at a disadvantage because of his previous record.
Similarly, Amendment No. 7 extends Clause 2 to all indictable-only offences except where the sentence is fixed by law. At present, it applies only to summary or either-way offences. Again, the amendment has the same effect as Amendment No. 8, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. It is important that Clauses 1 and 2 should apply to the same cases. It would be anomalous if an offender could be sent to prison for rape under the criteria in Clause 1 but could not have the length of his sentence determined under Clause 2.
Amendment No. 11 enables a court to impose a longer custodial sentence under Clause 2(2)(b) on young offenders convicted of violent or sexual offences. Given that Clause 2 will now apply to indictable-only offences, it would be strange if, to protect the public, the court could impose a longer sentence on a 21 year-old rapist but not on one who was 20 years old. Amendment No. 14 is consequential. It requires a court to give reasons for imposing a longer custodial sentence on a young offender as well as an adult offender under Clause 2(3).
Amendment No. 15 provides that a life sentence is always to be regarded as longer than any determinate sentence for the purpose of deciding what length of custody is justified under Clause 2. This is necessary because the extension of Clauses 1 and 2 to indictable-only offences brings discretionary life sentences within their scope. If, for example, a judge was sentencing two offenders for rape, and if he
1482
thought that the one was more unstable than the other and therefore posed a greater risk to the public, he could demonstrate this by imposing sentences of, say, 12 years for the first offender and life for the second.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 to Clause 3 provide that a court must obtain a pre-sentence report in every case covered by Clauses 1 and 2, with one exception. A court will not have to obtain a report if the offender is convicted of an indictable-only offence and if the court believes that it is unnecessary to obtain one in the circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, and others may think that this does not go far enough and that there should be no exceptions. But, as I said in Committee, it is important not to put the courts and the probation service to unnecessary effort in preparing and considering reports in cases where they are not needed. Indictable-only offences are very serious and we should accept that in a number of cases it would simply be pointless for the court to obtain a report. The solution which we have adopted takes up the ingenious suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Elton in Committee; that the criteria in Clauses 1 and 2 should apply in indictable-only cases but not the requirement to obtain a pre-sentence report. In fact we have been able to go a little further than that by requiring reports to be obtained but providing an exception. This exception reflects the existing law in the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 and Criminal Justice Act 1982. Section 20A of the 1973 Act and Section 2 of the 1982 Act require a court to obtain a social inquiry report before sending to prison a young offender or someone who has not received a previous prison sentence unless the court thinks that a report would be unnecessary in the circumstances. That is the wording that we have used in the amendment.
The effect of these and the earlier amendments is that the principles of sentencing in Clauses 1 and 2 will extend to indictable-only offences but the court will not have to obtain a report under Clause 3 if it would clearly be unnecessary to do so. I am indebted to your Lordships and in particular to my noble friend Lord Elton for his valuable suggestion, which enabled us to arrive at this proposal. I hope that it will meet with the approval of the House. Amendments Nos. 18 and 26 make some minor and consequential drafting changes. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I thank the Government for having accepted the logic of the case which Members from all sides of the House expressed in Committee. The omission of indictable-only offences from the sentencing structure which the Bill sets up was difficult to justify in common sense or in logic. We are all grateful for the fact that the Government have now accepted that fact.
The Minister said that noble Lords would be disappointed about one aspect; namely, that it is still possible for a judge to sentence an offender without

1483
obtaining a pre-sentence report. I believe that the circumstances under which a judge will come to the conclusion that such a report is unnecessary are already covered under the Court of Appeal guidelines. They will relate to particular offences of a particular gravity which will demand custodial sentences. In those circumstances I can see the common sense of arguing that a judge should not be under a duty to demand a pre-sentence report. I own to a tinge of disappointment about that aspect of the proposals. However, it is only a tinge and we on this side of the House grateful to the Minister for having moved the amendments.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I too congratulate the Minister and the Government on moving the amendment. It is in exactly the same terms as the amendment which I moved in Committee. On that occasion I said that I believed it to be the most important amendment in the Marshalled List. I remain of the same view. On Second Reading nine-tenths of my speech related to this very issue. I owe the Government congratulations and gratitude for moving the amendment.
For the first time Parliament is to enact a principle which will govern sentencing in every criminal court in this country. In other words, sentencing is too important a matter to leave to the sentencers. That is a great breakthrough. Self-congratulation on the part of the Government is justified by having made such a breakthrough in the whole sentencing process.
I turn to Amendment No. 17. Will the Government consider adding the words "if the accused agrees"? I have always understood that on occasion it is unnecessary to require pre-sentence reports. However, the situation would be made more satisfactory by the addition of those words because there would be no dispute or argument. I am sure that in nine cases out of 10 in which the judge has said that he does not require a report before sentencing he would accede to a request from the defence if it wished for a report. Therefore, the situation would be more satisfactory if those words were included at a later stage.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he explain what he meant by saying that sentencing is too important to be left to the sentencers?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I am always satisfied when I get the noble Baroness to her feet. I am always ready to instruct her on these matters. By those words I mean that for years the view has been taken that it is not for Parliament to interfere with the complete discretion of the judiciary and magistracy on important matters of sentencing. Unfortunately, in this country we sentence people to longer sentences and fill our prisons with more people than any other country in Western Europe. That has been the result of sentencing by the courts. Fortunately, now Parliament has at last taken a hand.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too welcome the first amendment and the others which my noble friend moved. It shows that the Government have an open
1484
mind when listening to your Lordships. One lives in hope that there will be further understanding as the Bill progresses.
For the sake of the record and in order to remove uncertainty in the minds of any of us who may feel uncertain about it, I wonder whether my noble friend will explain the need to add the words:
"other than one fixed by law".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for expressing such appreciation for these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said that self-congratulation on the part of the Government was understandable. However, we should not wish to indulge in it. I am grateful to your Lordships for helping us find our way round some fairly difficult points. I am glad that that has met with approval. My noble friend Lord Renton said that that may be a good omen for the rest of the Bill. I am sure that it is and let us make sure that we continue in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, asked whether we could add the words "if the accused agrees" before the judge decides to obtain a pre-sentence report. We shall certainly look at those words. My guess is that the conclusion will be that the matter should be left at the discretion of the judge.
My noble friend Lord Renton referred to the words:
"other than one fixed by law".
That refers to murder, which is the only offence for which the penalty is fixed by law. It may need to be looked at again in the light of our further debates on mandatory life sentences. But that is the reason for the phraseology. I am grateful for your Lordships' approval.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he agree that the sentence for treason is also fixed by law?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sure that my noble and learned friend is right and I should not like to disagree with him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, if Amendment No. 4 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 5.
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, a magistrates' court shall not pass a custodial sentence on the offender unless it is of the opinion that the offence, or the combination of the offence and one other offence associated with it, was so serious that only such a sentence can be justified for the offence.
(2A) Subject to subsection (3) below, the Crown Court shall not pass a custodial sentence on the offender unless it is of the opinion.

(a) that the offence, or the combination of the offence and one other offence associated with it, was so serious that only such a sentence can he justified for the offence; or

(b) where the offence is a violent or sexual offence, that only such a sentence would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 9 and 13 which stand in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington and Lord Richard. It will be seen that these amendments have the support of noble Lords on each side of the House.
On Second Reading and again in Committee there was a general welcome for the sentencing reforms contained in Part I of the Bill. We have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that some amendments have now been accepted by the Government and they too are generally welcome. I believe however, that there are still flaws which are likely to inhibit the effectiveness of this part of the Bill when enacted. The first is the ambivalent handling of previous convictions. That matter is still unresolved. I shall look carefully at what the noble Earl said in moving the first group of amendments this afternoon, but I suspect that the extent to which previous convictions may be taken into account by sentencing judges will by no means be certain when.the Bill reaches the statute book.
The second flaw is the subject of the amendments now before us; that is, the attempt to resurrect the discredited notion of preventive detention for certain categories of sexual or violent offences. Amendments Nos. 4, 9 and 13 arise directly out of the debate we had in Committee on the provision which enables the courts to impose more severe sentences than the offence deserves on violent or sexual offenders where the courts judge it to be necessary in order to protect the public from serious harm. After studying the reply which the noble Earl gave on behalf of the Government in Committee—on that occasion the amendment sought to delete the power from the Bill—it became evident that what was troubling Ministers was the need for consistency between Clauses 1 and 2.
My noble friends in the All-Party Penal Affairs Group accept, however reluctantly, that the Committee decided, on a vote, to retain the power of the courts to impose more severe sentences than the offence justifies in certain cases. If I understand correctly the amendments which the House has just accepted, indictable offences will now also be brought within the scope of this provision which, at any rate, has the advantage of consistency behind it.
Therefore, we need to re-examine the wording of Clauses 1 and 2. I assure the House that these further amendments are a genuine attempt to relate the drafting more precisely to the Government's declared intentions.
If we begin with a proposition which we can all agree upon, namely, that it is a basic principle of justice that the severity of sentences should be proportionate to the just deserts of the offender, and if we are to enable courts to depart from that principle, I believe we must then agree that the circumstances in which they are allowed to do so should be carefully considered and spelled out. The limitations must be clearly understood and properly argued.
It is absurd to suggest that a short period of imprisonment of the length which magistrates may impose could effectively protect the public from serious harm. Serious harm is defined in the Bill as,
"death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological".
The topping up power, as it is known, applies to the magistrates' courts as well as to the Crown Court. In the magistrates' courts sentencing powers are limited to a period of six months' imprisonment. Remission of one half makes that effectively three months in custody. Magistrates may pass consecutive sentences, but only up to a total maximum of 12 months. Again, with half remission, that means a maximum period of six months in custody. It cannot seriously be argued that imprisonment for such short lengths of time can effectively protect the public from "death or serious personal injury".
When the Government first proposed in last year's White Paper, Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public, to empower courts to pass longer sentences than the offence deserves, it was explained that this exceptional power should be restricted to the Crown Court. The White Paper cited the example of an offender convicted of an offence of causing actual bodily harm which would normally merit a 12-month sentence. It said in paragraph 3.13 that under the proposed legislation,
"… the Crown Court could give a longer sentence, up to the maximum penalty of five years, if it considered this necessary to protect the public from the risk of serious harm from the offender".
The arguments for restricting the power to the Crown Court remain as powerful now as they were then. The facility to impose disproportionate sentences—for that is what they will be—is ostensibly limited to violent and sexual offences. That is the wording of the Bill. However, as the Bill is drafted there must be a risk that the breadth of the definition of a violent offence—in Clause 29 defined inter alia as an offence which is likely to lead to death or physical injury—would enable some magistrates to use the power in relation to offences which are in reality offences against property.
For example, magistrates could argue that cases of taking and driving away vehicles carried the risk of causing physical injury and could consequently pass disproportionate sentences on young people convicted only of taking and driving away. That would be very different from the public perception of a violent offence—generally regarded as being a serious matter—which would normally come before the Crown Court, and a far cry from the Government's original intention as set out in the White Paper to which I have referred.
Those are the reasons why the amendments would restrict to the Crown Court the power to impose more severe sentences on certain categories of offender than the offence would otherwise justify. The combined result of the three amendments on the Marshalled List would remove the power from the magistrates' courts, leaving it only with the Crown Court.
I doubt whether I am alone in continuing to find this power unnecessary and, indeed, objectionable. But the House in Committee decided on its retention

1487
and it would not be proper to return to that matter again on Report. The correct course of action is to look at the wording of the first two clauses taken together, ensuring that there is internal consistency, and relating the provisions in the Bill directly to the Government's intentions and explanations. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in supporting the amendments. What fundamental to them is the structure set out in the Bill. One starts with the basic principle, with which I am sure everybody in the House agrees, of "just deserts"—the principle that people should be sentenced in proportion to the offence that they committed. That is the starting point of any argument. If we move away from that and give courts powers to impose sentences which by definition are not proportionate but indeed are disproportionate to the offence of which the person was convicted, it is important to be certain of the circumstances in which we intend to do that. The Bill, at any rate in legal language, sought to do precisely that.
Clause 1 enables courts to impose custodial sentences even though the seriousness of the offence would not require custody. Clause 2 empowers courts to make sentences longer than the offence deserves. The relationship between on the one hand, the principle of just deserts and the derogation from that in the Bill and, on the other, the powers of the magistrates' courts, lies at the heart of the amendments.
We know that magistrates' courts have very limited powers. Normally their maximum sentence is six months. With remission of half the sentence we are therefore speaking of a three-month period of imprisonment. Even if magistrates impose consecutive sentences they can only go up to 12 months. With remission, therefore, we are again speaking of only six months. It is almost a distortion of language to argue that a three-month sentence imposed by the magistrates' court is one which is necessary to effectively protect the public from serious harm.
I remind the House that in the Bill serious harm is defined as,
"death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological".
In those circumstances if the powers of the magistrates' courts to protect the public from serious harm are as derisory as they are in the exercise of the powers that they already possess, why should the power be given to the magistrates' courts? By definition, if their powers are so limited then they will not be capable of imposing the sentences which the derogations in the Bill to the principle of just deserts were designed to catch.
It appears to me and to others who support the amendments that to confine that power to Crown Courts not only makes sense but also is very logical. That is the court which will deal with major crimes and the court which is capable of imposing sentences which may possibly protect the public from serious harm. I hope that the Government will take the view that confining the power to the Crown Court not only makes common sense at this stage of the passage of the
1488
Bill but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, pointed out, is very much in accordance with what I understood Government policy to have been until we saw the Bill in draft. I support the amendments.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, perhaps I might add a few words in support of the amendments, which I suggest to the House are overwhelming in the face of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham.
The trouble with the topping-up procedure is that we enter an area of sentencing where we are punishing someone for what they may do in the future rather than for what they have actually done. Once one enters into that area one brings into play as many subjective judgments as there are courts in the land. In the case of magistrates' courts, that means 28,000 subjective judgments.
By allowing the power to be used in relation to all sexual offences the Bill picks out the one type of offence which all modern research, common sense and experience shows is the most unsuitable for long custodial sentences except in the most appalling cases. There is a serious danger that magistrates' courts will justify wholly inappropriate custodial sentences for certain sexual offences that arouse emotional response and give rise to all kinds of irrational prejudices; for example, offences such as gross indecency or importuning for immoral purposes and so forth. I do not know whether the Minister will once again in this case display his ability to be not only a noble Earl but a listening Earl. If he is unable to accept the amendment I hope that he will agree to take it away and give it further thought.
Lord Renton: My Lords, at Committee stage my noble friend Lord Windlesham moved an amendment to remove from Clause 2 the reference to sexual and violent offences, which he deals with in Amendment No. 9, which is grouped with Amendment No. 4 and now under discussion. At Committee stage it was pointed out that we might very well have tried to remove violent or sexual offences from Clause 1. My noble friend has tabled amendments which are in effect a compromise compared with the argument that he put forward in Committee. The compromise is an improvement. I welcome that. But I regret that we are still singling out violent or sexual offences as offences against which the public needs protection from the offender, when there are a great many other offences which molest the public, especially old ladies living alone, where the offence is not violent or sexual.
However, taking it as one finds it, the amendment is an improvement. If it is agreed to, I may decide at Third Reading to move to amend the provision still further and delete subsection (2A) (b) and the equivalent provision in Clause 2.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I merely intervene to say that the issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, refers is the subject matter of Amendment No. 12. Therefore I shall say nothing about it until that amendment is reached.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, hopes that we shall listen. Of course we

1489
shall listen. I shall take careful note of what your Lordships say. We believe that the power to impose a custodial sentence should continue to be available to a magistrates' court as well as to the Crown Court for a violent or sexual offender in order to protect the public from serious harm from him. The reason is simple. There may be instances where a violent or sexual offence is not of itself serious enough to justify a custodial sentence but it may be a case where the public need protection from the offender and such a sentence will provide that protection.
My noble friend Lord Windlesham said that magistrates cannot impose a prison sentence long enough to protect the public. Clause 29 gives a definition for protecting the public,
"from death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological, occasioned by further such offences committed by him".
Let us consider for a moment the example of a motorist who may be convicted of reckless driving. In itself that may not be serious enough to warrant custody. The circumstances of the offence, and perhaps previous similar offences, may suggest that the motorist's driving is likely to cause serious injury to another driver or pedestrian. In that kind of case a custodial sentence would protect the public by taking the offender out of circulation. It would also be a fairly salutary experience for him.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will answer a question on a point of information. Is it likely that a serious offence of reckless driving would be prosecuted in the magistrates' court with the sentence also being passed in that court?
3.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know whether it is likely but it is possible. Those are the kinds of occasion where a custodial sentence could be appropriately available for the protection of the public. If we accept that a magistrates' court needs to be able to impose a custodial sentence for the protection of the public—some noble Lords do not accept that proposition—we have to consider how the court is to calculate the length of the sentence. If it is required to do so on the basis of the seriousness of the offence alone, it will have a problem if the offence is not serious enough to justify a custodial sentence. Logically it would have to impose a sentence of no months, which would be quite absurd.
Clause 2(2) (b) gets around the problem by allowing a magistrates' court to impose a longer sentence on a violent or sexual offender than the seriousness of the offence itself would warrant. The power of the magistrates' court to give a longer sentence in order to protect the public is limited by its general sentencing power to which my noble friend Lord Windlesham referred. The power of sentence is six months for a single offence or 12 months to run consecutively for two or more either way offences.
The example that I suggested to your Lordships would enable a magistrates' court to send a reckless driver to prison for up to six months. Under the proposals in Part II of the Bill three months would be
1490
spent in custody before release. I do not think it is a question of magistrates being able to lock people up for a long time. The important point is that the magistrates' court will be able to impose a custodial sentence which takes the offender out of circulation and the public is protected from him for the length of time he spends in custody, and also thereafter if the custodial sentence causes the offender to rethink his behaviour. That is the reason why we believe that it is correct to leave the Bill as it is.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble Earl wish to restrict his defence of the amendment to the example he gave of protecting the public in a case of reckless driving? Does not the statute enable the magistrates' court to protect the public in the most effective way by suspending the driving licence? Does he not agree that that is much more effective than putting an offender in prison for three months, six months or nine months?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that may be so. That is the trouble with giving an example—someone like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, then picks it to pieces. The fact is that the courts have that ability. We suggest that they should continue to have it. If the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was sitting in that court he might take the option which he described; another court might take a different option.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I wish to come to the defence of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, does not need to worry about a person being charged with reckless driving. I have recently been personally concerned with a case involving six cars. So far the Police and Criminal Evidence Act has made it possible that the young man concerned will not be charged with anything. Therefore, there is no danger that he will be put inside, although he should be. No one was killed but some people came very near to it.
I find a great deal of the argument unreal and that is why I have avoided becoming involved with the Bill. I know that I am in a minority in this House, but I do not believe that I am in a minority as regards the feelings of the general public. We have recently heard of a sexual offence which I believe was referred to as being of a minor nature. How can a sexual offence be anything other than what it is—an offence which deserves punishment?
I read recently about a young man who held up a bank because he wanted to help his father. Because the offender was so humble and wimpish the court felt sorry for him. The fact that he had gone to the bank with a gun did not seem to come into the matter. Another young man could not have a relationship with a woman so he went out and raped two people at night. I am sure that these examples are of a minor nature to a Law Lord who sits dispassionately discussing them here. However, they are not minor matters to the victims. We should think carefully when considering any kind of violent or sexual offence before providing an opportunity for the offender to commit that kind of crime again.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I was slightly disconcerted, and probably wrongly so, by the example of reckless driving. I have looked at the definition in Clause 29. I can see why my noble friend referred to it in that sense but I very much question whether reckless driving as such is necessarily a violent offence at all. If I were charged—as I hope I never shall be—with driving under the influence of alcohol or with an excessive amount of alcohol in my blood, the matter could, if my noble friend is right, equally come within the words of Clause 29. I believe that violence must involve an element in the actual charge of an offence. It must involve the use of violence and not of something reckless in the sense in which it has been defined by this House in the case of Caldwell and in the case of Lawrence. I hope that my noble friend will take that into account. I may be talking nonsense but I do not think that I am.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like to—
Lord Elton: My Lords, while the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is considering whether to return to the charge, it seems to me that we are being led slightly aside from the issue. I say that because my noble friend was doing what I have often done in the past. I refer to illustrating a principle with perhaps not the most apposite of illustrations. However, the principle that we are seeking to define and to decide on is whether the court in the cases that we all have in mind—not necessarily dangerous driving—should have the option which the Bill provides or whether it should be removed as the amendment provides.
I say that merely as a layman. My noble friend was kind enough to thank me for an idea I had on the first group of amendments. That gave me particular pleasure because I am not now in order and neither is he. When I see him in difficulty, therefore, I have a natural affinity with him which perhaps some noble Lords d a not share.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may be permitted to speak again. My noble friend Lord Elton is entirely right—although I am not referring to what he said about coming to the help of his noble friend, for which I am grateful—to say that I used an example in order to illustrate a position. We tend to get our eyes off the main point and go down the track of whether an example used was a good one. I gave the example only because some cases of reckless driving will fall within the definition of violent offences in Clause 29(1). The suspension of a driving licence just does not work if the person is driving while he is already suspended, as happens in a good many cases. We must not get unduly drawn down that track.
Obviously noble Lords feel concerned about this but I think the Government are right. However, without giving any undertaking or guarantee that I shall change anything, I shall certainly consider what noble Lords have said if that is a help to the House.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, I welcome those heartening words of the noble Earl. The conclusion of this short debate is that the limited sentencing powers of the magistrates' courts are incompatible with the
1492
objective the Government are pursuing. Whether we regard the objective as desirable or not is another question and one we disposed of at Committee stage. Sentencing powers are so limited in the magistrates' courts, and the offences towards which these provisions are directed are so serious that the proper place for them to be tried is in the Crown Court. Indeed, the Government seemed to have accepted that proposition in the amendments carried half an hour ago whereby the topping-up provision is to be extended from offences triable either way to those triable only on indictment.
I am glad the noble Earl has said that he and the Home Secretary are prepared to reconsider this matter, without commitment, before Third Reading. I do not wish to rehearse the arguments again. I simply remind the House, and the noble Earl, that the magistrates' courts were not included in the scope of this provision in the Government's White Paper; nor, with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was this power extended to the magistrates' courts when the Bill was published. It was an addition at Report stage in the House of Commons. I made some inquiries, lest my honourable friends on the Government Benches had a burning zeal for this change to be made in Committee in another place. I was told this was not so. It was added by the Home Office in the interests of consistency of drafting.
The House has now amended quite substantially the wording of Clauses 1 and 2 in the amendments which have been passed this afternoon. That is a further reason why the Minister may wish to look again at this proposal to see whether the references to the magistrates' courts might be deleted without damaging the Government's policy objectives. Having made that plea, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("one other offence") and insert ("other offences").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, during the latter part of our Committee proceedings I apologised for not raising on the first day of Committee the amendments of the kind I am raising now. I was out of the jurisdiction. I was going to repeat my apologies yet again but the noble Earl has disarmed me by the extent of the amendments which he has caused to be inserted and which we passed at the outset of our proceedings today.
Perhaps I may read straight away the relevant part of the clauses before developing my amendments. Clause 1(2) reads as follows:
"Subject to subsection (3) below"—
with which we need not worry at this stage—
"the court shall not pass a custodial sentence on the offender unless it is of the opinion—
(a) that the offence, or the combination of the offence"—
and I now stress these words—
"and one other offence associated with it, was so serious that only such a sentence can be justified for the offence".
Clause 29, on page 20, sets out a number of definitions. Six lines from the bottom of the page we find out what an offence associated means. Subsection (2) states:

1493
"For the purposes of this Part, an offence is associated with another if—
(a) the offender is convicted of it in the proceedings in which he is convicted of the other offence, or (although convicted of it in earlier proceedings) is sentenced for it at the same time as he is sentenced for that offence; or".
I pause there to say that a classic example would be where a person has pleaded guilty to one or more offences and has contested one or more other offences and they are then tried. Subsection (2) continues:
(b) the offender admits the commission of it in the proceedings in which he is sentenced for the other offence and requests the court to take it into consideration in sentencing him for that offence".
It is thus perfectly clear that the only aggregation that can be taken into account in deciding on the seriousness of an offence is one other offence other than the offence with which he stands convicted. When it comes to taking into consideration outstanding offences—the so-called TICs—only one of those—it may be one out of 50—can be taken into account when considering the seriousness of the offence.
I make these introductory observations first. I have said on more than one occasion that I am wholeheartedly in favour of as few people going to prison as one can properly so manage. I accept, as we all do, that prison is very rarely of any reformative assistance, even though 25 years ago we were told exactly the opposite by criminologists. It is counter-productive.
I entirely accept that the Government are entitled —in no way do I resist this—to impose whatever framework they consider to be appropriate for the sentencing activity. I have made those preliminary observations in the hope of perhaps escaping or toning down the usual "Lullington laments" to which I am almost invariably subjected.
In Standing Committee in another place the Minister of State, Mr. John Patten, said:
"The Bill is not an exercise in trying to empty our prisons. Instead, it is designed to ensure that defenders are punished correctly on conviction—those that should go to prison, go to prison; while those who should not be punished in prison, are punished outside".
I accept all of that, so far as concerns the philosophy. However, I am concerned about how one applies the philosophy that a person should get the just deserts for the offences—I put it in the plural—which he has committed if one cannot deal with the multiple offender (and there are many of them about) save on the basis that you take two offences out of a possible four, 10 or 20 or, as an alternative and not in addition, you take one of the offences which he has asked to be taken into consideration. I have already accepted that Parliament must be entitled to impose a framework on sentencing. However, if it imposes a distorted framework it will receive distorted results from the judges, who will have no alternative.
Perhaps I may invite noble Lords to consider two quite simple examples. For the person who steals repetitively or who acts dishonestly in relation to the Department of Social Security, the ordinary method of prosecuting him is to take one or two specimen charges. Of course, each one may only be a matter of £5 because he does it every week, and he may have
1494
been doing so for a period of more than three years. What can one do in such a case? In considering the seriousness of the offence—in other words, in considering whether he should go to prison—one can only look at £10-worth of theft; that is, two of the specimen charges. One cannot take into account the fact that he has asked for 50 offences to be taken into consideration.
However, if one feels somewhat unsympathetic towards the DSS, one can consider the example of a case between the ordinary employer and employee. Let us imagine that a man has had the practice of stealing £100 per week from his employer. In all he has stolen £10,000. What is the judge to do now under this framework? All he is entitled to do, as the employee will be charged with one or more specimen counts, is to say, "I shall sentence you for stealing £200 from your employer and that is all I can do in regard to considering the seriousness of your offence. Of course, on that basis I shall not send you to prison. I give you a conditional discharge". If that is how the legislation is to work then, with the greatest respect to Mr. John Patten, this is an exercise in trying to empty our prisons.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships another example, always in the knowledge that if one refers to anything which has any sexual content one is immediately in the firing line. However, let us assume that a person in trust over a substantial period has been involved with an indecency of not the most serious kind—I choose my words here with care—such that a judge may think, because the defendant has not been in trouble before, that if one takes merely two of the indecent assaults one should not send him to prison. However, the evidence establishes the fact that this has been going on for three years. If one considers the offences over a period of three years, there would be total unanimity that the defendant should go to prison for a substantial period. A judge who did not send such a defendant to prison would be the subject matter of a press attack, which one can imagine, followed by demands for his resignation.
Therefore, is not this framework such that it will be productive of distortions? How are the Government contemplating that a judge, in considering the seriousness of offences for the purpose of imposing or not imposing a custodial sentence, is to deal with the multiple offender? That is the reason behind these amendments. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I believe that the House will recognise the sincerity of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in saying that he is very much in favour of keeping people out of prison and that prison is counter-productive. Therefore, any argument on the amendment will not be based upon any supposition that he feels any other way. Indeed, the same applies to anyone who may support him.
There is another side to the picture. It is one which has been considered by the Court of Appeal, as the noble and learned Lord will well realise. I refer to the injustice of putting together what may be pitiful

1495
offences involving very little money or property and adding up the total until it becomes, if committed as a single crime, a serious offence.
We had a similar experience—indeed, it is almost a complete parallel—in the way we have dealt with young offenders. I see that the noble and learned Lord wishes to intervene. I am happy for him to do so.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. The jurisprudence on this particular aspect of sentencing is, as I understand it, perfectly clear: a judge who adds up offence by offence and then says that the total is x months or x years, is acting quite contrary to the established principles of sentencing; he must stand back and look at the situation a in total.
Having reached the stage of "anecdotage", perhaps I may be allowed to tell noble Lords that when I first went out on Circuit I had the advantage of a WO1—that is, a Warrant Officer 1—as a clerk. On one occasion there was a punch-up between the police and some gypsies. The police put forward 15 different counts, including one concerned with using an offensive weapon; namely, a beer bottle. That was the one offence which the Welsh jury would not tolerate. However, in the end, I gave the accused person a sentence of 15 months. I gave him so much on each count, but each sentence was concurrent. When I asked my clerk whether he thought that I had given the accused too much he said, "No, I do not think so". In looking through my judge's book the next day I noticed that he had written down each of the sentences and added them up; the total was 144 months. That is precisely what one is not allowed to do, unless one wants to have the sentence immediately upset in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the problem with allowing the noble and learned Lord to intervene, as a matter of courtesy, is that one's audience has completely forgotten what the speaker said before the intervention. I was saying, with due respect to the noble and learned Lord, that there was a similar position with regard to young offenders. The Court of Appeal has looked at the words:
"so serious that the non-custodial sentence for it cannot be justified".
That is the wording with which the court is faced when dealing with young offenders. In several cases the Court of Appeal has held that what one has to do—I concede this at once to the noble and learned Lord—is to look at each individual case and not to tot them up. That principle has enabled the Court of Appeal to put right sentences which have been imposed by a lower court.
I shall refer your Lordships to two cases, both of which occurred in 1989. They are both reported in 11 Criminal Appeal Reports. One of them was R. v. Thompson. There the court overturned a custodial sentence on a young woman with no previous convictions who had committed a number of individual small offences with someone else's cheque book and credit card. Adding them up, the figure of
1496
£1,000 was reached. Individually they were small offences. The court said that it was wrong in those circumstances to impose a custodial sentence.
The other case is R. v. Davison. There the Court of Appeal overturned a custodial sentence which had been imposed on a teenage boy who had no previous convictions. He had carried out a number of burglaries of commercial premises and had stolen property with an aggregate value of £500. In each of those cases, if the Court of Appeal had not held that the offences should be looked at individually, it would have upheld the custodial sentences.
As I understand it, the Government were faced with the argument that to be consistent one cannot look collectively at what has happened before, or contemporaneously with, a crime that has been committed. To cover that point, as I understand it, a compromise has been reached in which it is said that one other offence—that would obviously be the most serious offence—together with the offence at the conviction of which the sentencing court is now looking, can be taken into account when deciding whether custody is to be the proper punishment.
To return to another situation such as the noble and learned Lord would like to have—namely, that all other offences can be taken into account and looked at collectively when deciding that custody should be imposed—we believe that that would be wrong. In the circumstances, we on these Benches oppose the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment. The reasons and examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in effect vindicate the framework of the exercise of judicial discretion as at present exercised. With the greatest respect to him, to me at all events—I am not trying to be impish about this—they appear to support the case put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
If, as the Bill as drafted proposes, we are going to change the sentencing regime so that in DSS frauds, shoplifting and other repetitive cases, or burglary cases with sometimes 12 or 15 offences taken into consideration, the judge can consider only one offence, we are moving into an unrealistic world. The public cannot see that justice is done in those circumstances. If we shackle and fetter the judges, they cannot provide justice. I do not know what might happen.
When one is asked to settle an indictment—I did it many years ago—one takes sample counts, and if one is representing the Crown one opens the case to the jury on those sample counts. If the Bill is to stand as proposed, without the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, we shall have overloaded indictments containing about 10 counts, because although the other counts with which the defendant is charged can be referred to, none save one can be referred to. I am aware that all examples, in a sense, are useless and restrictive, but that is a practical situation. When I was young I drafted indictments, and I wonder how people will go about that now. Shall we have overloaded indictments so that the Crown can

1497
at least discharge its duty to the public; so that the judges can sentence on the overloaded indictment; and a form of justice can be done, according to the extant judicial traditions which are good and not open to question?
I ask my noble friend the Minister to think again, because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, had vast practical experience of these matters at the Bar on the Western Circuit and as a judge. With the greatest respect to my noble friend the Minister, departments of state have no practical experience.
Lord Havers: My Lords, one of the great difficulties in sentencing is to ensure that realism applies. The amendment asks us to apply realism. It is essential that when the judge comes to sentence he is not put into a false position of having two offences only on which to sentence when in reality there may be 20 to which the offender has pleaded guilty or has had taken into consideration. For that reason, as realism is essential in sentencing, I shall support the amendment.
Lord Roskill: My Lords, when moving the previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said that over the years Parliament and the courts had been ambivalent on the subject of courts referring to previous convictions when passing sentence. Some of us began to be involved in the sentencing process when the relevant statute was the Criminal Justice Act 1947, which Mr. Attlee's government, of which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was a distinguished member, put upon the statute book. That Act required the courts in many cases to have regard to previous convictions, especially in cases which required sentences of what were then corrective training and preventive detention. The result was, as some of us pointed out at the time, that far longer sentences were being imposed for trivial offences, taken in the aggregate, than any court ought reasonably to have been asked to impose.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is absolutely right in what he has just said, but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers, said, the problem is pragmatic. When passing sentence one must get a result in the end which the public will see as a just result in that case. With profound respect to the philosophy which lies behind the clause as it stands, if a sentence is passed which reflects only two offences out of a multitude, I do not believe that anyone will accept that justice has been done in that case.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, mentioned the practical point on indictments. In our Court of Appeal days some of us made caustic comments about overloading indictments in criminal cases and suggested that it was quite sufficient to take sample counts because the others could have been dealt with on what, to use lawyers' shorthand, were known as TICs. It seems that that will be quite impossible, unless I misread the Bill.
It is quite absurd in these cases, I venture to suggest, to tie the hands of the court in order to produce a solution which is wholly unrealistic. Nobody in their senses wishes to send somebody to prison unnecessarily. But there is another side to the problem. The
1498
courts must not be prevented from sending people to prison when looked at as a whole—to borrow the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—the case demands that a custodial sentence should be passed. I venture to urge the noble Earl to re-examine this to see whether he can work out a better pragmatic solution which meets the points that have been made in support of the amendment as well as preserving the principle that one does not wish to sentence somebody solely upon his record.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too support the amendment. The only point I wish to add concerns the TICs. For the benefit of lay Members of your Lordships' House, that means offences taken into consideration. When the accused is in custody the police officer asks him about a large, or even a small, number of other offences which have come to the notice of the police and which they have reason to believe he may have committed. They say to him, "Look here, if you have committed any of these, you may ask the court to take them into consideration when you come before it on the charge with which you have been indicted". It is made clear by the court when taking those offences into consideration that the accused will not on any subsequent occasion be charged with and sentenced for any of those offences. Therefore it is to the advantage of the accused that we should not exclude consideration of the offences.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, pointed out, it is a matter of justice to the accused that all the circumstances relating to him should be considered once and for all in the case before the court. However, if the Bill remains as it is, it may well be that only half the matters which the accused has a right to have taken into consideration will be considered.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I sincerely hope that the House will reject the amendment. I am afraid that what I have referred to on previous occasions as "the heavy mob" have come forth. With the success on Amendment No. 1, we have had to wait only an hour or so for the backlash to start; it has begun. I do not know about the "Lullington lament"; it has been highly successful, having gone on so long, in achieving acceptance of Amendment No. 1 to the Bill. I for one prefer it to what I may call the "Judicial dirge".
The noble and learned Lord wishes to return to the status quo. That is the purpose of the amendment, which is perfectly clear. All the old tricks of advocacy which one has seen so often of spending the first five minutes on praising the principle and the last three on undermining it have been displayed to the House. The whole purpose of Part I of the Bill—as I see it, the underlying message of the Bill—is that at long last courts when sentencing people should focus on the seriousness of the charge before them. That is the purpose of the Bill to begin with: to focus on the offence or offences which are before the court in accordance with the principle which we already know so well. Courts should cease to sentence offenders on their record, and cease to justify longer and longer

1499
sentences for offences which are taken into consideration or on subjective judgments about what the person may do in the future.
There seems to me to be a confusion between the two clauses. I thought that we were dealing with Clause 1 on the question of what justifies the court in passing a custodial sentence. That is the question. Later in Clause 2 we come to the length of the sentence, which is another matter. Clause 2(2) (a) states that once a court has decided that it is justified:
"A custodial sentence … shall be … for such term … as in the opinion of the court is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, or the combination of the offence and other offences associated with it".
The court takes all those matters into account in deciding the seriousness of the offence and therefore the length of sentence.
All we are discussing here is the preliminary decision on whether a custodial sentence is justified. The answer to the noble and learned Lord's amendment and his examples of the social services and so on is for the charge to be properly laid. That is the point. The answer is for the indictment to contain the proper charges before the court. When it comes to sentencing, those charges or counts on the indictment can be dealt with.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I know he has practical experience of this also on the Western Circuit. Is he really advocating a return to the overloaded indictments which were discouraged about 15 years ago by the Court of Criminal Appeal? Does he advocate that?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Not at all, my Lords. If only the prosecuting authorities could use a little common sense, there is no requirement to overload the indictment. All that is necessary is to put the proper charges in the proper counts in the indictment which will enable the court to deal with the charges before it. There should not be a whole mass of stuff brought in as offences to be taken into consideration.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I think quite uncharacteristically he overlooks Clause 29(2), which states that an offence which is associated includes the case where,
"the offender is convicted of it in the proceedings in which he is convicted of the other offence".
Thus under Clause 29, as I understand it—and I should be grateful for the noble Lord's views—if the indictment contains six offences, in order to decide whether to send the person to prison, one can choose one offence and one extra charge, and that is all—two out of the six.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I do not find any difficulty in this. One can go on discussing and arguing, I suppose, until doomsday. If the noble and learned Lord cannot understand the principle upon which this Bill is based, one cannot go on and on explaining it. I fully appreciate that the judiciary will find the greatest difficulty in understanding the limitations this Bill puts upon their sentencing powers.
1500
So far as I am concerned—and I take the view that a great many people on this side of the House would take—I believe that it is of overwhelming importance that the philosophy behind this Bill should be observed by the courts. If the courts are limited in this way, so be it. The noble and learned Lord disclosed his train of thought in using the words:
"in deciding the seriousness of the offence, that is, whether the person should go to prison".
That is not the way from now on that the courts will look upon matters. There are serious ways of dealing with serious offences in this Bill which have nothing to do with prison. The trouble is that still the judiciary approach the seriousness of an offence on the basis of whether or not the person should go to prison. There are now other forms of sentence which are just as demanding of the accused person as the useless sentence of imprisonment. For quite serious offences there are other sentences now outside prison which are just as useful as prison and far more effective. If only the judiciary would appreciate that, as I am sure they will when they come to use their powers in accordance with this Bill, then at last we would be getting somewhere as regards reducing the number of people in prison and not sending so many people to prison for such long sentences.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, what a cheerful experience it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, involved in disagreement and discourse with noble and learned Lords: that gives one great encouragement. This has been a very interesting debate, with a number of differing views being portrayed. I thought I had an ally in the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, when he said that he agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but having gone to the left he then, as it were, turned to the right. That, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, had predicted, sometimes happens.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, paid me a great compliment for which I am deeply appreciative, by saying that I had disarmed him. I am not aware of ever having done that to any noble and learned Lord, least of all to one of the stature of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. However, I am bound to say that momentarily my chest inflated about two inches. It soon went back to normal and even into reverse, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, proceeded to produce his customary and highly persuasive argument.
Before I comment specifically on the amendment, perhaps I may amplify a little what we really mean by the expression "one other offence" which rather exercised the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and others so much. It is quite understandable for people to think at first sight that this restriction to "one other offence" looks somewhat arbitrary and rather odd. It raises the question of whether the Bill is really saying that if there is more than one other offence the remaining offences have to be ignored. Indeed that was the thrust of the noble and learned Lord's argument.
To understand the significance of the provision I think it is helpful to remind ourselves of its origin. It lies in Section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, as substituted by Section 123 of the Criminal Justice Act

1501
1988. This provision prevents a court from passing a custodial sentence on a young offender unless one of three conditions is met. The third of these is that
"the offence of which he has been convicted"
is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified for it.
The courts have, however, had difficulty in applying this provision where the offender has committed more than one offence. Its effect in this case is that each offence must be considered individually, and that a custodial sentence cannot be given if no single offence justified it.
The Bill in Clause 1 subsection (2)(a) recognises and responds to the concerns which have been expressed about the existing provision in the 1982 and 1988 Acts. But it does so—and this is where perhaps I part company with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—in a way which does not allow the courts to aggregate a whole series of very minor offences to justify a custodial sentence. Our view is that people who commit minor offences, even if committed in considerable numbers, should not necessarily be sent to prison. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, agreed with that. They should receive community sentences which are supposed to help them to tackle their offending behaviour rather than go to prison, where they can learn how to commit more serious offences in the future.
I recognise that there are bound to be borderline cases. That is what the reference to "one other offence" is meant to address. I shall give an example, although I am nervous of doing so even though the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on this occasion may be travelling down the same track as myself. We encounter a problem if an offender has committed two or more relatively serious offences but they may be ones which are not quite serious enough individually to justify a custodial sentence. Each of those offences would justify a very stiff community penalty: perhaps a combination order with additional requirements. But there is a limit to what practicably can be demanded of an offender serving a community sentence. You cannot simply go on piling one community sentence on top of another in an attempt to give an adequate penalty for several quite serious offences. A point is reached where a custodial sentence has to be given.
By specifying in subsection (2)(a) that a custodial sentence can be given if the offence, or one other offence which may be associated with it, is serious enough to justify it we feel we can ensure that the courts can take the existence of a second offence into consideration when passing a custodial sentence. But the two offences concerned would have to be relatively serious individually before, taken together, they would justify a custodial sentence. If both offences were very minor they could not, even when added together, justify a custodial sentence. The provision therefore allows a second offence to tip the balance between a custodial sentence and a community penalty in a borderline case, but it does not allow very minor offences to be aggregated simply in order to justify custody.
1502
Of course the same arguments apply in respect of the noble and learned Lord's proposed amendment to Clause 5. I fear that it might lead to the inappropriate use of community sentences when really a fine would be more appropriate, if the offender was convicted of several minor offences which could perfectly well be dealt with by a fine. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in what I thought was one of his most persuasive arguments, asked about the fellow who has been pinching £100 every single week and his total aggregate of such "pinching", if I may use the word, amounted to £10,000. He would only be able to be sentenced for £200. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, were to look, as indeed I am sure he has done, at Clause 3(2)(a), it says that a court:
"(a) shall take into account all such information about the circumstances of the offence (including any aggravating or mitigating factors) as is available to it".
Those may well include the fact that the offences were planned, were persistent and were committed in breach of trust. That would cover the dishonest employee or the person who abuses trust to interfere with children in his or her care. Although I hate to suggest that the noble and learned Lord might reconsider, I believe that the case that he mentioned is already covered by the Bill.
While I understand the reasoning behind the noble and learned Lord's amendment I hope that he in turn will be able to see that in the Bill we have tried to avoid putting people in custody unnecessarily. To put them into custody as a result simply of aggregating a number of minor offences would be wrong. However, if a person commits two dreadful offences, neither of which itself is suitable for a custodial sentence but which together may be suitable for a custodial sentence, we feel that the Bill ought to allow for that.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by dealing with one or two of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. He referred to the amendments made at the outset today which bring in the whole field of criminal law. I did not rise to congratulate or in any way to criticise, for this one very simple reason. Until those amendments were made the situation proposed by the Government was quite unworkable. One would have had a person with one foot in one form of sentencing system which was triable either way and, yet with another offence, with his other foot in the non-statutory system. There would be two or three people who were part in and part out of the system. It was wholly unworkable. The speed with which that has at last been recognised in this House is a compliment to the House.
My next point is that I am wholly aware that I am referring to Clause 1. Clause 1 deals with the qualification for a custodial sentence. Clause 2 deals with the length of that sentence once one has qualified. Under the present situation one can envisage this bizarre situation in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. There is an appeal against a sentence of 10 years. The Court of Appeal says that under Clause 2, having regard to all that the offender has done, 10 years is perfectly right. However, under Clause 1 only

1503
two offences should have been aggregated and it was quite wrong for the offender to go to prison at all. That is the situation that could occur in this case.
The origin of the situation is very simple. It is a form of compromise forced upon the Government by the hopeless muddle that resulted from the Criminal Justice Acts of 1982 and 1988. That was pointed out in the else of R. v. Howard, for which I have the transcript dated 24th August 1990. Under the legislation which applied to young persons one could have regard only to the seriousness of the offence. There was no question of any aggregation.
In that particular case the offence was an attempted burglary. The accused was out on bail. While out on bail he no doubt thought that he should save up for the inevitable custody. This time he did not attempt a domestic burglary— he succeeded. When he came up before the Crown Court judge he asked for that offence to be taken into consideration. The learned judge took it into consideration and sent him to prison. The case went up to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal said that he could not do that; the statute does not allow it. The opening words of the judgment are these:
"The sentencing policies to be adopted in respect of young offenders is a matter of paramount public importance. Parliament has in recent years tried to spell out these policies in some detail. Section I of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 attempted to grapple with the problem. It is a matter of history that the proper construction of that provision caused great difficulties in practice. There were second thoughts."
That was in the 1988 Act. It went on:
"Unfortunately, on this occasion, those second thoughts were not demonstrably better thoughts. By section 123 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 the sentencing code in respect of persons under the age of 21 was amended in a number of respects. In March 1988 Dr. David Thomas, a distinguished commentator, warned that the new provision if enacted would give rise to a wide range of legal difficulties and that the time of the criminal courts would be consumed more with discussing the details of the statutory requirements than with the general merits of the case. See Current Legal Problems 1988 … That prediction has been fulfilled".
In dealing with the court's inability to uphold a perfectly sensible sentence which took into account the offence committed while on bail the court pointed out that is could not do so. Only the one offence was the qualifying offence. The court added these comments:
"Inevitably this will produce results which would affront the good sense of right-thinking persons; but it is the law. It follows that it was not permissible in this case to take into account the combined effect of the attempted burglary and the completed burglary".
It was in order to compromise on that situation that the Government have said that in future one can add on one offence and—as an alternative, but one cannot do both—one can add one case which the accused asks to be taken into consideration.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give way? I am very much obliged to him. In that case did not the court disapprove of a court seeking to take into consideration an offence which was more serious than the offence before the court and advise prosecuting authorities to put the offence properly in the indictment if they wanted it to be dealt with?
Lord Ackner: My Lords, not that I can recall. It pointed out that if the offence of this kind occurred in future it was hopeless to use it as an offence to be taken into consideration. Therefore it would have to be charged separately as an offence. However, that does not help in this case because, as I indicated, Clause 29 says that the associated offence includes the offence which is tried and convicted along with the leading offence.
As it is clear that the Government are firmly committed to their present policy and there is no prospect of any yielding on a matter which is of fundamental importance to the just administration of justice and to the philosophy of just deserts, I have no alternative but to seek to test the opinion of the House.
4.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 183.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L. [Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

Acton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lowry, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Nathan, L.

Carnock, L.

Nelson, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Palmer, L.

Craigavon, V.

Phillips, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renton, L. [Teller.]

Faithfull, B.

Roskill, L.

Fortescue, E.

Shannon, E.

Halsbury, E.

Swansea, L.

Havers, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Airedale, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Aldington, L.

Coleraine, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Ampthill, L.

Colwyn, L.

Ardwick, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Astor, V. [Teller.]

Cudlipp, L.

Attlee, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Auckland, L.

David, B.

Aylestone, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Belstead, L.

Denham, L.

Bessborough, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Birk, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dundee, E.

Blake, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Blatch, B.

Elles, B.

Blyth, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ennals, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Ferrers, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Fitt, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Flather, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Caithness, E.

Glenamara, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Grey, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hampton, L.

Carter, L.

Hanworth, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Harlech, L.

1505

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Parry, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Harvington, L.

Pender, L.

Haslam, L.

Peston, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Henley, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hives, L.

Pym, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Hood, V.

Rea, L.

Hooper, B.

Reay, L.

Howe, E.

Renwick, L.

Hughes, L.

Richard, L.

Hunt, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Rochester, L.

Hylton, L.

Rodney, L.

Ingrow, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Jeger, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Savile, L.

Joseph, L.

Seear, B.

Kimball, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shackleton, L.

Knollys, V.

Sharples, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Listowel, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stallard, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stedman, B.

Long, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Longford, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strange, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Sudeley, L.

McNair, L.

Suffield, L.

Mancroft, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mar, C.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Marsh, L.

Teviot, L.

Melville, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Merrivale, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Mersey, V.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Middleton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mishcon, L.

Trumpington, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Morris, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Vinson, L.

Mottistone, L.

Waddington, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mulley, L.

Whaddon, L.

Munster, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Nicol, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Norfolk, D.

Windlesham, L.

Orkney, E.

Winstanley, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Young, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.57 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 15, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment has been spoken to with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Length of custodial sentences]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 27 and insert:
("(1) This section applies where a court passes a custodial sentence other than one fixed by law.
1506
(2) The custodial sentence").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No.1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 have been pre-empted.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 27, at end insert ("suitable for the offender and shall be—").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should say at once that I attach great importance to this amendment. I know that the House is in a state of rush and bustle, but I hope that noble Lords will calm themselves for a moment to consider the amendment.
The amendment seeks to ensure that, when a custodial sentence is passed, it should be "suitable for the offender". Those words themselves sound suitable and innocuous. They come from Clause 5(2). There it is laid down that:
"where a court passes a community sentence … [it] shall be such as in the opinion of the court is … the most suitable for the offender"
Those are the best words that I can offer. It does not mean that no better words could possibly be provided perhaps at the next stage.
The main purpose of my amendment, if not quite the only purpose, is to make sure that the principle of rehabilitation of offenders—people do not like that word, so I shall say the principle of reformation of prisoners—is included in the Bill and shall govern our sentencing for years to come.
In a book published last year the former Archbishop of Canterbury, the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, referred to his sorrow over what he called the current rejection of the rehabilitative ideal. I think we should pause for a moment and ask ourselves why someone like the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, is able to say that now the idea of rehabilitation is apparently rejected. There is no doubt that the rehabilitative idea—the idea of reforming prisoners as part of the punishment—has been battered about. It has had a good deal of knocking about from various quarters in recent years—some of them quite enlightened quarters, some not. There is much wider scepticism than when some of the older Members of this House first became involved in penal matters about the possibilities of using prison as a reformative agency. Very few people—one has said it many times over the years—if they wanted someone of whom they were fond to be reformed, would start by sending him to prison. So there is certainly a difficulty about reforming people in prison. Nevertheless, in my opinion, having lost sight of the idea of trying to reform people in prison, we are on a very bad and slippery slope.
In recently preparing a book (about which I shall not say any more now) I interviewed a number of experts. I shall quote three of them for the purpose of supporting my amendment. Peter Timms, now the Reverend Peter Timms, a former governor of Maidstone Prison, and David Evans, General Secretary of the Prison Officers' Association told me

1507
emphatically that the reformation of prisoners has not failed because it has never been tried. Judge Tumim, the much admired Chief Inspector of Prisons, argued to me, as he has argued so many times elsewhere, that all punishment in prison should be a form of training. That is another way of stating the same issue.
In my eyes it would be a tragedy if this Bill became law without the ideal of reform or rehabilitation of prisoners being re-affirmed, whether or not those particular words are the best available. As we all know, the Government are concentrating their emphasis on retribution under its new name of just deserts. As I have told this House before, I advocated retribution 30 years ago in a small book that I wrote about punishment at a time when it was far less fashionable than now. But I have never suggested that retribution should be the exclusive principle. I have always argued, as I do today, that it should be an element. It certainly does not rule out the place of reformation, as seems to be the case in the present Bill unless we modify it.
I cannot refrain from quoting something that the Reverend Peter Timms, the former governor of Maidstone Prison, said to me when he gave me his views:
"Fort the first time, the Prison Department now displays in every prison waiting-room and meeting room, a beautiful coloured plaque which says: Her Majesty's Prison Service serves the public by keeping in custody those committed by the courts. Our duty is to look after them with humanity and"
now come the words that I want to stress—
"to help them lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and after release"—
in other words, much better lives than most of them were leading previously.
So the reformative ideal must be kept alive in the prison service. I submit that not to do so would be a betrayal of members of the prison service and all that they are trying to do among nearly 50,000 prisoners; and also a betrayal of many others working for the same ideal. There is no indication in this Bill at all of the desire of the community to reform prisoners. There is a good deal more that I could say about the principle of just deserts, which is full of ambiguities, but I hope that I have said enough. Either we treat this as a fundamental issue and make up our minds in favour of it, or we abandon for all time the idea of reforming prisoners, which has sustained the work of so many for so long. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I support this amendment but perhaps for not quite the same reasons as the noble Earl put forward in moving it. I find it extremely difficult to believe that prison is a place in which anybody can be reformed in the general meaning of the word reform. If we wanted to reform ourselves or anybody else, the last place that we would choose would be a prison. However, there are some exceptions to that general statement. The first is the kind of activity which goes on in Grendon Prison, which all those who have had any contact with it will agree is most impressive. If there were more prisons like Grendon, with arrangements for women as well as for men, it would be a very realistic step in the direction in which the noble Earl wants to go.
1508
More than that, I want once again to draw your Lordships' attention to what I understand goes on in Germany where, since the changes made in 1975, there are two primary purposes in sentencing: security; that is, the protection of the public, which must be a primary purpose of prison; and training. It does not make sense that the time people spend in prison should be totally wasted, as it is today. We must bring our minds round to finding ways of real training—not the marginal training that goes on at present which is unrelated to the prospect of employment, but proper training done by people who are properly qualified to train. It must be done in conjunction with employers who see the possibility of using the people who have had that training and so ensure that there is a real possibility of work and earnings for people leaving prison. In my view that is the nearest that we are likely to come to any effective practical reform inside prisons. Surely we should remind ourselves of that and, in putting this clause into the Bill, look again at what could be done.
Very interesting work is already starting. For instance, Pentonville has such a scheme in operation with collaboration from employers and skilled people going into prisons to do the training. Training, therefore, is not just done as an ancillary job by people when they have a little time to spare; it is a real, major objective. It seems to me that that is the kind of consideration for the prisoners and their rehabilitation which means that when they are released they can operate as citizens among other citizens.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I support the thrust of my noble friend's amendment. I am not sure that the wording of the amendment and its proposed position in the Bill are totally apt in order to achieve the purpose that he intends. The aim of the amendment is to reiterate in the Bill that part of the objectives of the criminal justice system and of imprisonment is reformation, retraining and rehabilitation. I believe that the Government may be able to accept the principle at this stage and thereafter consider the most appropriate position in the Bill for some such statement to be made. I support my noble friend's main proposition that the Bill is silent on the point and should not remain so.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, one would like to support what is an interesting amendment. Does the noble Earl who moved it envisage the court deciding in each case the suitability of the disposal in relation to the person? In other words, will the court say, "This defendant should go to this prison and not to that prison. This person should go to Grendon and not elsewhere. This is a sex offender; he should not go to this prison where everyone who is a sex offender receives the most terrible treatment", and so on. Is that what is envisaged in the amendment? If so, it introduces a concept that I would support. For a long time it has seemed to me that one of the difficulties about sentencing is that the sentencer is ignorant of the different institutions and what goes on in them. He does not spend nearly enough time investigating and visiting those institutions. At present the sentencer is

1509
not able to send someone to one institution rather than another. If that were possible, it might be one of the greatest reforms in this country. I am not sure whether or not the amendment intends that.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, it is not clear to me who will make the decision about an institution's suitability for the offender. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, that when I was a magistrate—unless the situation has changed—one visited all the prisons. It was part of one's training. I have been in a number of prisons, not, I hasten to say, as a prisoner—although no doubt, had I been, I would have had a visit from a number of noble Lords to make me feel better.
However, I envisage that the amendment could cause complications in court. I am not against the amendment, but those who support it should spell out more clearly what is intended. Who will make the decision? And how will they make it?
5.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, thinks that there should be a further criterion for the imposition of a custodial sentence. It is that the sentence should be "suitable for the offender". The noble Earl considers that to be fundamental and argues that if we do not accept it we abandon reform of prisons for all time. That, I believe, is going slightly over the top. I cannot agree. Prison is a place to which some people have to go in order to protect the public; it is a mark of the gravity of the offence. One has to have prisons. Of course, one has to do what one can to rehabilitate and to help offenders. But to say that if we do not have this measure in the Bill, we abandon reform of prisons for all time is not right. It disregards totally the tremendous work that has been going on for the past 10 or 15 years to try to rehabilitate prisoners.
The noble Baroness says that if one wishes to reform oneself or anyone else, the last place one would go to is prison. I agree with that. I also agree that it is the last place to which one wishes to go whether or not one wants to be reformed. She referred to the fact that much rehabilitation is going on. Among other places the noble Baroness referred to Grendon. It is clear that a great deal is going on; and more has to be done. I have no doubt that more will be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that there should be a statement in the Bill on rehabilitation. I do not believe that that is right. I do not believe that Bills are the place for statements. Rehabilitation is an important part of the treatment of prisoners. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill are concerned with the criteria that courts should use in determining whether custody is appropriate and how long a custodial sentence should be. We think that the fairest approach is to consider the seriousness of the offence. The Bill is about going to prison or not going to prison. How the offender is treated when he is in prison is, I think rightly, left outside the Bill. The amendment confuses the two.
In Clauses 1 to 3, we have set out a new scheme for imposing custodial sentences. Clause 1 deals with
1510
whether it should be imposed; Clause 2 deals with its length; and Clause 3 sets out certain procedural requirements. The main criterion in Clauses 1 and 2 is the seriousness of the offence. If the offence is serious enough, the offender may be given a custodial sentence. Its length will have to be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. That principle is logical, simple and fair. A second criterion, for violent and sexual offenders, is that a custodial sentence is necessary to protect the public from serious harm from them. For reasons of public protection, the sentence in such a case may be longer than the seriousness of the offence would warrant.
I believe it is right that custodial sentencing should focus on the offence rather than the offender. A prison sentence is a punishment for a serious crime and is necessary in some cases to protect the public. We would be getting it the wrong way round if we required the courts to take suitability for the offender as a primary consideration before they impose a custodial sentence. It can at best be only a secondary consideration. There is one exception. Clause 3(3) requires the court to consider the likely effect of a custodial sentence on a mentally disordered offender. But that is a special case.
I do not see how the courts are to decide whether or not a custodial sentence is suitable for an offender. It is not clear what factors they would have to take into account before deciding whether a custodial sentence was suitable. The offender's counsel could well plead a number of factors which he thinks might persuade the court that a custodial sentence would be unsuitable for his client. For example, the offender may be very ill or may have a number of dependants who would be unable to support themselves if the offender was sent to prison and lost his job as a result.
But that amounts to no more than the plea of mitigation entered by defence counsel after conviction and before sentence. The Bill expressly provides in Clauses 3 and 26 for a court to take into account any mitigating factors before passing sentence. If the court remains of the view that a prison sentence is warranted, despite the mitigating factors, but believes that there are exceptional circumstances to justify its suspension, then it may suspend it under Clause 4. If an offender's suitability for a custodial sentence is to be considered, this seems to me the right way to deal with it. That way we can preserve the principle that the sentence should be related to the offence while still making allowance for the offender's circumstances.
The question of suitability comes to the fore when a court is considering imposing a community sentence. Clause 5 gives it a choice of six different community orders. Because there is a choice, we think that the court should have to ask itself which particular order is most suitable for the offender, as provided in Clause 5(2) (a). That is to ensure that offenders are not subjected to community penalties which are quite inappropriate for them. But a custodial sentence is a custodial sentence. The court is not required to choose between different types of prison sentence; indeed, it is not able to do so.
I suggest that in that respect the noble Earl's amendment will not improve the Bill. We have gone as

1511
far as we can in tailoring provisions according to offenders' requirements. One cannot tailor a custody sentence. But once an offender is in custody one can do all that one can to rehabilitate him.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Earl does a great job on behalf of the Government and the House in handling this trying Bill with the utmost good humour. He cannot expect to be equally convincing in reply to every amendment. I thought that he was totally unconvincing in reply to mine but that is merely a matter of opinion.
As my noble friend Lord Richard and other noble Lords are not happy about the wording of the amendment I beg leave to withdraw it. However, I have every intention of tabling a similar, perhaps better phrased, amendment at the next stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, if Amendment No. 11 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 12.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 32, leave out ("in the case of a sentence of imprisonment for") and insert ("where the offence is").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 12 which is pure plagiarism on my part. Thy pride of parentage goes entirely to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I say that, not to deflect the inevitable compliments that will come from a certain source—they are always gratefully received—but in order to tell your Lordships how the amendment has come about.
When reading Hansard of 26th March I noted that Clause 2 had been heavily debated. Many observations were made about the undesirability of restricting protection of the public from serious harm merely to offences of violence or of a sexual character. As one might expect, the wise words of moderation came from the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He said:
"I should have thought that everybody would then be satisfied. It means that the court would have just that power, which, very naturally, my noble friend Lord Ferrers has said the courts should have, of sentencing people, where the circumstances seem to require it, for a longer period in order to protect the public from serious harm". [Official Report, 26/3/91; col. 1020.]
The noble Lord was proposing exactly what I have tabled in the amendment; namely, to leave out the words,
"in the case of a sentence of imprisonment for a violent or sexual offence".
Those suggestions fell on the receptive ears of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He said:
"My noble friend Lord Renton made a helpful drafting suggestion. He has, as always, the advantage over me in that he takes pride in being a draftsman, in which happy position I am not. I should like therefore to be able to consider his advice. It would be wholly inappropriate for me to comment off the cuff on such a fine piece of drafting as he has suggested. I shall certainly take note of it and get in touch with him later to tell him what I think".—[Official Report, 26/3/91; col. 1020]
Later in the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, pressed his amendment. At col. 1022 the
1512
noble Earl repeated that he would like to consider the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. That consideration did not give rise to the amendment which was contemplated; therefore, I have tabled it. It makes good sense. If the public require protection from serious harm by an offender that is all one needs to say. To select various offences does not assist. A consistent and continuous domestic burglary is about as worrying a domestic activity as one can imagine, short of actually being injured. Serious harm may be threatened on every occasion. If the person does not lock himself or herself in the room he or she may well be badly beaten up. If the person is not present in the room, he or she may only thus escape serious harm. That is one example.
Serious harm to the public is characterised by a person who insists on drug peddling. It is difficult to imagine any worse harm. That probably accounts for the fact that the offence is dealt with so savagely in some countries. Accordingly, it occurred to me that it was desirable to leave open rather than to categorise the position. Then the courts could consider whether the case was one in which it was necessary to protect the public from serious harm by imposing a sentence longer than that commensurate with the offence. For those reasons I tabled Amendment No. 12.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is an unfortunate and somewhat ironical situation that the necessary amendment to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has spoken can be accepted only if the House does not accept Amendment No. 11 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. Although my noble friend's amendment is desirable it does not greatly alter the effect of the Bill. Therefore we are sacrificing an important amendment in order to achieve a less important amendment.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for his plagiarism. I am thankful that he took up the cudgel where I put it down. I am also grateful for the further examples he gave of menace to the public. In effect the courts would be entitled to ignore them even if they believed that the public needed to be protected from the further commission of such offences.
The Bill does not mention, for example, aiding and abetting violent or sexual offences. That can occur even in the case of sexual offences. If someone is brought before the court for aiding and abetting an offence of rape, and if that person had previously been found guilty of rape, it is shocking that the need to protect the public from serious harm appears to be ignored. Perhaps I may risk a minor repetition and mention the case of the fraudster. I refer to the man who obtains goods or money on credit or as a result of a pretence which admits him into the homes of a series of old ladies living alone. He may pretend to be a gas inspector or a public official. I remember a case very well in which a man went round the villages calling on old people living alone and saying that he could obtain for them much better spectacles than were available at that time under the National Health Service, if they would pay him a deposit of £1. Of course, they never saw him again but eventually the law caught up with him. The sentence which the court

1513
gave was, as expressed by the learned chairman of the Quarter Sessions as it then was, one which was needed to protect the public.
Although I fully appreciate public anxiety about violent and sexual offences, to say that they are the only offences from which the public needs special protection is wrong in principle and, indeed, it seems to me, contrary to the basic objectives which the Government have set for themselves in the Bill.
I regret the position in which we find ourselves. I warmly support the stand taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I hope that in view of the importance of this matter and the very strong arguments which have been used in regard to it both in Committee and today, my noble friend Lord Ferrers will think again about this matter.
There is one matter which I should disclose and confess. My noble friend Lord Ferrers was good enough to write to me. I believe that I received that letter early last week. He explained to me why he could not go along with the arguments which I had put forward. I failed to pass a copy of that letter to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and for that I am very sorry. However, quite frankly, I do not believe that the letter from my noble friend Lord Ferrers would have convinced the noble and learned Lord any more than it convinced me.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I hope that the Government will resist this amendment. It seems to me that we have heard some weasel words from the noble and learned Lord who proposed the amendment when he spoke of drafting amendments and not making very much difference to the Bill and so on. I may be wrong but it seems to me that this amendment suggests that the topping-up procedure should be applicable right across the board for all offences in all courts. That is what it comes to.
In my view it is an attempt to undermine the principle which is laid down in the Bill; namely, that the sentencing of people should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. This amendment enables all courts to sentence people in a manner which is not commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. In fact, a longer sentence than is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence will be permitted across the board whenever a court believes it necessary to protect the public from serious harm by the offender.
The noble and learned Lord gave examples. No doubt any Member of this House could give many examples of their view of offences against which the public requires protection. Again, one returns to the philosophy behind the Bill. Courts should no longer be allowed to sentence people on the subjective judgment of what offenders will do in the future. As regards sentencing, their powers should be limited to the offence before the court and its seriousness.
The noble and learned Lord quoted from our debates which took place in Committee. At that time an amendment was tabled to get rid of this subsection altogether. It seems to me to be an extremely sensible
1514
approach that the principle that the offence should always be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence should be applied, quite simply, right across the board. However, the Government have chosen quite wrongly two forms of offence which enable the principle to be breached. Of course, I should support any amendment which did away with that altogether. However, to try to extend it to all offences seems to me yet another attempt by the judiciary to undermine the philosophy of the Bill.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I understand the view of my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. Like him I believe it is a great pity that we agreed to the subsection, because that is the mischief. The mischief is isolating two categories of offence—namely, sexual and violent offences—and saying that the courts should have the power to deal with people convicted of such offences in a wholly different form from that which would apply in any other type of criminal case. That is manifestly absurd.
As I indicated on the last occasion on which we debated this matter, it is the old and foolish Brittan parole policy, a policy described as flawed in principle by the committee of which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, was chairman. That is what we are now being asked to agree to in this Bill as currently drafted.
I find it impossible to understand—and on this I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton—why there is reference to sex and violence. They are not, in all cases, the categories of offence which disturb the public most. Having been chairman of the Parole Board, I saw many cases in categories other than sex and violence which would have caused far greater public disquiet. One example given by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, with which I agree, is systematic fraud against elderly people who basically lose all their property as a result of the behaviour of sophisticated fraudsters.
The other example is that given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. It seems to me astonishing. The Government have applied themselves with great vigour to dealing with the problem of drug related offences. However, drug related offences are apparently in a different and more acceptable category than sexual and violent offences. That is a rather odd set of priorities for the Government. Perhaps the noble Earl will assist us on that specific point. Why did they make that decision? What are the grounds for saying that drug offences are less serious than sexual and violent offences? It seems to me that that whole approach in this part of the Bill has been ill thought out. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will tell us that they will look again at this matter.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to try to achieve a sense of balance in the discussion. We are not dealing with the adequacy of penalties which are contained in a criminal statute. Were we dealing with that, then I should be able to understand many of the speeches which have been made already. I should understand the arguments if we were saying in regard to drugs that the penalties

1515
imposed by statute are not commensurate with the seriousness of the offence and that we should look at the penalties in regard to that.
Here we are dealing with the making of an exception in the case of certain types of offences in order that the courts may impose, by way of a penalty, a top up on the penalty which is commensurate with the offence.
Looking at that situation, I understand the logic of saying as regards drug offences and matters of that kind—and the House is united in deploring such offences which some of us almost equate with murder —that the penalties are not sufficiently substantial and that we should allow the courts a great deal more leeway to impose heavy penalties because the penalties which exist at present are not commensurate with the offence itself.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he realise that by specifying violent and sexual offences we are removing the obligation on the courts to take note, apply and aggravate the sentence in the case of other offences? Therefore, far from adding to the powers of the courts, we are taking away from them.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I immediately follow that point and apologise to the noble Lord if I have not made myself clear. I repeat, if Parliament is taking responsibility for the adequacy of penalties in regard to certain types of crime—be it the burglary of which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, spoke or the drug offences mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harris—then it is a matter for Parliament to look at the penalties imposed by the criminal statute in relation to those offences.
If the noble Lord is saying that the courts should be given an extra power beyond that of imposing a penalty commensurate with the offence, then if I may say so the noble Lord is digging a hole in the principle that the courts, with the guidance and indeed the mandate of Parliament, ought to be dealing with the offences before them. They should be looking at the penalties imposed for those offences and making the penalties commensurate with them.
As I see it there is a complete argument—as was said by the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Hutchinson—for saying that this provision has no place in the Bill if one is dealing with what the courts ought to do in imposing penalties. There would be an argument—I repeat for a third time and for that reason I hope not too annoyingly—for saying that the penalties do not enable the court to impose adequate punishment for the crime before it. There is no room for an exception to that. The only logic is to ensure that the court has proper powers.
The example given by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is interesting because it illustrates my point. The noble Lord said that we should look at the case of somebody charged and convicted with aiding and abetting a rape; and in fact the man had previously been convicted of rape. That was dealt with under Clause 1. It is one other offence that may be taken into account and that will decide whether or not he goes to
1516
prison. On the basis of the decision whether he goes to prison, the penalty will be there. In regard to rape the penalty is severe enough, as it should be.
I see no logic in including the subsection and no logic in amending it. It should not be there.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, with the leave of the House, as I cannot technically move my amendment, perhaps I may add a few remarks in reply.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord intends to make his final speech perhaps he will permit me to make one or two observations on his amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I thought it was my last chance to speak.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will have the chance to make a longer speech after he hears what I intend to say.
The noble and learned Lord graciously conceded the fact that the parentage of the amendment was not his but that of my noble friend Lord Renton. That is quite right. At Committee stage I said that I would consider the point made by my noble friend. I did so and indeed wrote to him although my noble friend said that my reply did not convince him. I believe he implied that because it was so unconvincing he did not, or he forgot, to send it to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Had the noble and learned Lord the advantage of reading the letter I wrote to my noble friend he would have been totally convinced, but my noble friend did not give him that opportunity.
The sentencing provisions in Part I of the Bill are intended to establish a clear set of guidelines for determining the right sentence in individual cases. The general rule which is reflected throughout the sentencing provisions is that the sentence which is imposed should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. That applies in Clauses 1 and 2 to custodial sentences, in Clauses 5 and 6 to community penalties and in Clause 16 to fines. It is a principle about which there is a great deal of agreement.
There is an exception to that general rule where an offender has been convicted of a violent or sexual offence and the court considers that there is a need to protect the public from serious harm. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord would remove from the clause the words,
"in the case of a sentence of imprisonment for a violent or sexual offence".
That would allow the courts to impose, for any kind of offence, a custodial sentence longer than was commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.
As I said I would, I considered the matter. I did not think that the amendment was either right or necessary. The distinction made in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill between violent and sexual offences, on the one hand, and property offences, on the other, is important. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, was right to remind us of that. I join him in reminding both the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend Lord

1517
Renton that the reasoning behind it was clearly set out in the White Paper, Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that the provision was ill thought out. With the greatest respect, the provision was considered very carefully. It was included in the White Paper and met with general agreement. It has been generally welcomed. Of course, it is always possible to provide examples where one might prefer to see the provisions eased in this or that specific case.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will give way so that I may ask whether I heard him correctly. Did he say that the distinction is between sexual and violent offences, on the one hand, and property, on the other? If so, it is surely not only property offences but many other offences we are discussing. We are speaking of drug offences, fraud, and so on, which are much more serious than just property offences.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me perhaps I too may ask a question. What about violence to people's feelings such as is experienced in blackmail offences?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that may be so. However, there are ways of dealing with those offenders. My noble friend Lord Renton referred to aiding and abetting. That is covered by the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, which we believe will effectively apply. He referred also to the systematic fraud of old people. Fraud is a serious offence. I accept that. Courts view that kind of offence more seriously where the victim is elderly and the offence is part of a sustained pattern of criminal activity. Those would be aggravating factors and would be taken account of in the sentencing.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to drug offences and said that they were terrible. Of course they are. One of the reasons people object so strongly to drugs is that very often they lead to violent or sexual offences. I would not underestimate for one moment the stress that those offences cause, whether related to property, burglary or fraud. However, the harm caused by those types of offence is different to the harm caused by offences against the person. They are altogether of a different order. A small number of violent or sexual offenders become progressively more dangerous and therefore are a real risk to the public. That is the kind of offender for whom the powers have been provided in Clause 1(2) (b) and Clause 2(2) (b).
It would confuse the courts if the Bill allowed a custodial sentence to be imposed in order to protect the public under Clause 1 only if the offence was sexual or violent, while under Clause 2 a longer sentence could be imposed in order to protect the public for any kind of offence. This is a fundamental part of the Bill. The provision was considered in great detail before it was introduced into the Bill. It was included in a White Paper which was discussed in
1518
public by a great many people. On the whole it was considered that the two exceptions were fairly important. I hope that noble Lords will agree.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend clarify the matter? Does he accept that by naming violent and sexual offences only he is not giving power to the courts, rather he is taking it away? The courts have power at present as regards all kinds of serious offence.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as my noble friend knows only too well, the onus of the Bill is to try to keep people out of prison for the reasons we have given. We have considered that there are certain circumstances in which that overriding power should not be changed. If my noble friend says that certain powers which the courts now have are being removed, then one is bound to do that if one changes the philosophy of sentencing.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, in defence of the Government I must ask them why they have included these issues. I have said many times over the years that the word "petty" is now used in relation to both violent and sexual crimes. There is no such thing as a petty violent crime or a petty sex crime. I do not think there is even such an offence as a petty crime. These matters have now become so casual and easily accepted. My local paper is filled with details of the most appalling crimes, including crimes of violence against elderly people. An old man was robbed and the three attackers kicked him to death in order to steal a pound. That was a violent crime. These matters are becoming too readily accepted. We are becoming more like Chicago by the day.
Very often in your Lordships' House crimes are referred to as "petty". The Government have underlined two particular groups which no one can call petty. In my textbook sexual offences include rape—is that petty? My list also includes incest, indecent assault and indecency with children. Are these petty offences? There are also unnatural offences and indecent exposure. Are they petty offences?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, yes. Indecent exposure is petty.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I have always wondered about certain of your Lordships and now I am certain.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, what did my noble friend wonder?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the noble Baroness regard an offence of indecent exposure as being self-evidently more serious than drug trafficking?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is self-evident!
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, my noble friend has taken the words from my mouth. The noble Lord knows only too well that I am talking about a minor court of law—namely, the magistrates' court, and sentencers who do not seem to know very much, according to noble Lords. According to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, they have never been to a

1519
prison No one has mentioned the fact that drugs lead to offences in the violence and sex groups. That outcome is frequently found in court cases. So these two issues are not unrelated.
The way we are arguing is exactly the way in which the courts argue. People have said to me: "I knew what the offence was until I went to court, but when I had listened to counsel for an hour I did not know what the offence was". These offences are very clear. The Government are involved in a belt and braces operation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, trousers as well.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, trousers as well. These provisions should remain in the Bill. I cannot see that it will make any difference leaving them in.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble Earl rises, perhaps I can persuade the Government that it may be a very good thing, before we reach another stage of the Bill, for them to reconsider the wisdom of this paragraph, bearing in mind that we are dealing with a situation where a custodial sentence is to be given. The clause states that as regards a custodial sentence it shall be in accordance with the seriousness of the crime. All the matters about which Members of your Lordships' House have expressed concern come within that umbrella of seriousness. Protecting the public will be in the judge's mind as he sentences having regard to the seriousness of the offence. Why do we need any exceptions to that rule? Why do we need any top-up provisions? As I said before, if we feel that our penalties are not sufficient under the statutes then let us alter them. I beg the Government to consider again the wisdom of including this paragraph in the Bill at all.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply. As regards what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and more recently by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, my understanding is that the ability to impose a sentence which is not commensurate with the crime is extremely limited. As I recall the law as it stands at present, that can be done only by imposing a life sentence where the offence permits that. That indeterminate sentence can only be imposed with very limited justification; for instance, if there is a considerable danger that a person may cause death or serious injury.
I weary the House with anecdotes, but perhaps I may give an example of an offence with which I had to deal in Carmarthen. A boy aged 17 years stabbed with a penknife two young girls. The injury which he did them was pretty superficial. It was a nasty shock and one or two stitches were required, but the girls recovered. The medical report said that the boy was going through a very difficult period of puberty and as a result le was likely to be violent from time to time. The doctor could not say how long that situation would last. Therefore it was quite impossible to give a determinate sentence of imprisonment of two years or three years or whatever it might be, with the certain knowledge that by the time he was released he would
1520
be cured. The alternative was not to give him too long a term of imprisonment in order to be on the safe side with the result that he would have been cured but still inside. I imposed a life sentence. The case was taken to the Court of Appeal and the decision was upheld.
That is one of the very limited categories where one can exceed the seriousness of the offence itself. The Government's provision has not been sought by the judiciary. The Government are extending those powers but only as regards isolated categories. Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right and that powers of the kind which I have indicated are being removed. I have referred to violence, and that type of offence will be covered. However, other cases may not be covered.
I did not understand quite what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, meant when he talked about "weasel words". I hope that when he reads Hansard he will realise that his remark was totally unjustified. At no stage in my address to the House have I done other than make it perfectly clear that I wanted to widen this clause to include all offences which would, in the words of the clause, involve a necessary protection to the public from serious harm from the offender.
I seek to remove the words as set out in my amendment because if we are landed with this clause—the judiciary has not sought it, nor have I risen at any stage to support it—let us at least have an intelligible clause. I have already criticised the Government by saying that their major amendments, with which we dealt in the first debate today and which had been heralded so triumphantly, had stood out a mile to anyone concerned with sentencing. They were essential if sentencing was not to be in a total muddle. My intervention here on a much lesser range is to stop this sort of muddle.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is absolutely right. There has been an isolation of two categories of offence. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to this extent. If it was said that the maximum period of imprisonment that could be imposed was inadequate, one would need exceptions. But no one has suggested that the maximum periods of imprisonment for these two isolated categories are inadequate. That has not been the basis of focusing upon them. I believe—and I suppose it is an uncharitable belief—that this provision is to some extent stimulated by the Government's reaction to the amendment which was passed in this House on abolition of the mandatory sentence of life in murder cases. I believe that this is symptomatic of the Government's near paranoiac anxiety that they will be thought of as having gone soft. Some may say that they have gone soft.
I have indicated how, in regard to the multiple offences, that criticism could be very justifiably made. This provision seeks to redress the balance by saying, "Look how tough we are. We have provided even greater protection for the public". If that is the philosophy, let the protection be consistent; let the drafting be sensible. As it stands at the moment, it does not pass those tests.
6 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in order that we keep ourselves relatively in order, it would be appropriate for me to make one or two remarks. I really took up my share of time by speaking earlier. Technically, the debate is on my amendment. If my amendment were to be accepted, the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, would be pre-empted. I understand the anxieties that have been expressed from various quarters of the House. After all, we are all anxious to try and protect the public as best we can.
Throughout the debate there has been the understanding that there should be these two exceptions. We have done that because we set it out in a White Paper. We set it out in the White Paper because our philosophy was that we did not want people to go to prison and get worse unless there were very remarkable reasons for it. As my right honourable friend Mr. Patten said, it is not a question of emptying the prisons; it is a question of not putting into prison those people who would be more badly affected by prison were they to be sent there. Against that we have these exceptions for violent and sexual offences.
I know that your Lordships can argue that other crimes are also awful and should also be considered. However, our proposal in the White Paper was considered throughout the whole of the criminal justice world and on the whole was found to be acceptable. We have put forward our amendments. If we were to accept the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, we would be cutting across the general philosophy of what was in the White Paper and what has on the whole been accepted. I understand that not everyone would agree with that, but the White Paper was one of the cardinal tenets upon which the Criminal Justice Bill was brought forward in the first place. I hope therefore that the House will accept my amendment rather than the amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("sentence of imprisonment") and insert ("custodial sentence").
Page 2, line 43, at end insert:
("(4) A custodial sentence for an indeterminate period shall be regarded for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) above as a custodial sentence for a term longer than any actual term.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3 [Procedural requirements for custodial sentences]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 16 to 18:
Page 2, line 44, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below").
Page 2, line 46, at end insert:
("(1A) Where the offence or any other offence associated with it is triable only on indictment, subsection (1) above does
1522
not apply if, in the circumstances of the case, the court is of the opinion that it is unnecessary to obtain a pre-sentence report.").
Page 3, line 1, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("subsection (2) of section 1 or 2 above").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments were also spoken to with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 12, leave out from ("shall") to ("the") in line 16 and insert ("obtain and consider a medical opinion on his mental condition and consider").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to the grouped amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Richard. We are discussing here a matter of high importance in our criminal justice system; namely, the number of mentally ill people who are now in prison. At the time of the publication of the report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons the present Home Secretary made his position clear when he said, in a statement to accompany the chief inspector's report, that in his view mentally ill people should be not in prison but in a mental hospital. Therefore there is a common thread of agreement on this point.
What is the scale and difficulty? The only recent information we have arises from the report of Professor John Gunn of the Institute of Psychiatry who recently prepared a report for the Home Office. I find it mildly puzzling that the report has not been made available to us. Nevertheless parts of it have been leaked in the appropriate fashion, which is now the way in which public business tends to be conducted. We learn that, of this survey of 5 per cent. of the sentenced population in prison serving six months or more, one in five were found to have some degree of mental disturbance. If the figures set out in the report were carried through to the whole prison population we would be talking about somewhere in the region of 9,000 mentally disturbed people, of whom 1,300 would require treatment in hospital.
I should like to deal with some of the consequences of holding mentally ill people in prison. We have reviewed these matters, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will recall, on a number of recent occasions. There was the case of Mr. Delroy McKnight, a prisoner at Wandsworth, who killed himself by breaking glass and sawing it into his neck. He was a diagnosed schizophrenic with suicidal tendencies. An inquest found that he had died through lack of care. We then had the case of Mr. Kenneth Broadbent, a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic with a history of suicide attempts, who hanged himself at Brixton while on remand. I should point out that his offence was failing to pay for a £10 meal.
There was also the case of Mr. David Jones. He also had a history of psychiatric illness. He was the butt of bullying by other inmates. He hanged himself at Oxford prison. Another such case was that of Mr. Germaine Alexander. He was a man with a long record of mental illness. He had an attack of hypermania, but there was no one medically qualified

1523
to treat him. He was put in a strip cell at Brixton and died during the night. There was also the case we discussed recently in Question Time of Mr. Edwin Robinson, a paranoid psychotic who hanged himself at Brixton last November.
I could continue to give the House a whole list of names of other tragic people who have died in prison in circumstances such as those I have outlined. As we all know, they occur with dreadful regularity in our prisons. However, on each occasion that the matter is raised in Parliament, Members of the Government, either in this House or in the other place, express—undoubtedly very sincerely—their deep regret. But, unhappily, as they do so, we all know perfectly well that within another few weeks we shall be reading reports of precisely the same kind of occurrence in one of our prisons.
The issue before us this evening is whether Parliament is now prepared to insist on taking action which will, for once, start dealing with this truly deplorable situation. The amendments before us range over a fairly significant area. The first would require the courts to obtain a "medical opinion" which could be oral—it need not necessarily be a written report—before sentencing a mentally disordered person to custody. The arguments for the amendment are closely linked to those for the "duty psychiatrist scheme", with which I now propose to deal.
Amendment No. 20, the most significant of this group of amendments tabled in my name, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and that of the noble Lord, Lard Richard, is designed to put on Ministers a duty to establish such schemes. It requires the Home Secretary to make regulations and establish duty psychiatrist schemes in magistrates' courts. The schemes would enable both accused defendants and convicted offenders to be examined by a psychiatrist on court premises.
The Government tell us that they accept the desirability of establishing duty psychiatrist schemes; indeed, they advocated the establishment of such schemes in a Home Office circular which was issued last year. However, they have resisted including in the Bill any statutory duty of the kind contained in the amendment on the grounds that it is not practical to establish such schemes everywhere at present.
The amendment is drafted in such a way as to meet that particular concern. It would allow Ministers to establish such schemes on an area-by-area basis. There are many precedents in this respect. The first and most obvious is the development of community service orders which were included in the Criminal Justice Act 1972. Initially, the then Home Secretary, Robert Carr—now the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley—established six experimental areas for the purpose. Minister; then extended the scheme to the rest of the country, by order, in the following years. So far as I am aware, there were no administrative problems. I was involved in extending the scheme to the rest of the country when I was working in the Home Office. I can recall no particular difficulties. However, before extending the scheme to a particular area of the country, we had to be satisfied that there were
1524
adequate resources available. When we were so satisfied, we extended the area to be covered by the community service scheme.
Secondly, there is the question of statutory time limits on time awaiting trial introduced by the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985. Again, those have been extended on an area-by-area basis by means of statutory instruments. Thirdly, there was the introduction in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 of the power for the courts to remand offenders for up to 28 days at a time. The legislation was framed in a way that enabled the Home Secretary to extend this approach on an area-by-area basis. Therefore, it cannot be argued that there are no precedents for that particular approach; indeed, there are already three of them.
As I have indicated, the circular which was issued last September by the Home Office commended duty psychiatrist schemes. In fact, it referred to a number of them. For example, it referred to the schemes at Bow Street, at Great Marlborough Street, at Horseferry Road and at Peterborough. It has to be said, with regret, that the Peterborough scheme has already folded. This is what the Home Office said about the schemes in the circular:
"These enable the courts to receive speedy medical advice and to ensure that, where appropriate, arrangements can be made quickly to admit a mentally disordered person to hospital, for example as a condition of bail or, with the agreement of the hospital managers, under Section 35 of the Mental Health Act 1983 following conviction".
As I said, a number of these schemes have already been established. Moreover, research papers by the two psychiatrists at Clerkenwell, Dr. David James and Dr. Lyle Hamilton, show that that has led to increased use of the Mental Health Act when the court imposes sentence, and the rapid acceleration of the time taken to assess defendants and arrange a suitable referral to hospital if it is considered necessary. Those two doctors, whom I had the fortune to meet last week when I visited Clerkenwell, found that a sample of people remanded in custody for psychiatric assessment had to wait a mean time of 33.7 days from arrest to appearance in court for the necessary psychiatric report. The mean time from arrest to admission to hospital was 50.6 days.
Let us now contrast those figures with figures from Clerkenwell where the duty psychiatrist scheme is now in operation. The equivalent figures were 5.4 days compared with 33.7 days, and 8.7 days compared with 50.6 days. We must bear in mind where these people are being held. They are being held for such periods in a grossly overcrowded prison hospital in Brixton in conditions which were described as wholly unacceptable by the Chief Inspector of Prisons as recently as the end of last year.
In fact, there has been a dramatic improvement in this particular magistrates' court in London in terms of the disposal of such cases. The two doctors who produced papers on the matter, which I am sure are available to the Home Office, indicated that the number of hospital orders at Clerkenwell increased fourfold after the introduction of the scheme. Dr. James and Dr. Hamilton estimated that the provision of assessment facilities to the court, and the

1525
satisfactory referral of assessed defendants from court at a rate of approximately two a week, produced a potential saving to the prison department of about £200,000 a year. That applies to just one magistrates' court in London. That is the saving made as a result of not having to send people to the grossly overcrowded and unacceptable conditions that exist in Brixton and some other prisons.
As I have said, I went to Clerkenwell last week to see how the scheme was working. I was impressed. The two doctors attend every Wednesday. If a defendant has appeared in court the previous Friday, he is produced again on the Wednesday and is examined by the two doctors. The conditions in which they work are unusual. They work in the kitchen of Clerkenwell magistrates' court. The conditions are crowded and wholly unsatisfactory, but the doctors work with immense enthusiasm. They perform a major public service by diverting the people in question from the criminal justice system.
When the doctors examine a patient or a defendant—call him what we will—they have a choice. The first is whether to use Part II of the Mental Health Act to make what I would describe as a civil order. In such cases the defendant has, or is alleged to have, committed less serious offences. The doctors surprised me by telling me that in every case—so far as I recall there were no exceptions—they managed, with the agreement of the CPS, with which they have cordial relations, to get those people into mental hospitals the same day. Imagine what would happen to those people if they were returned to the prison hospital at Brixton.
Secondly, in the more serious cases, the doctors use Part III of the Act, where it is intended to send a defendant to a named hospital within 28 days. There is another amendment which is being discussed with this group of amendments, as the Minister will realise. It aims at reducing that period from 28 days to seven days. The reason for that is that the doctors told me that a difficult situation arises when the named hospital will take the defendant only on the 27th or 28th day. That is not right. One of the men whose case I mentioned killed himself in Brixton prison. If the period had been seven days rather than 28 days he might well still be alive. Nevertheless, that is one of our proposals.
We are asking that schemes of the type in operation at Clerkenwell should be extended to the country as a whole, but that is to be done only when the resources are available. We are not asking for an immediate increase in public expenditure, or anything of that kind. The schemes are remarkably cost effective. The two doctors working at Clerkenwell are being paid on the basis of being expert witnesses. The total cost of the scheme at Clerkenwell is astonishingly low. There is far more likelihood of the schemes being introduced and extended if there is a duty on Ministers to take a close and direct interest in the extension of such schemes. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may follow what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said. I too take the view that the establishment of the duty psychiatric
1526
schemes is probably the most important part of this series of amendments. The new clause which the noble Lord proposes, which we support, would require the Home Secretary to make regulations to establish duty psychiatric schemes in magistrates' courts. The Government have accepted the desirability of such schemes. They advocated their establishment in a circular which was issued to the courts last year. I echo the words with which the noble Lord almost sat down. We do not expect this provision to be implemented immediately. We accept that there are resource problems. On the other hand, the clause has been drafted in such a way that it can be introduced area by area and over a period of time.
If the Government accept that the duty psychiatric scheme should be adopted, the area-by-area approach would meet their principal objection to a statutory provision. However, the Home Office has now produced two extra objections in discussions with the representatives of the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group. First, it says that there are insufficient resources available at present to finance the establishment of a duty psychiatric scheme at more than a few courts; and, secondly, that there is therefore no point in establishing a statutory duty which cannot be fulfilled nationally for several years.
The answer to the first of those points—that there are insufficient resources available—is that the existence of a statutory duty should help the Home Office press the Treasury for more resources for a scheme which I believe the Home Office and everyone else agree is desirable. As for the second point, it is not at all unusual for a statutory provision to be phased in area by area over several years. The most recent example is the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 which provided for the introduction of statutory time limits on time awaiting trial. Those limits have been introduced area by area since then, but they still do not apply to the whole country. They apply everywhere except in London and parts of the South East.
The clause is designed deliberately to enable the Government to take account of their objections by saying that they accept that they cannot establish the scheme immediately; they should not therefore try to do it immediately; they should do it over a period of time.
The Home Office says that the scheme is desirable. The House might wish to ask itself whether such schemes are necessary. The background to the new clause—the noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned part of this—is, and must be, the growing concern at the apparent increase in the number of mentally disturbed people within the prison population. I do not want to weary the House with too many figures, but let me just give one or two. During the year 1989–90, nearly 17,000 prisoners were referred to psychiatrists. That is 38 per cent. more than in 1987–88. That is during a period when the prison population as a whole decreased slightly. Professor Gunn of the Institute of Psychiatry recently carried out a survey for the Home Office on a 5 per cent. sample of sentenced offenders serving six months' imprisonment or more. We are

1527
still waiting to see his report, but some of it may have emerged in a paper which he gave to the Mental Health Foundation in September 1990.
The sample that Professor Gunn investigated comprised 1,365 adult males, 404 male youths and 273 females. About one-fifth of that sample was found to have some degree of mental disturbance. If that proportion is true for the whole prison population (currently about 45,000) it would mean that over 9,000 prisoners can be said to be mentally disturbed, including over 1,300 who are in need of hospital care. We must take some steps to prevent such people ending up in our prisons. Prisons are the worst possible places for people with mental disorders, even when psychiatric services are provided, and they are not all that common. The benefits are offset by the poor physical conditions and the restricted regimes.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to the schemes as they have been operating at Bow Street, Marlborough Street, Clerkenwell and Horseferry Road magistrates' courts. I do not propose to go through those points in detail again. I merely reiterate what the effect of those schemes was in relation to mentally disordered people who appeared before those courts. A sample remanded in custody for psychiatric assessment before the schemes were set up had to wait, as the noble Lord said, 33.7 days from the time they were arrested until they appeared in court with the necessary psychiatric report. That is a long time. The mean time from arrest to getting into hospital, however, was 50.6 days. That is too long. On any view of the matter, those figures are outrageous. I use the word advisedly. For those who were examined in court under the Clerkenwell scheme, the 33.7 days came down to five. The time they waited, from arrest to admission into hospital, came down to 8.7 as opposed to 50.6. The difference is extraordinary.
Faced with the evidence, I do not believe that anyone could conceivably argue that these schemes were not desirable. The background of the way in which mentally disordered people are dealt with in the criminal justice system makes them both desirable and necessary. The only difficulty that seems to be holding up the scheme is the lack of resources.
Those of us who propose the amendments are prepared to see the scheme introduced over a period of time, area by area, as resources become more available. For the life of me, however, I see no reason why the Government should not accept in the Bill an obligation and commitment to provide these services, accepting that they will be phased in over a period of time.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Richard. Perhaps I may mention the duty psychiatric scheme from the point of view of a probation officer or social worker. I have been in court on a case where the judge has asked for an immediate psychiatric report. One has to ring round to try to find a psychiatrist, and this is time-consuming. If we were to have the duty psychiatric scheme, there would be on duty all the time a psychiatrist who had experience of prison and prison
1528
life and, secondly, had experience of the kind of man who comes before the courts. Therefore, I support both noble Lords in hoping that we shall have a duty psychiatric service. It would save time and money and provide better expertise.
I have great sympathy for my noble friend the Minister. The trouble is that two ministries are involved. When that happens, I will not say that nothing gets done but whatever it is gets done much more slowly. The Minister is in some difficulty because I believe that the mentally abnormal patient should be dealt with under the auspices of the health service.
I turn to the two types, the remand and the long stay cases. I shall not cover the latter because the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has already done so. On the remand cases, I have been in touch with Dr. Henrietta Bullard, a notable consultant forensic psychiatrist. She is keen that the mentally abnormal offender on remand should be seen in the hospital setting and not in the prison setting. She has tried to do this in her area, which is the Oxford region. She states:
"We have also been doing a survey of the mentally abnormal offender appearing before Reading Magistrates Court. Although this survey has only been operational for six weeks, 18 patients have been assessed as being mentally ill and there was a high rate of remand in custody (55 per cent.). We have also tried to analyse the reasons for the remands in custody and these are demonstrated in the examples given. We are hoping to publish our results both of our regional forensic service … I might add that we are under extreme pressure for resources and we work from a tiny Portacabin".
This is very serious. I believe that wherever possible and practicable, remand cases should not be assessed in the prison setting but in the hospital setting.
There is also the problem of resources. I realise that I shall not carry all my colleagues with me here. I believe that working towards getting the service is the right attitude. Nevertheless, working towards it means working slowly, particularly where the Treasury is concerned. I have consulted psychiatrists on the matter. As the hospital service has two arms—the private sector and the public sector—I wonder whether we should consider applying to the private sector to set up units for the mentally abnormal offender both on remand and long-term.
I have been told by a forensic psychiatrist that the advantages of the private sector are that it is willing to take patients without the rigmarole we go through in the NHS. Patients mean money and professional wranglings do not seem to prevent their admission. Dr. Bullard says that there is generally a good relationship between the private sector and the referring doctor. Finally, the cost of beds in the private sector is easily established and presumably competitive. However, she says that there would have to be a quality of care and control.
My last point concerns community service upon which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, touched. Under the Mental Health Act 1983 local authorities at the moment run centres for the mentally handicapped, many of whom are mentally abnormal. They have to live in sheltered accommodation in a hostel. It is possible in the community to look after the mentally abnormal offenders by giving them work, training, support and custody. I know that a great deal of this work means co-operation with the National Health

1529
Service; nevertheless, it ought to be possible. The time has come for us to fulfil the Butler Report in which these recommendations were made in 1975.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Richard, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull, very strongly in principle. In order not to detain your Lordships too long, I propose to speak mainly to my amendments which are grouped with the others, Amendments Nos. 21 and 22.
Together, these amendments provide a compromise attack on the problem which resulted from my Amendment No. 24 in Committee, debated with the Government's Amendment No. 17. I told my noble friend the Minister at that stage that I would endeavour to come back with an amendment. These amendments are correctly grouped because they are complementary to what your Lordships have heard.
Amendment No. 22 provides that where a court considers the offender is, or appears to be, mentally disordered, the pre-sentence report should include a report submitted by a medical practitioner approved under the Mental Health Act. In the case of someone thought to be mentally disordered, such assistance to the court, including the court's need for advice on the likely effect of a custodial sentence, might depend, as matters stand at the moment, on the opinion of a probation officer or social worker, neither of whom is qualified to express a clinical view of a person's mental condition.
Your Lordships may recall that because of widespread anxiety about the ability of social workers with basic training qualifications to cope adequately with mentally disordered people, the 1983 Mental Health Act required that approved social workers only should deal with some aspects of the Act. To be approved, they had to undertake specialised training. Although the Act has been in force for a number of years and special training has been provided, a survey published in 1990 of approved social workers produced the astonishing information that they themselves felt that the worst gap in their knowledge was of the mentally ill and of matters directly relevant to the mentally ill.
I am not aware of a similar official survey among probation officers but interviews conducted by one such officer in the Midlands in 1990 found that most of his fellow officers had no experience of working with mentally ill clients before joining the probation service. The vast majority had the basic social work qualification and estimated that on average only 5 per cent. of this was connected with mental health. There was a marked lack of further specialised training once in post. Like the approved social workers, the probation officers interviewed felt that they were lacking in knowledge about the symptoms of illnesses such as schizophrenia, manic depression and clinical depression.
Those are the officers who, if my Amendment No. 22 is not accepted, would have the responsibility of preparing pre-sentence reports on people who are, or appear to be, mentally disordered. Though they can certainly report most adequately on their social
1530
conditions, I am not confident—nor does it seem are they themselves—that they could report adequately on a person's mental condition. It might be argued that only forensic psychiatrists can do so, and that there is a shortage of such psychiatrists. I would find that a somewhat astonishing argument when thousands of reports are prepared about mentally disordered offenders each year once they are in prison, mostly by doctors who are not forensic psychiatrists. What we need is to get these reports before the courts at an earlier stage.
I have concentrated on Amendment No. 22 but, as your Lordships will see, Amendment No. 21 is complementary to it. I understand from my noble friend the Minister that he is prepared to be sympathetic towards my amendments and I am deeply grateful to him. I hope that sympathy will extend as far as possible to the amendments as they are worded now. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not dissent from what has been said in support of these amendments in so far as the amendments affect those who are mentally ill, but I must in fairness make clear that I doubt the need for what is proposed in the amendments as concerns those who are mentally handicapped. Their case, their condition, is quite different. In particular, I must make it clear that it is very rarely indeed that a mentally handicapped person is able to benefit from psychiatry. Of course, mentally handicapped people do benefit from education and training of various kinds but that is different from psychiatry. As I said at Committee stage, thanks to the procedures which have been worked out by the police and the courts, there is now much greater satisfaction than there was, prior to the Mental Health Act 1983, about the way in which mentally handicapped people are being dealt with by the police and by the courts. I feel that it is only right to make that point.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have frequently considered the question of mentally disordered offenders during our debates on this Bill and this rightly shows the anxieties that your Lordships have about the needs of these unfortunate people. Indeed, there is absolutely no party political matter at issue here. We are all seeking the right way forward.
We all agree that those offenders who ought to be receiving health or social services care should receive it in a setting other than in prison and that prison is the wrong place for them to be. However, there are problems, and I think that fact is recognised by everyone. We have all seen difficulties in individual cases. It is therefore essential that we should all work to ensure that the services which are provided for these people match their needs, that those services are provided effectively and that the legislation concerning this group of offenders is adequate.
I have said previously that we must ensure that the practical problems which we have identified—and they have been identified again this evening—are resolved. If the measures we take on that front do not

1531
keep up with the legislative changes proposed by your Lordships, we risk making matters worse rather than better.
The Government's approach is to ensure that encouragement is given to all the measures being taken at present to help to divert mentally disordered offenders from the criminal justice system. Of course, I understand the aspirations of those who would like to push things along by means of a more prescriptive legislative approach, but I believe there are dangers in that. In saying that, I do not mean to imply that the Government are not as enthusiastic as are your Lordships in getting this done, because we are; but your Lordships will recall that one of our fears is that by making it obligatory to obtain a psychiatric report before we have practical arrangements in place to provide them very quickly we will end up with more people being remanded in custody waiting for reports to be prepared. We would therefore have what we are specifically trying to avoid—that is, mentally disordered people being committed to prison.
I am afraid that Amendments Nos. 19 and 23 would have that effect, and I hope your Lordships will understand if I am not able to advise their acceptance. I believe that Amendments Nos. 21 and 22, which have been tabled and spoken to by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, provide an ingenious and helpful way forward. Under these amendments a psychiatric assessment would be provided, if needed, whenever a pre-sentence report was called for. Your Lordships may recall that the effect of the government amendments which we discussed a few moments ago is to require a pre-sentence report before an offender is sentenced to custody in every either-way or summary case and in every indictable-only case, unless the judge is of the opinion that it is unnecessary. If the offender is in any case to be remanded, either on bail or in custody, for a pre-sentence report it seems sensible for that report to include a psychiatric assessment in appropriate cases. That is what my noble friend's amendment seeks and I believe it is right to do so.
I should be happy to accept, in principle, Amendments Nos. 21 and 22, which I believe will ensure that pre-sentence reports contain as much useful information as possible on the mental condition of offenders in order to assist the courts in their deliberations. However, there are one or two matters of drafting which need to be looked at further and I should also like to consider further precisely how the medical assessment should be fitted into the pre-sentence report. If my noble friend would be kind enough to withdraw his amendments, and if it is for the convenience of your Lordships, I should be happy to accept these amendments in principle and bring forward more suitably drafted amendments at Third Reading. I hope that that assurance will also satisfy the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Richard. I hope they will feel that this suggestion goes enough of the way to meet their anxieties.
Turning now to Amendment No. 20—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I assume the noble Earl was referring in his last passage to Amendment No. 25. Is that right?
Earl Ferrers: No, My Lords, I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 19 and 23.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am sorry to persist, but as the noble Earl referred to an amendment in my name I assumed that he was referring to the one which is grouped with this; namely, Amendment No. 25. Am I right? I have had a letter from the noble Earl, which is the reason why I thought I should seek clarification.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, looking at the Marshalled List, there are two amendments down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. One is No. 19 and the other is No. 23. However, the noble Lord is quite right. He has another amendment, Amendment No. 25, to which I was going to address myself in a moment or two.
Lord Richard: My Lords, and Amendment No. 20.
Earl Ferrers: Exactly, my Lords. I was about to start on that amendment when the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked if I had dealt with Amendment No. 25. I do not want to detain the House any longer than I need, but I have not yet dealt with either of those two amendments. I shall now proceed, with your Lordships' permission, to do so.
Perhaps I may start with Amendment No. 20. We recognise the value of duty psychiatrist schemes which provide for courts to have a psychiatrist on call or to attend for two or three half-day sessions per week. That is why we highlighted a number of such schemes as examples of good practice in Home Office Circular 66/90, which we issued last September. It is therefore heartening to hear that so many of your Lordships favour the setting up of such schemes throughout England and Wales.
We share that view but consider that Amendment No. 20 is unnecessary to achieve that objective. The inference which might be drawn from the amendment is that those concerned with the running of magistrates' courts are thought unlikely to create duty psychiatrist schemes—even if adequate resources are available—unless the Secretary of State compels them to do so by using a statutory instrument. If that is one of the reasons behind the amendment, I think it is misguided. The Home Office has frequently received requests from the courts that more should be done to facilitate the diversion of mentally disordered offenders from prison. The duty psychiatrist scheme at Peterborough highlighted in the circular to which I referred came about as the result of an initiative by the local magistrates' court.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, mentioned that the scheme had been wound up. My officials heard recently of the alleged ending of the Peterborough duty psychiatrist scheme. They wrote to the magistrates' clerk and were told that the scheme is still in operation.
Both the Peterborough and London courts, where slightly different schemes operate, are known to value them highly. They inform us of any problems caused by a temporary lack of resources. I therefore see no reason to suppose that other courts in England—and Wales—are likely to refuse to follow their example,

1533
where adequate funding and other resources are available. That being so, the amendment seems unnecessary.
There are dangers in getting locked into a single way of approaching the provision of quick psychiatric opinions as would be the case if we were to adopt the proposed amendment. As I have said, the schemes which have come into existence are largely the product of local initiative. That has the advantage that each scheme suits the local conditions. Others might find that it suited them to do things rather differently—for example, by arranging for the examination to take place off court premises rather than on them as the amendment envisages. We should like to encourage local initiatives and the sharing of best practice rather than to impose a rigid scheme which might not suit the local conditions everywhere. In those circumstances, I hope that your Lordships will accept that legislative provisions of the kind envisaged by this amendment are unnecessary.
The possible development of a comprehensive national scheme is being considered in depth by the joint Department of Health/Home Office review of health and social services provision for mentally disordered offenders.
In Amendment No. 25 the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Richard, have again proposed reducing from 28 days to seven days the time within which a mentally disordered offender made subject to a hospital order must be removed from a place of safety to a named hospital. I do not think that anyone in your Lordships' House would disagree with that objective. We all wish to see the procedures for the admission of such offenders to hospital operate as quickly and smoothly as possible. However, I have some reservations about whether it is reasonable to reduce the statutory time limits by three weeks as is proposed. Serious administrative problems could result. We could also see patients having to be admitted to unsuitable facilities: for example, facilities which were perhaps not secure enough, too secure or too distant. Such a change could also result in such admissions pre-empting hospital resources at the expense of services which could and perhaps should be provided for other mentally disordered people who have not offended. We might even see doctors refuse to accept a particular patient where they knew that they could not make a bed available in the most suitable place within seven days. There would also be many practical difficulties in arranging for guardianship within such a short timescale.
As I said at an earlier stage of the Bill, it would be unwise to tinker with such a finely balanced piece of legislation as the Mental Health Act 1983, which your Lordships may recall was much debated and greatly welcomed at the time, without first testing the reaction of the professionals in the field. I therefore hope that the House will not accept the amendment while work aimed at improving the practical aspects of diversion and service provision for mentally disordered offenders is in progress. I believe that we should await the results of the inter-departmental review to find out the scale of the problem, decide how best the resources
1534
can be found to meet it and what the scale of those resources should be rather than imposing what may be an inflexible obligation which may prove impossible to operate.
I agree that we should be working to speed up the admission of mentally disordered offenders to hospital. I hope that partly as a result of the inter-departmental review, and also as a result of the observations which your Lordships have made, it will be possible to reduce the present 28-day limit in Section 37 of the Mental Health Act. I doubt whether it would be possible to reduce it immediately to seven days. It might be better to reduce it in stages, say to 21 days initially, then to 14 days and eventually to seven days.
With your Lordships' approval I should like to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading which would give the Secretary of State the power to reduce the time by statutory instrument. I hope that that will be an acceptable and suitable compromise. I believe that it goes a long way towards meeting the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Richard.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may say how grateful I am for his very kind remarks about my two amendments, which I shall not move when the time comes.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may say that I hope that in any further changes which are made in the procedures he will save mentally handicapped people from being subjected to psychiatric examination, which will always cause them puzzlement and frequently distress.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that I am glad that the Government are prepared to look at the 28-day rule. I welcome the fact that the noble Earl is prepared to introduce an amendment at Third Reading. That is a significant improvement. He may well be right that it would be sensible to proceed by stages. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that he has met us more than half way.
In relation to Amendment No. 20 he has not made a serious case. He said, essentially, that the Government regard duty psychiatrist schemes as a terrifically good idea and are warmly in favour of them: However, they consider that there is no need to impose any duty on the Secretary of State to encourage the development of such schemes because it can be left to the courts rather than to government departments to do the job. That is not a satisfactory answer.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, the noble Baroness and I have detailed schemes at Clerkenwell and elsewhere which are diverting significant numbers of people from prison to mental hospitals. As the two consultants have set out in their paper, the schemes are saving significant sums of money for the prison department of the Home Office.
It is clear that if we are to make progress in developing such schemes in the other major urban areas of this country it will require persistent pressure

1535
from Ministers. I go back to the example of community service, which I dealt with when I was in the Home Office. Community service extended throughout England and Wales with reasonable speed because there was constant ministerial pressure for it to be extended. If we had simply laid back and said, "We'll leave it to someone else to do. With a bit of luck it will extend without a great deal of encouragement from us", we should not have thousands of people being diverted from custody, as is now happening. If we are to see the development of schemes such as Clerkenwell, we must have a far more direct interest in the matter from the Home Office than would be the position if we did not have some form of statutory duty.
We have made it clear in the amendment that we should be prepared to proceed on an area-to-area basis as the resources become available. As I said, the resources required are extraordinarily modest. I reiterate that the entire scheme at Clerkenwell is based on the expert witness payments to the two psychiatrists who organise the scheme every Wednesday.
When we raise the matter of suicides in prison by mentally ill people, it is deeply disappointing to have the noble Earl tell us how sorrowful and saddened he is—I am quite sure that he is—at having to tell us how awful the conditions were when the poor men concerned killed themselves. If we do not proceed with dispatch in the creation of such schemes in our major urban areas, we can be certain that a number of young men will die. That is the real choice. The acceptance of an amendment of this kind and the extension of schemes such as Clerkenwell would enable us to get disturbed people out of the prison hospital in Brixton.
There are many dedicated doctors working in the prison medical service, just as there are many dedicated hospital officers looking after acutely ill mental patients, but hospital officers in the prison service are not state registered nurses. They are not experts. A scheme could be developed in which vulnerable people of the kind that we see at Clerkenwell and other London magistrates' courts were diverted with remarkable dispatch from those appalling conditions at Brixton into mental hospitals. I find the noble Earl's reply deeply disappointing. I shall certainly test the view of the House when we come to Amendment No. 20. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert:
("() For the purpose of facilitating the consideration of the likely effect of a custodial sentence on the mental condition of an offender who is or appears to be mentally disordered, the Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for the establishment of duty psychiatrist schemes in courts to which this section applies.
() Regulations made under this section may be made so as to apply only in specified areas.
() In this Part "duty psychiatrist scheme" means a scheme which provides for the psychiatric examination on court
1536
premises of the mental condition of convicted persons by a medical practitioner approved for the purposes of section 12(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
7.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 72.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Acton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Addington, L.

Longford, E.

Barnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carter, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monson, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mottistone, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mulley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nathan, L.

Erroll, E.

Nicol, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Norrie, L.

Ezra, L.

Palmer, L.

Faithfull, B.

Parry, L.

Falkland, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Rea, L.

Greenway, L.

Richard, L.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Tordoff, [Teller.]

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Windlesham, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hives, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Joseph, L.

Astor, V.

Kenilworth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kimball, L.

Belstead, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Blake, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Blatch, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Brentford, V.

Mancroft, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Nelson, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Newall, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Norfolk, D.

Crickhowell, L.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Denham, L.

Pender, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Effingham, E.

Rea, L.

Elles, B.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodney, L.

Fortescue, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Sharples, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harlech, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Harvington, L.

Strange, B.

Haslam, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Henley, L.

1537

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Trumpington, B.

Sudeley, L.

Waddington, L.

Suffield, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.10 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 not moved.]
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Provision of information as to hospitals or potential guardians
.—For section 39(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (information as to hospitals) there shall be substituted the following subsection.
"(1) Where a court is minded to make an Order under sections 35, 36, 37 or 38 in respect of any person it may request—

(a) the Regional Health Authority or local Social Services Authority for the region or district in which that person resides or last resided; or—

(b) any other Regional Health Authority or local Social Services Authority that appears to be appropriate,

to furnish the court in such manner as may be directed by it with such information as the Authority has or can reasonably obtain with respect to —

(i) the hospital or hospitals (if any) in the Authority's region or elsewhere at which arrangements could be made for the admission of that person in pursuance of the Order; or

(ii) the appropriateness of the person being received into guardianship pursuant to section 37,

and that Authority shall comply with any such request.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is separate from the group that we have just considered. I shall be able to move it quickly. The new clause is designed to improve the ways in which the sentencing court can obtain information about medical facilities at which a defendant can be assessed or treated and indeed the possibility of the defendant being received into guardianship.
In accordance with the Home Office circular, each regional health authority must have appointed someone to deal with requests for information on hospital facilities. In accordance with the mental health code of practice, social services authorities should have done the same in relation to requests for information concerning guardianship. The purpose of this clause is to extend the circumstances in which courts can request information, to enable courts to direct how they wish the information to be given, particularly if they require it to be given in person, and to give courts the power to seek information about guardianship.
Sections 35 and 36 of the Mental Health Act 1983 already provide powers for the court to remand a person to hospital for assessment. Accompanying Section 39 does not apply to those sections, and courts are sometimes frustrated in their use of the sections by not having a power to seek out information about facilities. The amendment will therefore extend Section 39 to the occasions when a court wants to remand to hospital for psychiatric assessment. In our view the courts should be given the power to require a representative of the relevant authorities to attend court to provide in person the information needed.
1538
The new subsection would incorporate that power for a court wishing to ensure the attendance of such a representative.
Finally, guardianship under Section 37 is rarely used, often because social services authorities are reluctant to agree to it. The inclusion of a power for a court to seek information about guardianship may, we hope, encourage its greater use as an appropriate non-custodial outcome. Both Home Office Circular 66/90 and the Mental Health Act code of practice, which is designed to improve practice in using the Mental Health Act, wish to encourage its greater use. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like strongly to support this amendment. We are in a situation in which the rate of reduction in mental hospital beds has accelerated and now runs at 3,000 to 4,000 a year instead of the average 2,000 to 3,000 a year which was usual up to 1935. One result is that some consultants are very selective about those whom they admit and a Minister said in this House only last month that non-offender patients should receive priority. That would not cause problems if a viable alternative existed for those who would formerly have been admitted to hospital without difficulty. The problem is that this situation continues and the number of beds is still decreasing.
As I see it, this amendment would make health authority managers answerable if they cannot arrange hospital admission. Similarly the social services authorities would have to explain why a guardianship order could not be made. Research published in 1990 established that the number of guardianship orders in force remains relatively small compared with hospital admissions. However, recent trends indicate a significant increase in its application to people with mental illness, although in 1989 the number of new cases in England involving mentally ill people and those with psychopathic disorders was only a little over 100.
If mentally ill offenders are to be cared for and supervised in the community, more use of guardianship orders may well be a way forward; hence, I much welcome the reference to it in the amendment. The amount that it is used reflects the attitudes and policies of different social services departments. The ability to summon their representatives to appear in court to explain their policies in relation to individual cases may possibly result in a modification to their current attitudes or at least force them to explain what the problems are. I strongly support this amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am bound to say that there is some real attraction in the proposal that has just been put forward. I have previously said that we hope that the aim of diverting mentally disordered offenders to the health and social services can be achieved by the use of practical measures instead of legislative ones. My initial reaction was that that was the course that we should aim to follow in this matter as well. I am aware, for example, that some regional health authorities are trying to develop good information systems for the courts which would negate the need for legislative change. West Midlands

1539
region, for example, has produced a very helpful booklet for the courts and at least one other region has similar work in hand. But the amendment would seem to be partially defective because the exercise of the power to remand is not strictly an "order" within the terms of the 1983 Act and does not technically result in an "admission" to hospital.
I nevertheless agree that, in principle, the proposed change could be very helpful in those cases where information of this kind is needed. This applies equally to Wales, where the supply of information to the courts is governed by Section 39(1) and (2) of the 1983 Act.
I am also attracted to the second part of the amendment under which local social services authorities would be required if necessary to advise the courts as to the appropriateness of a guardianship order. It would indeed help to concentrate minds on the availability of other possible disposals, and that would be all to the good.
If the noble Lord, Lord Richard, felt disposed to withdraw his amendment, I would give an undertaking to come forward with a suitably drafted amendment at Third Reading which would give effect to the aims of the new clause which the noble Lord has proposed.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Earl is irresistible. With the leave of the House, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Suspended and extended sentences of imprisonment]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 33, leave out ("of the 1973 Act (suspended sentences of imprisonment)") and insert ("(suspended sentences of imprisonment) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 ("the 1973 Act")").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 41, leave out ("by the exceptional") and insert ("in all the").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will find this to be an admirable preprandial amendment. I shall take it quite briefly. It arose in relation to suspended sentences on 16th April when the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was kind enough to agree to consider whether the use of the word "exceptional"—the words of limitation to be found in the section—was appropriate in relation to the use of suspended sentences.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for kindly writing me a most helpful letter on this subject. But in the course of that letter he says:
"The Bill follows the existing Court of Appeal guidelines in ensuring that a suspended sentence can be given only if the test for an immediate custodial sentence is met. It does therefore I think follow that there would have to be something exceptional about the case before the sentence could properly be suspended".
The American phrase "If it works, don't fix it" seems to me to be most appropriate.
If the present jurisprudence on this subject is considered adequate, to put something in a Bill which is obviously in many respects destined to make radical changes will cause problems. I referred to the jurisprudence. It is well documented in Archbold: Pleading, Evidence and Practice in Criminal Cases. At paragraph 5209 seven cases are set out as authorities for various propositions, including the proposition that the court must decide that a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate to the case without regard to the question of suspension. It goes on to explain that one must work one's way through all the other available alternatives before ultimately deciding whether it is appropriate to use a suspended sentence.
I wrote in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. I should like to quote—perhaps appropriately at dictation speed in the circumstances—a part of that letter. It states:
"A judge, on observing this legislative intervention, will inevitably conclude that the law has been changed, that only very rarely is he entitled to suspend a prison sentence and accordingly he will send more persons to prison, a course which we all wish to avoid".
The noble Lord referred, as an example of an exceptional circumstance, to an accused person who was terminally ill. In my respectful submission that shows how narrowly "exceptional circumstances" is construed in the noble Lord's mind. It certainly would not be so construed as the law now stands. "Exceptional circumstances" takes the matter right out of the normal. There are many normal circumstances which currently, and wholly correctly, justify a suspended sentence. I cite as an example a person of first rate character who pleads guilty, who offers effective reparation and who, if sent to prison, would have his career totally ruined and whose family would be placed in immensely difficult circumstances. Alternatively, a woman with children dependent upon her care whose bad shoplifting has continued over a period is a case for which a sentence of imprisonment could be given. However, bearing in mind the effect upon the children and the quite unnecessary expenditure that it would thrust upon society, I can well understand a judge saying, "In the very special case here, I shall suspend the sentence". The example is not exceptional; it is all too often the case.
If the Government wish to make suspended sentences virtually a thing of the past, then so be it. But their philosophy, which is designed to keep as many people out of prison as properly can be kept out, will be thwarted. On the other hand, if the Government are prepared for suspended sentences to continue to be used in the very restricted situation outlined in the decided cases, then there is not the slightest point in putting in these words of exception.
I suggest words which indicate that there is no change. I would much rather that the reference was not mentioned. A judge has to ask himself many complex questions before he carries out the sentencing operation. On finding a specific reference to suspended sentences he will inevitably conclude that the law has been changed and changed in a situation which seriously restricts the exercise of the powers which hitherto he would have exercised. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support the amendment. The main purpose of the Bill, as we have been told often during the proceedings, is to keep people out of prison. If we limit the award of suspended sentences by use of the word "exceptional"—and it would limit it, as the noble and learned Lord said—then we shall find that more custodial sentences have to be given. Therefore the use of the word "exceptional" is contrary to the intended purpose of the Bill. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am afraid that I oppose the amendment. If one considers the structure of the Bill, the use of suspended sentences becomes less apposite and, frankly, illogical.
Clause 4 restricts the use of the suspended sentence to cases where there are exceptional circumstances. There are powerful arguments in favour of that course. The suspended sentence involves the courts in a somewhat tortuous process of logic. They have to decide that prison sentence is essential. Immediately afterwards they reach what on the face of it is a self-contradictory conclusion: that it need not be imposed. That logic is questionable and difficult enough at present. But it is even more difficult if one considers Clause 1 which states that sentences should be restricted to cases where the offence,
"was so serious that only such a sentence can be justified for the offence".
Therefore we start with the proposition that before one passes a suspended sentence, the sentencer has to be satisfied that the offence is so serious that only a custodial sentence can be justified. He then has to say, "Despite the fact that I am satisfied of that, nevertheless I will suspend the sentence". In my submission it is impossible to imagine circumstances which were not exceptional which would lead the judge to those on the face of it—contradictory conclusions. In other words, I cannot imagine any normal circumstances in which a judge, having come to the conclusion that the offence was so serious that a custodial sentence was justified, would say, "Nevertheless, I shall suspend it". The only circumstances in which he would do that would be exceptional. It would be as well if we were to spell that out in the Bill so that sentencers can be absolutely clear about what we have in mind.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I too hope that the Government will resist the amendment. Again, the effect of the amendment of the noble and learned Lord is to retain the present position. That is its effect. Again it goes against the purpose of the Bill.
I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord that it would be better to get rid of the whole provision. That would be by far the best solution, as the Government have done on extended sentences. The amendment goes a long way towards getting rid of suspended sentences. The only problem about the Bill as drafted is the word "exceptional". We spent much time in Committee criticising that word and pointing out that nearly all mitigation before a court emphasises the exceptional situation of that accused person. Therefore, it will lead to problems of interpretation.
1542
The noble and learned Lord gave an example of the woman shoplifter with children and stated that that was a good reason for retaining the suspended sentence since that person would otherwise go to prison. It seems to indicate once again the inability of the judiciary to understand the new philosophy of sentencing. Surely it must be clear that the absolutely appropriate sentence for a woman shoplifter who has repeated her offence on a number of occasions is a sentence in the community. That leaves her in the family looking after the children. With the assistance of a probation officer she may understand the reasons for the shoplifting. In all the circumstances, she may be cured of her repetitive offending. I hope that the Government will resist the amendment. If the suspended sentence is to be kept, surely the Government are right in saying that it should be kept only for exceptional cases.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, hoped that his pre-prandial amendment would find a happy reception. It gave me a little indigestion which I hope will not be the case with the impending prandium. We debated the amendment at an earlier stage of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Waddington undertook to consider whether the use of the fully suspended sentence should be restricted to exceptional cases. The noble and learned Lord has exchanged letters with my noble friend the Leader of the House but clearly he remains uneasy about the issue.
The noble and learned Lord argues that the suspended sentence is in practice already used only in exceptional cases even though the current law does not spell this out. A judge will assume from the more restrictive wording in Clause 4 that the suspended sentence is to be used even more rarely than at present. As he and my noble friend Lord Renton said, more people will be sent to prison as a result.
I wonder whether the suspended sentence is being confined to exceptional circumstances at present. That may be the intention of the provision of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 and the interpretation of it by the Court of Appeal. However, nearly 30,000 suspended sentences were imposed in 1989. That adds up to an awful lot of exceptional cases. I am aware of several cases where an offender was given a suspended sentence and where the Court of Appeal substituted for it a lesser disposal such as a fine on the grounds that a custodial sentence was not justified in the first place and so should not have been suspended. Two recent examples are the cases of Regina v. Francis (1988) and Regina v. Smith (1990). In the first example the defendant was given a suspended sentence for possessing drugs because the prospect of its activation would serve as a deterrent. The Court of Appeal held that an immediate custodial sentence would not have been justified and so a suspended sentence should not have been imposed. In the second example the defendant had not previously served a term of imprisonment and the court should not have imposed

1543
a custodial sentence unless no other disposal would have been appropriate. On appeal, the suspended sentence was commuted to a fine.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, gave the example of illness. He believed that showed we intend a narrow definition. The illness of the offender is only one example of a case in which a custodial sentence might be suspended. The family circumstances and the responsibilities which go with them might also be relevant; for example, if sending a parent to prison would leave no one to look after the children. Another example is that of someone running a small firm whose staff will be thrown out of work if he were imprisoned and the firm would therefore close down.
I do not believe that restricting the use of the suspended sentence as proposed in Clause 4 will result in more offenders being sent to prison. We should recognise the effect of the restrictions on custodial sentencing in Clause 1. They will ensure that custodial sentences are imposed only where that is the only suitable way of dealing with the offender. We are also increasing the range and effectiveness of the community penalties which the courts will have at their disposal. The effect of these changes should be that fewer offenders will be judged to require custodial sentences. As my noble friend the Leader of the House pointed out if a custodial sentence is justified even when the new restrictions apply it should be implemented unless there are good reasons for not doing so. If an offence does not justify an immediate custodial sentence the normal recourse should be to a community penalty not a suspended sentence.
All that should not be taken to mean that there is no place for the suspended sentence. It will provide a useful means of mitigating an immediate prison sentence in the right cases. The Bill ensures that a sentencer can take into account any relevant mitigating factor in deciding on the sentence. I suggest that in practice the presence of common mitigating factors such as a guilty plea or a good record will generally result in a shorter custodial sentence or a community sentence. The suspended sentence will come it to play only if the sentencer has considered all these mitigating factors and still believes that a custodial sentence is right. We can then take into account any exceptional circumstances such as the terminal illness of the offender and suspend the sentence.
For all those reasons I believe that the use of the fully suspended sentence should continue to be restricted to exceptional cases as proposed in Clause 4. I hope that in the light of this further explanation and his pre-prandial expectations the noble and learned Lord will agree.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I owe the noble Earl an apology. I should have realised that dietetically speaking anything that is irresistible might cause indigestion. It is clear from what the Minister has said that there is an imprecision about the whole situation. On the one hand it is said that the present restrictions which are being operated by the Court of Appeal produce exceptional circumstances. On the other hand it is said that we must legislate to ensure that the number of sentences which are suspended is reduced.
1544
The example given by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, of the terminally ill is clearly exceptional. However the noble Earl's examples are not exceptional. He spoke of the family which will be broke if one of its breadwinners goes to prison. That is a pretty usual situation.
I have done the best that I can to try to ensure that fewer people go to prison. If the Government do not like that approach, so be it. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Reay: My Lords, this may be a convenient point at which to break for dinner. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Badgers Bill
7.38 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

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

River Calder (Welbeck Site) Bill [H.L.]
7.40 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The promoter of the Bill is the Wakefield Metropolitan District Council which seeks consent to divert a stretch of the River Calder which flows through the Welbeck reclamation landfill site. The Welbeck site lies to the east of the City of Wakefield and is a sad testimony to the environmental ravages of mineral extraction. It is a square mile of dereliction which can best be described as a lunar landscape.
Recently I surveyed that valley wasteland for myself and from the surrounding communities of Eastmoor, Normanton and Kirkthorpe. Those are housing estates and villages, a generation of whose inhabitants have overlooked the despoliation of former pleasant countryside through sand and gravel working, clay extraction and coal mining.
Happily, environmental improvement is already under way at Welbeck. Work has begun on what is known as the limited reclamation and landfill scheme—basically, infilling and recontouring the enormous holes and tips created by mineral extraction. The possibility of realising the full reclamation scheme depends on diverting the River Calder and attracting further inert materials. The river diversion is the subject of this Bill.
The Bill's promoters, with support from all parties of the council, and in partnership with the West Yorkshire Waste Management Joint Committee, have put in hand a far-sighted land reclamation scheme. That is to utilise household waste and colliery spoil in

1545
order to create an area featuring natural contours, wooded slopes and an environmentally attractive river corridor specifically designed for local recreation and as a wildlife haven.
In considering the Bill I ask your Lordships to recall that the West Yorkshire Waste Management Joint Committee has a duty to dispose of household waste while the Wakefield Metropolitan District Council has a responsibility to reclaim land. Indeed, it is already engaged on many colliery reclamation schemes within its boundaries.
The Welbeck scheme combines and solves three problems: reclamation, waste disposal and spoil disposal. It does that in a way which economises on land, which takes advantage of the properties of colliery discard as an engineering material and which recognises the energy potential of putrescible waste through methane recovery. By going for an integrated and long-term solution, it helps ensure that resources and management skills are concentrated on achieving the highest safety and environmental standards.
Diverting the River Calder, which presently flows through the middle of the reclamation area, to a more westerly route will accelerate its restoration and re-opening as a public asset. It will also enable the creation of a landform which offers more than double the voidspace, both requiring and accommodating additional spoil and waste.
However, diversion of the river gives rise to certain legal issues, including matters of riparian and navigation rights on the affected stretch of the river and consequences such as the alteration of flows. The promoters, as a responsible public authority, acknowledge that it is appropriate to seek specific statutory authority for the works, and see the pursuit of the parliamentary Bill as the proper way to proceed and to secure a start on the diversion works.
Diverting the River Calder is not a simple task, and the proposition has not been considered lightly. It would be possible to fill and repair the Welbeck dereliction without seeking a river diversion, but that would lead to the retention of a relatively inaccessible stretch of the river, hemmed in by former mineral working tips, with insignificant recreational, ecological and aesthetic value.
Diverting the Calder will allow the creation and enhancement of a broader river and waterway corridor, richer in wetland habitat and landscape interest and more immediately available for public access and enjoyment. Indeed, by retaining substantial reaches of the former river arms the scheme will provide a net increase of almost one kilometre (0.6 miles) in the total length of riverside habitat and a net gain of approximately 10 hectares (25 acres) in wetlands.
The overall project, though currently seen as a 20–25 year venture, is geared to progressive restoration. The reclamation has been designed to start from the outside and work inwards, leaving the remaining landfill operations increasingly remote from the surrounding communities. Indeed, substantial peripheral stretches of the site have already been restored and reopened to public access. The target is to
1546
have more than half of Welbeck restored by the end of the decade; and the local authorities are well on the way to achieving that.
However, the purposes and benefits of the Welbeck scheme go far beyond reclamation and environmental improvement at Welbeck. The scheme is already set up to accommodate 7 million cubic metres of domestic and trade waste and provide a similar capacity to meet the spoil disposal needs of nearby Sharlston Colliery. The hill which can be created behind the diverted river will not only double the provision for household type wastes, but also provide for up to 25 million tonnes more spoil. The wider environmental benefits of those provisions—in avoiding the creation of a whole series of less desirable tipping schemes on green field sites elsewhere—are appreciated far beyond the Wakefield area.
Landfill is also a key to the economics and funding of the scheme—to paying for early restoration to a high standard. I will avoid precise figures as those are better defined in detail for the Select Committee; but suffice it to say that the cost of the river diversion would be of the order of £6 million, and the scheme as a whole would cost substantially more.
However, these are essentially moneys which would need to be spent anyway: by the Department of the Environment and the European Commission on land reclamation at Welbeck; and by British Coal and the waste management authorities on spoil and waste disposal elsewhere.
The project not only creates long-term jobs at Welbeck itself, but helps to sustain thousands more in the local transport, mining and power generation industries; and this is a part of the world which has experienced colliery closures on a massive scale in recent years.
Earlier I mentioned colliery spoil. This is a vital element in the plans to re-create Welbeck. It will supply the inert materials which any landfill and reclamation scheme requires to screen its operations. The Welbeck site in particular will need millions of tonnes of such material to create the new hillsides, valleys and contours which are proposed.
Fortunately, the material will be ready to hand. Spoil from the nearby Sharlston Colliery is already accepted at Welbeck. It is proposed that the volume needed for the full scheme will be brought by rail from the Selby coalfield.
When the Selby coalfield was planned—this was at the time at which I was at the coal board it was thought that it would not produce significant quantities of spoil. That was the result of the geological researches which we undertook at that time. However, the original predictions, which indicated geological conditions broadly typical of the North Yorkshire coalfield, have proved overoptimistic and British Coal now has an unexpected problem of discard to deal with. It is now envisaged that an average of 1 million tonnes of spoil will be produced per year. British Coal is seeking security of disposal for the current life expectancy of the Selby coalfield, which is up to 25 years. The 25 million tonnes of spoil which that implies would occupy some 14 million cubic metres.

1547
The position, therefore, is this. The Bill's promoters need substantial inert materials and a river diversion to realise their ambitions of a full waste disposal and reclamation scheme for Welbeck. British Coal needs a cost-effective and environmentally acceptable means of disposing of spoil from the Selby coalfield. The proposed scheme will provide a mutually beneficial solution which will also be to the advantage of the local community.
I should now like to summarise the Bill. It authorises the diversion of the River Calder between Kirkthorpe Weir and Stanley Ferry aqueducts. It also authorises the construction of storm water lagoons and related works to secure flood storage capacity. Two arms of the redundant loop of the old river channel would be retained but the middle section would be filled in.
Part I of the Bill is formal. Part II of the Bill authorises the acquisition of land in connection with the river diversion and related works. The Bill incorporates standard provisions in relation to compulsory purchase and compensation. The area of land subject to compulsory acquisition is shown on the deposited plans. The Bill deliberately only authorises acquisition of land which is justified in the context of the river diversion itself. It does not include power to acquire additional land needed for the intended landfill operation. Powers to acquire that land are being pursued by the appropriate non-parliamentary means of compulsory purchase orders.
Part III of the Bill contains the works powers which follow the sort of provisions common in Acts authorising river diversions. Clause 31 of the Bill places the promoters under a duty in exercising the powers of the Bill to take reasonable steps to further the conservation of flora and fauna and to carry out such consultations as may be reasonably required by English nature for the furtherance of nature conservation.
With a scheme of the magnitude of the Welbeck scheme it would be surprising if there were not some objectors. Only two petitions have been deposited against the Bill, one from the Stanley Forum Committee and one from the Warmfield Company Limited.
The Stanley Forum Committee is a local residents' organisation. The members have, in fact, written to me. Their concerns relate primarily to perceived loss of public rights of way and navigation. Inevitably, public access to the site would have to be restricted while the works were in progress but it is the promoters' intention that the new river corridor would afford an improvement in terms of public accessibility, recreation and amenity as well as an improvement in terms of the environment and wildlife habitat. That would be one of the first parts of the project to be completed. The Warmfield Company is a local landowner, part of whose interests in land would be subject to acquisition under the Bill.
I commend the Welbeck scheme as an undertaking which is environmentally progressive, technologically far-sighted, and economically realistic. It deals in a balanced and integrated way with a package of difficult problems which faces the local communities,
1548
local industries and local authorities in Wakefield and West and North Yorkshire. More particularly, I commend the river diversion Bill to the House as a key measure in realising the full potential, economically and environmentally, of the Welbeck project.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.—(Lord Ezra.)
7.55 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in speaking from the Dispatch Box I must make the usual disclaimer. The Opposition do not take any collective view on Private Bills and anything I say about the Bill must be taken as an expression of my personal opinion rather than as the view of Her Majesty's Opposition.
I have certain interests in the Bill. First, the disposal of colliery spoil was one of the major concerns of the Flowers Standing Commission on Energy and the Environment which was unfortunately allowed by the Government to lapse in the early 1980s and of which my wife was a member. Secondly, I have an interest because the whole issue which causes the land around the Welbeck site to be in such a shocking state, the whole question of mineral extraction under inadequate planning and restoration powers, is one which we considered at length when we debated the Planning and Compensation Bill.
I hope that when the Bill comes back to this House the limited concessions made by the Government to restrict those planning permissions which were granted in the 1940s, and which are inadequately documented even now and certainly do not include adequate provision for control of mineral working and above all for enforcement of restoration works, will be strengthened. I hope that we shall see a better Bill than that which reached us and a better Bill than that which left us in our consideration of the Planning and Compensation Bill. Much of the damage done in parts of Yorkshire and Lancashire was caused by inadequate restoration.
The Bill offers a unique opportunity to deal both with domestic waste, which is the proper responsibility of the waste disposal authority, and with colliery spoil on a large scale. The proposal now before the House and before Parliament has been produced with considerable care for the environment with the unanimous support of all parties, not only in the Wakefield Metropolitan District Council but also in the five authorities which are members of the voluntary joint waste disposal authority. They could have objected and made their objections very clear. They appear not to have done so.
In the face of that virtual unanimity and in the face of the very restricted objections put forward I hope that the Bill will have a successful and speedy passage through Parliament.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, before I deal with the Bill I should declare several overlapping interests. Robert Horrocks, chairman of one of the two petitioning companies to which the noble Lord referred, has been a friend of mine for many years. Months ago, before the Bill was tabled, he invited me to join the board of

1549
a company which he chairs. I did not give a firm reply as I then had too many commitments. I gather that the invitation is still open. My commitments will soon be lighter and I should indicate to the House that I shall probably accept the invitation.
Moreover, an engineering and construction company of which I am a part-time paid director and in whose parent company I own shares, might be awarded contracts in connection with the potential waste tip which the petition company owns, the future of which the Bill might affect. I further add that I am not an engineer.
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said. I regret that he did not think fit to explore the degree to which the scheme is prudent and safe. I shall attempt to convince the House that the introduction of the Bill is premature on several counts and, most important of all, I shall refer first to the factor to which the noble Lord did not refer.
We have before us three volumes of a technical report made by highly reputable consulting engineers. The report is called the Welbeck Reclamation and Landfill Project: Diversion of the River Calder. The report makes it clear that conclusions cannot yet be reached on the prudence and safety of the project. I repeat that I am not an engineer. I only know that the consulting engineers emphasise that there is a good deal more work to be done. If any noble Lord wishes to challenge me I can refer him to examples.
I am quite sure that the promoters will be making available to the House and the Select Committee an environmental statement. That was not required by law when the scheme was conceived. Am I accurate? An environmental statement is now statutorily required. I should have thought that a local authority promoting such an ambitious scheme would have taken care to go further than the provisional consulting engineer's review which we have before us. I repeat that I expect that an environmental statement bringing together the tests and appraisals which will have taken place since the Bill was tabled no doubt, will be put before the House and the Select Committee.
I am sure that noble Lords will realise that there are bound to be doubts about the pollution risks of landfill on made ground from beneath which some of the natural strata, as I understand it, has been excavated. Since planning permission was granted the scheme has been significantly modified. It is true that planning permission for the scheme was granted in 1985 by the then Metropolitan County Council to itself before such environmental assessments were required by law. I repeat that the nature, size and location of the scheme surely warrants such an assessment being made available to the House and the Select Committee.
Therefore, my first argument for asserting that the Bill is premature is that no environmental statement and no statement offering the tests—the need for which the environmental review before us refers—have been made available. Moreover, the landfill site committee of another place is currently inquiring into the high standards required by a Euro-draft directive
1550
on landfill. The thought of allowing a 1985 approval given by an authority to itself to authorise the intake of millions of tonnes of waste into the promoters' scheme escaping without examination in the light of all that has come about in the use of the word "pollution" would be inexcusable and dangerous to the public. I regret that the noble Lord did not refer to any of these matters in what he said to us.
I now come to the second reason why the Bill is premature. In September 1990 the promoters of the Bill who are the local authority, granted themselves planning permission for the river diversion. I understand that the validity of that planning permission is considered questionable. I further understand that a judicial review has been authorised. The Bill does not seek planning permission for the river diversion. If the Bill were passed and the judicial review invalidated the planning permission, the promoters could not go ahead. Of course we do not know when the judicial review will take place nor, obviously, what the outcome will be.
I come to another reason why the Bill is premature. I want to make the point particularly to my noble friend the Minister. The noble Lord told us that the local authority has all-party support for the Bill. I have received a letter from the leader of my party on the council indicating significant government backing for the project
"because of the innovative way in which it seeks to tackle the problem of disposal of large quantities of both household waste and colliery spoil in an environmentally acceptable manner".
It emphasises that numerous Ministers who are honourable friends of mine, have visited the site and have expressed their "support". The letter names several of them. "Environmentally acceptable" has yet to be proven. We—that includes Ministers and the department, the Select Committee and this House—must await the environmental statement and the further evidence that it will contain on a number of crucial environmental aspects including leakage and pollution, before the project can be fully considered.
There are further reasons why in my view the Bill is premature. I must weary the House for a moment with three pieces of land owned by the petitioners and which are crucial to the promoters' project. Part of the bed of the river is owned by the petitioners. The promoters have made a CPO and parallel with that they have sought power in the Bill to acquire that piece of land. If the Bill passes the petitioners will lose the land in the bed of the river which they now own with no right to a public inquiry or an appeal.
That may or may not concern noble Lords. I shall later come to the point at which that matter should worry the House. The second piece of land is the Warmfield potential waste disposal tip to which the noble Lord referred when he spoke of the land owned by the petitioning company. That land is part of the Normanton Park Estate and it is owned by the petitioners. The potential tip site has been subjected to extensive studies under the direction of ACFR consultants, the organisation resulting from the merger of Freeman Fox and John Taylor and Sons.

1551
Planning application was put in a few months ago for the development of a waste disposal scheme by the petitioners for controlled waste.
Non-determination by the Wakefield local authority, the promoters of the Bill, of this planning application by the end of April was deemed under the law a refusal of the planning application. I understand that the Warmfield company will be lodging an appeal and will seek the holding of a public inquiry before an inspector. That is a process intended to ensure an early opportunity for a full technical appraisal and attendant audit of all the issues involved including those arising from the Bill. I am led to understand that it would be extremely unusual if such a public inquiry is not granted. If in the event the promoters fail to win their compulsory purchase order there will be no case for the river diversion.
The third piece of land is extra land which is not covered in the Bill. Its compulsory acquisition is not provided for in the Bill. I am sure it is shown on the maps. It is extra land needed for the project. It is also owned by the Normanton Park Estate and indeed is part of its own scheme, the potential waste disposal site to which I have just referred. Here Warmfield company has the chance to oppose the compulsory purchase order placed by the promoters. If Warmfield were to win that compulsory purchase order, once again the promoters could not go ahead with the full project and the scheme would be truncated.
It is true, I have to say to the House, that the promoters could try to amend the Bill to include the land they need; and no doubt, if they did that, they would prejudice the rights of the petitioners, because they would then, if the Bill passed as amended, find their op position compromised at a planning inquiry.
All these issues—the judicial review of the planning permission granted to itself by Wakefield for the river diversion; the outcome of the compulsory purchase order on the bed of the river, if it were to be decided before the Bill is concluded; the outcome of the public inquiry or of any public inquiry on the deemed refusal by Wakefield of the planning application of the Warmfield potential disposal tip —are important. If they lose—in the outcome of any compulsory purchase order on the extra land needed by the Bill—then once again the House and the Select Committee will be asked to consider a Bill that will need substantial changes, quite apart from having to await the evidence of the environmental statement.
All these hearings and decisions with which I have wearied the House will be strung over months and months. Not even the noble Lord who has just spoken can forecast when they will all occur. During those months the House of Lords will be considering a Bill that the promoters may find truncated, or worse.
I have one other point to make about the Bill. The House will have noticed that the noble Lord actually took credit for what he called—I am not using his exact words—the advantage to the neighbourhood of the project being sufficiently large so that other disposal sites would not be needed. That is another way of expressing an intention to create a local monopoly, which is against this Government's policy and against European policy and, I should have
1552
thought, against the policy of all parties. It is not sensible to leave one disposal tip for controlled waste. In fact, the Bill seeks to open the door to enable the promoters to subsume by extension of their major scheme that scheme of a similar nature of the petitioner, thus potentially leading to a local if not regional monopoly for the intake and disposal of controlled waste.
In the light of all those arguments—I am sure there are many more—I have to ask the promoters via the noble Lord who has a right to reply to consider deferring the Bill. I ask my noble friend the Minister to take into account the need to appraise the risks and the pollution dangers in this large project when a full environmental statement is received and to regard such ministerial and departmental approval, as manifested in the letter to me from the leader of the Conservative group on the local council, as provisional until the implications of the environmental statement and the further tests it will embody are known.
I ask my noble friend the Minister to take into account the interests of all those who might be injured by the pollution. I am not saying that there will be pollution; I am saying we cannot make a judgment until we have the final environmental statement. I ask my noble friend the Minister to bear in mind the interests of the petitioners and to bear in mind that the promoters seem to be seeking a local or even a regional monopoly of waste disposal that is potentially damaging to the public as they are seeking to acquire a nearby competitor. I hope the noble Lord will reply to some of these points.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may refer to the statement with which he opened his speech about his connection with the Warmfield Company, of which he is not a director but of which he has been invited to be a director. He indicated, very fairly and properly to the House, that he was likely to consider favourably the invitation, which is still open.
I have looked at the standing order on declaration of interests. I say at the outset that I have no doubt, on advice taken from the Clerks, that the noble Lord was in order in everything that he said. However, I ask him to consider the fact that the Bill will take its course over a considerable time and that if he were to accept a directorship of the Warmfield Company he would come under the conditions of the Standing Order on declaration of interests. It states that it is undesirable, which in our House means out of order, for a noble Lord to advocate, promote or oppose in the House any Bill or subordinate legislation, if he is acting or has acted personally in direct connection with it for a specific fee or reward, or to vote on a direct Private Bill in which he has a direct pecuniary interest. The noble Lord is on the right side of the line but it is a very difficult line to draw. He will be aware that any change in his status as a prospective director would affect his ability in the future to comment further on this Bill.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to say that, while I am a new Member of your Lordships' House, I really

1553
do not need guidance quite in those terms. Of course I would scrupulously obey. Had other Members been willing to take what I should have thought would be an interest from the CPRE's point of view, I should not have felt it necessary to intervene today. In fact I constantly sought other interventions, and it was only when there appeared to be a risk that there would be no debate in this House that I came before the House and declared my interest fully.
8.17 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in introducing this Bill, has explained it with great clearness and detail. I am pleased to support the Bill, and especially its environmental aspects. North Yorkshire County Council and Wakefield Metropolitan District Council are in agreement over this project.
At present the River Calder flows through the middle of the reclamation area. Diverting the river would create a much larger area for landfill. This also presents a great opportunity to enhance the environmental value of the river corridor by creating a channel which has a wide variety of sectional forms and features. By creating a greater area of landfill, the council will, in disposing of domestic waste and spoil from the coalfields, acquire more money with which to increase leisure and pleasure—in other words, recreational potential. The environment will be much improved, which is surely the desire of everyone, the outlook will be pleasing, wildlife will be protected and woodlands and other amenities such as marina basins will be created. By doubling the landfill capacity at this site at Welbeck, the local authority and British Coal will avoid having to create a whole series of alternative tipping sites on green field land elsewhere.
The Selby coalfield, which is in the North Yorkshire County Council area, has now, because of adverse geological conditions, developed a major waste disposal requirement. As the chairman of the North Yorkshire county planning committee, Mrs. Edwards, has told me, they want if possible to avoid the development of a tip on a green field site on grades 2 and 3 agricultural land. The Welbeck scheme offers a major opportunity to solve this problem and bring benefits to the Wakefield area by greening land which at present is derelict.
The British Waterways Board supports the diversion of the River Calder, stating that it will have no direct impact on existing navigation as used at present. The board supports the diversion as it allows a larger area to be reclaimed and it is currently having discussions with Wakefield Metropolitan District Council and the waste management authority to discover whether domestic waste from Wakefield can be carried to the site by barge. While the site is being restored, part of the land can be used for sport, recreation and water activities. If waste is carried by barge, the unloading facilities themselves can be turned over to recreational or marina use on the completion of the site.
The Nature Conservancy Council for England, now English Nature, welcomes the inclusion of
1554
Section 31, which imposes a duty on the council in subsection (1) to take reasonable steps to further the conservation of flora and fauna of scientific interest. English Nature also feels that the scheme shows considerable potential, following restoration, for the creation of wildlife habitats, which are scarce in the district.
I live in North Yorkshire, near York, and have seen various derelict sites around the area in Wakefield and other parts nearby. Some have been reclaimed and transformed into low, grass-covered undulations which make the areas pleasing to look at. That has happened over the past 20 or so years, during which time, as I said, there have been great improvements. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out, environmental improvements are already under way in Welbeck. Work has already begun on a reclamation and landfill scheme.
I support the Bill, as it will improve the environment and leisure and recreational activities in an area which at present has parts which are beautiful but which are spoilt by the derelict areas that surround them.
8.23 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on the clear way in which he introduced the Bill. Like the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, I wholeheartedly support the Bill. However, as Trinculo said in "The Tempest"—I hope that I have got the quotation right:
"Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows".
I do not mean to say that this is a miserable Bill. I think that it improves not miserable land but very severely degraded landscape, but it is certainly supported by some very strange bedfellows. Apart from both being situated in Yorkshire, the city of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council and the North Yorkshire County Council have little in common either politically or scenically, yet this Bill, promoted by the former, is most strongly supported by the latter, as the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, has just said.
As noble Lords have heard from the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and also from the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, Selby waste will be used for a beneficial purpose, rather than having to be disposed of on rich agricultural land. However, in case any noble Lords may think that North Yorkshire is acting in a rather selfish way in the matter and not looking after its own beauties, I can assure them that, in the south of the county at present, power station waste from Ferrybridge and domestic waste from the Wakefield area is imported into the county for disposal at properly managed sites.
Two other agencies which, sadly, do not always agree with each other, are also strong in their support for the Bill. I refer to the two government advisers on wildlife and the countryside—namely, English Nature and the Countryside Commission. Unfortunately, it is not often that those two organisations get together. I believe that, when they do so in order to support such a scheme, there must be an awful lot in it environmentally.

1555
I know that the Government will be neutral on the matter. However, as the two agencies which give them advice on countryside issues are actively in support of the Bill, I hope that perhaps they will, if not positively supporting it, be at least benignly neutral. I wish the Bill a Second Reading and a speedy passage through Parliament.
8.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, it is by convention that the Government take a neutral stance on private Bills and this Bill is no exception to that rule. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and they have no objection in principle to the powers being sought by the council.
As the House has heard, the Bill is being promoted in furtherance of a large scale reclamation scheme, involving a diversion of the River Calder, and the provision of substantial new landfill capacity for the disposal of municipal waste and colliery spoil. The scheme is expected to bring a number of environmental benefits to the area and the Government have already provided substantial grant-aid for some aspects of it.
However, as this is a private Bill, it will be for the Council, as the Bill's promoter, to persuade Parliament that the powers they seek are justified. I note that there are two petitioners against the Bill. They will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. The committee will be in a very much better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved, and it will have the added advantage of hearing expert advice.
I should point out at this stage that it would be particularly inappropriate for the Government to take sides on the Bill, or indeed to respond to the specific points raised by my noble friend Lord Joseph. I say that because some of the associated compulsory orders which the council has made under existing public legislation may come before the Secretary of State for determination. I am sure noble Lords will agree that it is right for the Government to maintain their neutrality in those circumstances. However, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading so that it may proceed in the usual way to the Select Committee for detailed consideration.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It is clear that those who have spoken have studied the issues with care. They have come forward with constructive proposals or with points of comment, especially in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, which obviously merit serious consideration.
I should like to refer to some of the points raised. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, talked about the effect of inadequate provision for restoration after mineral workings from which we have certainly suffered over the years. However, in regard to mineral workings such as opencast coal, I
1556
should like to point out to him that while I was at the coal board, and indeed before I took over as chairman, we reached a very high standard for reclamation, which I believe has been recognised throughout the world. These things are now much better. However, what we see at the Welbeck site is the effect of past mineral workings which have created what is a most appalling mess to look at. It must be dealt with in one way or another.
The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, raised many issues. He considered that the Bill was premature. He doubted the prudence of the proposals and the safety of the project.
Lord Joseph: With respect to the noble Lord, I said that it would not be possible to judge the prudence and the safety until we had the final environmental statement. That is rather different from what the noble Lord said.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I was just about to mention his point about an environmental statement. As he rightly said, there is no requirement for it in relation to the Bill. The promoters have already undertaken extensive environmental appraisals, copies of which the noble Lord evidently has, and have decided to consolidate and supplement them in preparation for the Select Committee. They intend to deposit an environmental statement in Parliament before the Select Committee commences its sittings. I believe that that completely answers the point raised by the noble Lord.
The petitioners have seen the detailed environmental review in relation to the river diversion which was lodged with the reserved matters planning application. Much work has been done by the promoters and they will put forward—although they are not bound to do so—a full environmental statement for the benefit of the Select Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, referred to the dangers of pollution. I am not quite with him in that respect. What are the dangers of pollution from the normal tipping of colliery waste and domestic refuse? Such material has to be deposited in controlled conditions. Therefore, who better to see that such conditions are adhered to than the waste disposal authority and the local authority? If they cannot do the job properly, who can? In my experience these matters can be handled very satisfactorily. We are not talking about toxic waste; we are talking about normal domestic waste and normal colliery spoil, neither of which is a potential cause of pollution. The only form of pollution that could be caused would be if they were handled inexpertly. I should have thought that that is the last thing that the council and the waste disposal authority would allow.
The noble Lord referred to a judicial review for the river diversion which might impede the implementation of the Bill if it were to pass through Parliament. That may be, but I fail to see why that should hold up the measure. If other developments take place, they will have to be considered in due time. What perhaps concerned me most about his remarks was that he seemed to think that there should be an alternative way of dealing with the waste and that the Warmfield

1557
Company, whose cause he was supporting, should have the facility to develop its own waste disposal arrangements.
I should like to ask the noble Lord—I do not know whether he will reply now or at a later date—whether the company has plans which would accommodate the quantity of waste about which we are talking. Does it have plans which would accommodate the amount of colliery spoil from Selby about which we are talking? That will amount to 25 million tonnes over the period. If it does not, what will happen to that waste and spoil? The noble Lord said that one reason he objected to the scheme was that it would form a type of local waste disposal monopoly. That is an odd way to put it, I must say. Does he prefer that the waste be scattered around the north Yorkshire countryside, encumbering a number of green field sites all over the place, in the interests of competition, with a total disregard of the environmental impact? That would seem to be the alternative.
Here we have a desolate site. I am sure that he has seen it. I have seen it. Anything one does for that site will be for the better. It is appalling. Here we have an opportunity to put it right; to transform it into undulating countryside with an extended waterway; to dispose, in a properly controlled manner, of the large quantities of waste which unexpectedly have arisen from the Selby coal operation; to create void space, which is badly needed throughout the country; and to dispose of domestic waste in an acceptable way.
I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider those objectives in the light of what he said. I do not believe that he presented us with an alternative. He pointed out various ways in which he thought that the measure was premature, but I did not glean from what he said that he was putting forward an alternative to deal with the pressing problems that we have been debating.
I appreciate what the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, said. As she rightly said, Clause 31 is important and shows the promoters' dedication to the concept of conservation.
The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, was also kind enough to support the Bill. He emphasised the beneficial use to which the unexpected Selby waste could be put. It is, as he rightly said, a unique opportunity to make something positive out of an unfortunate occurrence. The geological faults discovered at Selby will at least yield material which can contribute to environmental improvement. I should have thought that that was an opportunity far too good to miss. As he also pointed out, English Nature and the Countryside Commission have jointly—I gather this is a fairly rare occurrence—supported the project. So it has support from on high.
The Minister was circumspect, as she was bound to be. The Government have to appear to be neutral when it comes to Private Bills. She said that the Government had no objection in principle to what was contained in the Bill. She pointed out that the Government had aided the existing improvements. The implication—without committing the Minister in
1558
any way—was that if there were to be further improvements the Government would look favourably on aiding them.
We have had a useful debate. We have heard a number of views on the subject. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, stimulated us into thinking about the project, but I am convinced that it is one of the best and most desirable reclamation projects that I have come across in a long career of involvement in disposing of waste materials.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Education Reform Act 1988 (Application of Section 122 to Institutions in Wales) Order 1991
8.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington) rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 4th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are here to consider whether my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales should be empowered to transfer the Polytechnic of Wales and the other local authority institutions of higher education in Wales out of the local authority sector.
The background to this proposal is the Government's decision, taken in 1987, to leave the Welsh institutions of higher education in the local government sector while the English institutions were incorporated and responsibility for their funding was transferred to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council (PCFC).
Your Lordships will be aware that we owe the growth of the public sector of higher education in Wales almost entirely to the local authorities. There is one voluntary college in Wales with some 700 students, but the remaining 15,000 students in the public sector are all in the local authority institutions of higher education. We owe a debt of gratitude to the local authorities that over the years have supported, sustained and developed the Polytechnic of Wales and the Welsh colleges of higher education and have brought them to the position they are in today, a position of mature development where it is right for them to be given independence from their maintaining authorities.
Four years have passed since it was decided to leave the Welsh colleges in the local government sector; four years in which they have continued to grow and to mature. The recommendations of independent consultants, Price Waterhouse, received last year, that the Polytechnic of Wales should be given corporate status with funding from the Welsh Office were timely. In considering those recommendations and their implications for the other higher education institutions, my right honourable friend has also had regard to the successful experience of the English polytechnics and colleges since they became independent in

1559
1989, and also the equivalent institutions in Scotland where it has been accepted for many years that higher education is best provided by independent colleges. He has concluded that it will now be in the best interests of higher education in Wales if all the Welsh higher education institutions are given similar status to their counterparts elsewhere in Britain. I believe that the Opposition also take the view that the higher education institutions should now become independent of the local authorities and that the time has come for them to be funded by an all-Wales body. In a policy document published last year the Labour Party envisaged higher education in Wales becoming the responsibility of the proposed regional government for the Principality.
I should like to make it clear that my right honour able friend is not proposing to take control of the colleges himself or to take over ownership of their assets. His proposal is to make the institutions legally independent and to allow them to own their own property and employ their own staff. All the assets currently owned by the local authorities will pass to the independent colleges, which will remain locally based aid will continue to function as they do today. But legal independence will give the institutions the managerial freedom they need to operate successfully in the challenging climate of higher education in the 1990s.
The draft order before us, under Section 227(4) of the Education Reform Act 1988, is an enabling order. Bringing Section 122 of the Act into force in Wales will enable my right honourable friend to make a further order that will incorporate the six institutions concerned and allow him to transfer responsibility for their funding to himself. He already has powers that allow him to fund higher education institutions under the 1944 Education Act. Incorporation will be achieved by the creation of higher education corporations charged with the responsibility of conducting the institutions.
As well as the Polytechnic of Wales, the other institutions that meet the criteria for incorporation are the Cardiff and West Glamorgan institutes of higher education, the Gwent College of Higher Education, Bangor Normal College and, with the agreement of South Glamorgan County Council, which has been given, the Welsh College of Music and Drama.
My right honourable friend announced his intention of exercising his powers to incorporate these six institutions on 30th January. Some noble Lords may wonder whether the Government have further plans for higher education in Wales that go beyond the subject of our debate today. If so, I am afraid I must disappoint them. The Government have no announcements on this subject to make this evening and your Lordships will not expect me to anticipate future announcements that may or may not be made.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that the time has come for the Welsh local authority institutions of higher education to be incorporated and that the enabling draft order that is before us should be approved.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Trumpington.)
8.42 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her careful and fair explanation of the meaning and implications of this brief but important order. She has explained that it will lead to the incorporation of six local authority institutions of higher education in Wales and their transfer out of local authority ownership and control.
In Wales, since the early part of the last century, people have taken the keenest interest in education and have given it a high priority. Schools and colleges have been seen as significant to Welsh national life and it is important that their governance be responsive to lay opinion. I join the Minister in paying tribute to the Welsh local education authorities, the founding fathers of these colleges. They justly deserve that tribute.
I confess that at first I was unhappy about the Secretary of State's decision to make the local authority colleges of higher education directly accountable to the Welsh Office. I was uneasy about that decision because I feared that it would tend to devalue the role of lay opinion in moulding their development. However, I have always accepted that there was a problem which called for an answer. It had been identified in one report and I believe that it had also surfaced in another. I did not feel that we should simply seek to maintain the status quo with few presentational changes. It seemed to me that that was not on. However, now that the Secretary of State's decision is to be activated, we must ensure that we and Welsh students derive the maximum benefit from the change.
I am interested to know how the Government envisage that the new system will work. I hope that the Minister can tell us more without trespassing upon the White Paper which will be before us shortly. I have a few questions for the Minister.
We are repeatedly told by Welsh Office Ministers that the incorporated colleges will gain independence and freedom. That is a phrase we often hear from their lips. The colleges will be independent of local authority control, of course. But although further away, the colleges will not be independent of the Welsh Office, will they?
What then will be the legal relationship? The Minister referred to legal independence from the authorities. What will be the legal relationship between the incorporated colleges and the Secretary of State? Can the Minister throw more light on that relationship? For example, will it be that of principal and agent—a well-known relationship? Or will it be a relationship between two contracting but clearly unequal parties? We are told that the incorporated colleges will gain freedom; but surely not the freedom to enter boldly into any area of experiment or duplication.
It is comforting to be told by Ministers that there will be no unnecessary duplication of courses, but how will that be achieved without somebody taking pretty

1561
awkward decisions? Perhaps the Minister can give an indication of who will resolve an institutional conflict between the incorporated college and the Secretary of State. I stress that I have a feeling that the Welsh Office should not assume that the new relationship will not bring its problems.
We are told that the Secretary of State will be advised by a committee of experts from industry. Those are words which I have seen used in another place. Can the Minister say what will be the remit of this committee? Will it be limited merely to advising on financial distribution of the budget between the colleges? Or will the remit be wider? We hope that it will be wider.
The speech in another place referred to industry being represented on the committee. I should be interested to know; why not the professions, in particular those of accountancy and the law? Will the committee contain representation from the colleges themselves? Will it contain a representative from the University of Wales? I suggest that a representative of the Assembly of the Welsh Counties could also make a valuable contribution. On the other hand, will the committee have a representative on the Welsh sub-committee of the Universities Funding Council for as long as that council is in existence?
There is also the wider and important question of promoting co-operation and partnership between the incorporated colleges and the federal University of Wales. This important area was touched upon by Sir Goronwy Daniel's working party on the functions and powers of the University of Wales, although it was not fully explored by the working party as it was outside its terms of reference. I am sure that the Government will agree that it is important to encourage and facilitate co-operation and partnership between the colleges and the university. How do the Government propose to do that?
I now look further ahead and my next comments are delivered in a personal capacity. I do not necessarily represent the views of the Benches behind me. As the Welsh Office comes to play a more dominant role in the development of higher education in Wales, I believe it may become more difficult to defend a continuance of the historic relationship between the University of Wales and the Department of Education and Science in London. Although I am not aware of any demand within the Welsh academic community generally for direct Welsh Office involvement in the affairs of the University of Wales—indeed, I believe there would be opposition from some quarters to such an involvement—nevertheless, I hope that the academic community will come to see in the not very distant future that the case for Welsh involvement in university affairs is substantial.
In the view of some of us, it is not satisfactory that the non-university colleges of higher education in Wales should be looking to the Welsh Office for direction and that the University of Wales should be looking to the Department of Education and a Welsh sub-committee of the Universities Funding Council. Wales is a very small country, with just over 2.5 million people, and it would seem to be far better that
1562
the higher education system in the Principality should be planned as a whole. Moreover, if the Welsh Office were to be solely responsible for higher education in Wales it would be much better placed to bring influence to bear on government policies, to encourage co-operation with industry and the professions in Wales and, not least, to mould public opinion in Wales, without which an education policy cannot succeed in the long term. Those are merely my own personal views and the Minister need not respond to that part of my speech.
Having put that on the record, I hasten to confirm, on behalf of these Benches, that we agree the Secretary of State should have the power which he seeks by virtue of this Order.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the House will have listened with great interest and respect to the remarks of my noble friend. He is a product almost entirely of the Welsh education system and the words he has used in the House, even his personal words, will be read with great interest tomorrow in the Principality and in the colleges. I should say also to the Minister that the assurances she has given will be greatly welcomed in certain of the colleges. I speak as a member of the governing body of the West Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education. I know that the members are interested in tonight's debate and awaiting a report that the institute will be given, as they hope it will be, the status that is reported it will be given.
I should like to add that the institute, as indeed many others in Wales, is not simply totally concerned with the education of the Welsh. In fact, one aspect that has greatly encouraged me in my association with the West Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education is its international outlook. Confidently Welsh in its siting and a product, as my noble friend said, of the Welsh local authorities, nevertheless, it has sought to develop ties overseas. Only last week its principal, its vice-principal and its senior lecturer were in China, carrying out a seminar as important to the development taking place in China now as it is to the development of ties that have long existed between the colleges in Swansea and in China, even in the most difficult times of the relationship between that great nation and our small one.
This piece of enabling legislation will be greatly welcomed in the colleges, though there will be reservations in the local authorities. It is only fair to say that some of those who have long been associated with the development of education in Wales, through the local authorities, look a little askance at some of the freedoms they see being given. It is understandable that when people have grown up within one system they feel displaced and have reservations about the new policies as that system changes.
However, what has happened in Wales is that the reason for the creation of such institutions as the West Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education has gone away. Originally, the institute was based on coal and steel and its principal purpose in life was to produce educated individuals to work in those two great industries. Those industries have gone away, so it is

1563
increasingly important that the institutions should align themselves with the new means of earning a living that Wales sees for itself.
I have been greatly encouraged by the fact that the institutions I know are well aware that they need to re-align their old systems to meet the challenge of a new era in Welsh affairs. I reiterate that while there will be some misgivings, particularly in the local authorities, as to the direction in which the colleges will develop without the paternalism of local authorities, within the colleges themselves certainly there will be a very real welcome for the freedom they will receive.
8.56 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hope I am not giving away state secrets when I say that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, with his usual great courtesy, had given me warning of his questions. I am most grateful to him for that and also for his welcome for these proposals.
To take the first of the noble Lord's questions, the relationship between the newly-incorporated colleges and the Welsh Office will be similar to the satisfactory relationship which has existed between the department and Trinity College, Carmarthen, for many years. There is no more reason to think that it will lead to conflict in the case of the newly incorporated colleges than it has done in the case of Trinity College.
Incidentally, the noble Lord added one question: who will resolve conflict between the institutions and the Secretary of State? There is really no reason to think that conflict should arise between them, and the Welsh Office will be very careful not to interfere in the internal affairs of any institution.
To return to the noble Lord's main question, the department will provide funding, in return for which it will expect the institutions to provide courses for a specified number of students. As I say, the department will not interfere in the internal affairs of the colleges.
Secondly, the noble Lord asked who will be appointed to the Higher Education Advisory Group. Its composition has not yet been decided. In due course I expect that my right honourable friend will be looking for expertise in the field of higher education and knowledge of the needs of employers. No doubt he will give consideration to the advantages of maintaining links with the local authorities.
Finally, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, we are of course very keen to encourage co-operation between the incorporated institutions and the University of Wales colleges. That is easier to achieve between individual institutions at a local level, but consideration will also be given to creating links at the all-Wales level. These exist at the moment between the Wales advisory body and the Wales committee of the UFC.
I was most interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Parry, had to say. I am very glad to have reassured the West Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education—a splendid institution, if I may say so. The international relations which it has and promotes are very important. I wish it very well for the future.
1564
In conclusion, perhaps I may repeat the Government's view that legal independence and the managerial freedom that goes with it is the right way forward for the Welsh institutions of higher education. I ask for the support of your Lordships in approving the draft order that will enable that to happen.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill
9 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 4.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 4, line 3, leave out from ("offenders)") to end of line 5 and insert:
("(3) In section 47 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, in subsection (2), line 2, leave out "three-quarters" and insert "seven-eighths".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, yet again I appear to have drawn the short straw in being obliged to introduce an amendment immediately after the dinner hour when the attentions of most of your Lordships are, quite reasonably, focused elsewhere.
At Committee stage I moved an amendment which would have had the effect of allowing the courts to retain their existing power to pass partly suspended sentences. As a layman I was gratified to receive powerful support for the amendment from highly qualified quarters. There are evidently many in a position to know who continue to believe that partly suspended sentences are a very useful weapon in the judge's armoury. That was borne out by the revelation by the noble Lord the Leader of the House that no fewer than 5 per cent. of sentences imposed currently are partly suspended. This is a significant proportion. Accordingly, I decided to return to the matter today.
However, I revised the original amendment to take into account the minor criticisms made of the relevant clause in the 1977 Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, when that Bill was passing through your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, felt that it ought to be permissible to suspend more than three-quarters of a sentence. The amendment meets that particular objective by providing for up to seven-eighths of the sentence to be suspended.
In that way it would be possible to sentence somebody to 12 months' imprisonment with 10i months suspended, meaning a maximum time behind bars of six weeks at most. Such a course will enable a short, sharp shock to be imposed upon individuals without jeopardising their job prospects. Obviously an unemployed person who has been convicted once is much more likely to return to a life of crime than someone in a secure job.
I should add at this point that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has written to me to say that his views on the merits of the option of partly suspended sentences has not changed by one iota since 1977 and that he would certainly support my amendment if he could manage to be here tonight. Sadly, he has obviously not been able to make it.
There is another consideration which has not yet been mentioned; namely, public opinion. If sentences imposed by courts generally become too out of line with public opinion a very unhealthy state of affairs can result. Sooner or later the pendulum can swing back with a vengeance, as we have seen in the United States. However, for the general run of moderately serious and essentially non-vicious crimes—and I have in mind bomb hoaxes and the case I cited on the last occasion of opening the carriage door of a 125 InterCity express when the train is travelling at 100 miles an hour after the perpetrators have drunk too many cans of strong lager—I am convinced that provided a reasonably substantial initial sentence is passed so as to mark the gravity of the crime in the eyes of the state most of the public are content that justice should be tempered with mercy by suspending most of a sentence, especially for non-habitual offenders. I hasten to stress the word "most" rather than "all" because if sentences are wholly suspended the public quite rightly consider that no effective punishment has been imposed.
An example is the case I read about over the week-end. A middle-aged man of hitherto unblemished character quite uncharacteristically carried out an indecent assault upon a young girl. It was a mild form of indecent assault: the girl was below the age of puberty and was therefore possibly unaware of the significance of what had happened. Nevertheless, it was undoubtedly an indecent assault. The man was convicted and sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment with three-quarters of the sentence suspended. I believe that most of the public in the area where the case was publicised felt that justice had been done.
Were the Bill to become law as it stands the judge would have had to impose a sentence of just over three-and-a-half months to achieve the same result, assuming, as we reasonably may, that a repeat offence is unlikely. One can imagine the public reaction and the press outcry if that were to happen—"Only three-and-a-half months for putting his hand on a young girl's thigh? Shocking! Disgraceful! Outrageous!" Therefore, in order to demonstrate that the state took the offence seriously and justice was done the judge would have to impose a sentence of at least six or possibly nine months. The latter would entail the offender spending almost two-and-a-quarter times as long behind bars as he would have done had the partly suspended sentence still been available.
Like my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner when introducing his Amendment No. 27 before the dinner break, I believe that there are many noble Lords here in the House today who desperately want to see the number of people who are in prison in this country at any one time reduced, for humanitarian reasons or for pragmatic reasons or for a combination of the two. Unless they lend their support at least to the principle of the amendment, their aims are likely to be only partially satisfied. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it so happens that I have taken part in the proceedings, in one House of Parliament or the other, on every criminal justice Bill since 1945. The tendency of all of them until this Bill
1566
has been to acknowledge that the nature of criminal cases and criminal offenders who come before the courts is infinitely variable. For that reason, through all those years, the powers of the courts have been extended so that they may deal more appropriately in each case with that infinite variety of offenders.
By disallowing partially suspended sentences we are again—I say "again"; it is for the second time in the Bill—reducing the powers of the courts. That is regrettable because it is a circumstance in which flexibility is needed. I therefore most earnestly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and I accept his reasons for proposing it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it may not come as any surprise to the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Monson, to learn that I cannot support the amendment. This is so for two main reasons. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, the structure of sentencing in the Bill is totally different from that in previous criminal justice Bills. As I understand it, it is designed to be so. The question on this amendment therefore concerns the extent to which partly suspended sentences can fit into the new structure proposed in the Bill rather than whether their operation could be improved in relation to the old structure that has existed until now.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, may be right to say that seven-eighths would perhaps be more flexible for suspended sentences than three-quarters in relation to what I call the old structure. However, if one takes the example that he gave, I sincerely hope that once the Bill is passed the judge would say that a custodial sentence would be low down on the list of penalties that he would impose. Given the constraints imposed on the sentencer in Clause 1, I should be surprised if a custodial sentence would be deemed to be appropriate for that kind of offence.
Secondly, Part II of the Bill concerning the nature of custodial sentences provides that, in the case of all sentences of less than four years, the first half will be served in custody and the second half in the community. In effect, it is already a suspended sentence. If someone offends in the second half of that sentence, he may be brought back to court and will be liable to serve the remainder of his sentence in addition to whatever penalty is imposed for the new offence. In effect, therefore, those sentences will all be partly suspended sentences anyway. It would be confusing and inappropriate to empower courts partly to suspend sentences which will themselves be partly suspended. For that reason, the Carlisle Committee, on whose recommendations Part II is largely based, proposed that the partly suspended sentence should be abolished when the committee's recommendations came to be implemented. Both on general grounds of principle and on that specific ground, I cannot ask my absent friends to support the amendment.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and, with the greatest possible modesty, ask the noble Lord, Lord Renton, whose long experience in relation to criminal justice Bills is absolutely unrivalled in this House: is not the trouble that the flexibility given to

1567
the courts over the years has not resulted in a decrease in crime? It has resulted in overcrowded prisons and in higher sentences which are longer than anywhere else in Europe. One can only say that there has not been a policy of sentencing. Whatever has been going on over the years has not been a success. This Bill tries to do something to improve the situation.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene and I thank him for giving way. Does he not realise that, although only marginally, abolishing the partly suspended sentence may well add to the numbers in prison?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, that is a view expressed by the noble Lord. There is another view, which has already been expressed many times in this House and which I myself hold. It is a matter of opinion in the end.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, should not worry too much about his absent friends. He has friends in all parts of the House and particularly on this occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, made a case for reducing to one-eighth the proportion of a partly suspended sentence which must be spent in prison.
The Criminal Justice Act 1982 amended Section 47(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 to give the courts the flexibility that the noble Lord seeks, and more. The 1982 Act allowed the courts to suspend all but one month of the term. If a two-year prison sentence were imposed, an offender might spend one twenty-fourth of it in prison.
But all this is academic. When we discussed Clause 4 in Committee my noble friend the Leader of the House explained that we saw no place for the partly suspended sentence in the sentencing provisions and early release arrangements that are proposed in the Bill. In future everyone who is sent to prison will be liable to spend at least half of the sentence in prison and the remainder in the community. Once released, he may, if he is convicted of a further imprisonable offence, be returned to prison in order to serve the rest of the sentence. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is quite right. This new provision effectively replaces the partly suspended sentence.
It seems to us that, if a custodial sentence is to be given at all, it should be a meaningful one and one that should correspond to the seriousness of the offence that has been committed. That is the whole point underlying Parts I and II of the Bill. If a custodial sentence of a particular length is not justified by the seriousness of the offence, we consider that a community sentence is the right course. I suggest that a community sentence is likely to be a more effective sanction than would be a custodial sentence of which all but a small proportion is suspended.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will consider that his amendment would be best not pressed.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who has enormous
1568
experience in both Houses of legislating on matters of criminal justice, that he should support this amendment.
Looked at from a purely abstract point of view it may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is right. But one must consider the psychology of the matter. In the case of the minor indecent assault that I cited, the noble Lord hoped that the judge would pass a non-custodial sentence, which might well be merited on the facts of the case. But one must consider public reactions and the consequences of flouting so blatantly public opinion. It is undesirable from the point of view of public policy that sentences imposed by the courts should become greatly out of line with public opinion, whether public opinion be right or wrong.
Although I do not normally take the view that justice should take account of public relations considerations, in this case I do, for the reasons that I suggested when introducing the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, confirmed, it may very well lead to people who are convicted of what one might describe as a crime of moderate gravity—not a serious crime—spending rather longer in prison than would otherwise be the case.
However, the House is thin and I have not had a great deal of support apart from the tremendous support of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Restrictions on imposing community sentences]:
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Procedural requirements for community sentences]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 4, line 42, at end insert ("authorised by Schedule IA to the 1973 Act").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 31 and 64. These three amendments make minor drafting changes to clarify the Bill's provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 4, line 45, leave out ("such requirements") and insert:
("requirements imposed under section 12, 12A, 12AA, 12B or 12C of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 ("the 1969 Act")").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, line 45, at end insert:
("() "Suitability" in subsection (3) above includes activities which are of benefit to the community and which can be expected to have a positive corrective effect on the offender.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after Committee stage, I spoke to a group of magistrates from the Isle of Wight Bench about the Bill, in particular about the amendments that I had moved which had been recommended by the Magistrates' Association. When discussing community orders, one of my experienced friends asked, "Could you not put down an amendment to ensure that when made, under

1569
whatever categories listed, orders are meaningful?" That is the amendment that I put forward. It is worded so that the provision is optional. My friends considered that an element of service to the community would be very convincing. However, they were reluctant to choose such an alternative to prison where it was a possible option because they were not always sure whether it would have the corrective effect on the defendant. I therefore propose the amendment.
I suggest that such a mild amendment, which merely points the probation service and other bodies in the right direction, deserves insertion in the Bill. It is easier for the magistrates' courts, and the grander courts about which we hear so much in this Chamber, to consider a community alternative if they believe that it is meaningful and has the required effect. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining what his amendment means. I think, however, that the Bill already meets his concern.
Clause 5(2) (a) requires a court imposing a community sentence to choose the particular community order which is most suitable for the offender. Clause 6(3) requires it to obtain and consider a pre-sentence report before deciding on the suitability of one of the particular community orders listed there. I can assure my noble friend that, in deciding whether an order is suitable, the courts will take into account such matters as whether it includes activities that will benefit the community or prevent re-offending. Which of these predominates will of course depend on the offence and the offender. An act of criminal damage might be best met with a community service order, which would highlight the element of reparation for the community. On the other hand, the most suitable sentence for an offender who stole money to fuel a drug addiction might be a probation order with a requirement to undergo treatment. The pre-sentence report would bring this out. It goes without saying that if an order helps to prevent re-offending, it automatically benefits the community.
I believe that the Bill meets the concerns of my noble friend and his friends on the Isle of Wight. I hope that he will be able to accept that.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. Perhaps I may leave the House with this thought. The amendment would never have arisen if our Bench did not believe that what was offered by the probation service and others did not meet the requirements of the Bill. Perhaps the Home Office will consider more carefully exactly how we shall produce a community order which will achieve the required objective. My friends believe that the existing provisions do not always do that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved]
Clause 7 [Probation orders]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 33A:
Leave out Clause 7.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to divide the House on this issue but I have tabled the amendment in order to give your Lordships the opportunity to discuss a fundamental change proposed in Clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8. A probation order would be made into a sentence of the court. That never has been the case and I suggest that it should not be the case. I wrote to Ministers about the matter but they did not receive my letter until yesterday. The issue is so well known that they cannot have been placed at a disadvantage nor been taken by surprise.
Until now, and since early in the century when probation was first introduced, the essence of a probation order has been that the accused is given a chance to reform his character instead of having a sentence recorded against his character. In doing so he is given the help of supervision by a probation officer for a period stated by the court, generally varying between nine months and three years. If the offender wisely accepts the guidance of the probation officer, is not in breach of the conditions laid down by the probation officer, and commits no further offence during that time, he will benefit by having no sentence recorded against him. That provides the offender with an incentive to accept the advice of the probation officer and to go straight. If he disobeys the probation officer, is in breach of any conditions laid down or commits a further offence he will forfeit that advantage. He will then be brought before the court and sentenced for the offence for which he was put on probation and for any further offence that he has committed.
It is now proposed in the Bill that the probation order, instead of providing a chance to reform without the stigma of a sentence, should itself become a sentence—a punishment. There is no question of the offender being given a chance to reform his character in order to avoid a sentence being recorded against him.
In Committee I asked my noble friend Lord Waddington, who then replied on behalf of the Government, what will happen under the new arrangement if the offender becomes in breach of the probation order—let us leave aside the question of a further sentence—and the court has to deal with him for that breach. The court cannot sentence him again—no one in our country can be sentenced twice for the same offence. I was given the strange answer that he will be given one day's imprisonment. Sentencing for the further offence presents no difficulties and never has.
Probation can be of great value not only to first offenders and to those who have never been in custody but to those who have previously been in prison. I remember thinking about a series of sentences of imprisonment which had been given to a man who had committed offences right through his 20s; I remember thinking that they were doing him no good. He would just go on and become a complete recidivist into middle age. I put him on probation order for three years telling him that if he did not observe the conditions of his probation order or if he committed any other offence he would receive a very heavy sentence indeed. For a few weeks he did go straight

1571
and took the hint. However, he was then in breach and I sentenced him to a longer sentence of imprisonment than he had had before. He had been given a chance and had not taken it.
I remember another rather similar case which I followed up. A man had been in and out of prison for about seven years. I put him on probation for three years. He observed the guidance of the probation officer, he went straight, it reformed his character and he obtained settled employment.
We must be very careful about what we are doing in this Bill. Perhaps I may say with deep respect—and I respect all those concerned—that there has been a great deal of zealous rethinking going on behind the scenes in the Home Office, largely by people who have never had responsibility in the courts. They have decided that this new look, these changes for the sake of change, are what are now needed. I humbly beg to differ. We must base our future legislation on experience of the past. It is absurd to ignore it.
As I say, I regard this amendment to leave out Clause 7 as a peg on which to hang discussion. If it were the feeling of your Lordships and especially my noble friend on the Front Bench that there should be second thoughts about this matter, then a few simple technical amendments could be moved at Third Reading so that we could do away with the concept of probation being a sentence. There is no problem about that. I earnestly hope that there may be second thoughts about this matter. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I must admit that I am flatly opposed to the course of action advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. First—and I do not wish to make too much of this—I believe it is unfair to suggest that a number of ill disposed officials at the Home Office have dreamed up this idea because they are in favour of change for the sake of change or something of that sort. This proposal is supported by a great many people in the probation service.
Lord Renton: My Lords, but it is not supported by those on the spot and not by the National Association of Probation Officers who have the responsibility of supervision.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am well aware of the position of that organisation. However, I am also well aware of the position of the National Association of Chief Officers of Probation, whose members are responsible for the service; and the organisation of which I had the honour to be president, the National Association of Senior Probation Officers. Those organisations are wholly opposed to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Quite apart from that, the Central Council of Probation Committees is in favour of the approach in the Bill. When the various services were consulted after publication of the Government's proposals, basically the probation services supported the provisions of the Bill. They include the probation services in Norfolk, Hampshire, West Yorkshire, West Glamorgan, Dyfed, Suffolk, Warwickshire,
1572
Inner London, Gloucestershire, Northumberland, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Avon and Oxfordshire. There were just six probation areas which did not support the provisions in the Bill.
The reason for that powerful support for the proposals in the Bill is self-evident. Probation orders cover and in many cases require substantial restrictions on an offender's liberty. For example, there may be the requirement to live in a probation hostel away from home for a period of possibly 12 months or to attend a probation day centre for a period up to 60 days. That is a far more substantial sentence—as I would wish to describe it—than a small fine which at the moment is regarded as a sentence of the court. It is for that reason, in my view, that there is such powerful support in the probation service for what the Government put forward.
When we last discussed this matter one of the arguments was that there was a perception by offenders and their families that the situation would be altogether different if a probation order became a sentence of the court. But I wonder whether there is any substance in that argument. Offenders who are given probation orders with conditions see it very definitely as a penalty. They are unlikely to be impressed by being told that, although they must report to a probation officer every week, possibly for a period of two or three years, live in a probation hostel, be in perhaps at 10.30 every evening or attend a day centre, it is not a punishment because they are not being sentenced by the court. That mistaken view was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Speaking for myself, and I am sure for others, we want to see probation orders, with conditions in many cases, extended to far more people who come before the courts. I regard it as entirely reasonable and consistent with that objective that probation orders should become sentences of the courts.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Renton. I am slightly shocked that all the probation departments named by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, are against the amendment. I have not been a probation officer but I have dealt with supervision orders for juveniles which are very much the same as probation.
The basis of probation is the personal relationship between the probation officer and the person on probation. The successful work of a probation officer depends on a good casework relationship between the probationer and the probation officer. I support the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because it is on the basis of such relationships that probationers are helped.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we debated in Committee whether or not the probation order should become a sentence. As my noble friend rightly said, he recently wrote to me in that regard. We remain of the view that it should become a sentence. There are several very good reasons for that.
Of course it is a change and in some ways it may be a controversial change; nevertheless, there are good reasons for it. One of the most important is that the probation order, and the concept of probation itself, has developed a great deal. Probation is not about

1573
giving the first-time minor offender an opportunity to prove himself while a probation officer sorts out his difficulties. It has developed into a very useful way of dealing with more serious offenders; of tackling their criminal behaviour and attitudes, not only their welfare problems, in order to reduce the risk that they will re-offend in future.
The probation order is being used now for more serious offenders. In 1980, 22 per cent. of those starting a probation order had previously received a custodial sentence. By 1989 the proportion had risen to 38 per cent. In 1980 three out of four of those starting probation had a previous criminal record. In 1989, the figure had risen to six out of seven. Nowadays probation work focuses much more on making offenders face up to their crimes. A probation order with a requirement to participate in a programme of activities at a probation centre may make an offender think hard about what he has done and how he can go straight in the future. After all, preventing re-offending is very important. I think that this change of emphasis has done a great deal to restore the confidence of judges and magistrates in the probation order. It is precisely because the probation order has changed so much that the Bill confers on it a sentence in its own right.
That is very much in keeping with the philosophy of the Bill. We all want to make sure that prison is reserved for the most serious offender. That means that there needs to be an effective way of punishing offenders whose crimes are serious enough to merit more than just a fine, but not so serious that they must be sent to prison. Community sentences must make real demands on the offenders. Making the probation order a sentence gives the courts a valuable additional option in dealing with a number of serious offenders; namely, sex offenders, domestic burglars and the like.
My noble friend said that the probation order is similar to a conditional discharge. I do not believe that that is so. The conditional discharge is suitable for first-time petty offenders. It gives them another chance. It will still be there for the less serious type of offender in future. If a court wants to give an offender a chance to prove that he can stay out of trouble, it can impose a conditional discharge. But we ought to face the facts. Probation orders in fact make much greater demands on offenders and they are now being used for a very different category of offender.
My noble friend Lord Renton referred to what happens if an offender fails to comply with the requirement of a probation order. Schedule 2 to the Bill sets out the penalties for the breach itself. These include a fine up to £1,000 and a community service order. Alternatively, the court can revoke the probation order and deal with the original offence in some other way. It is likely to do that if, for example, the breach shows that the offender has no intention of complying with the probation order.
My noble friend was also concerned about the effect on an offender's criminal record if the probation order becomes a sentence. At present under the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, an offender who is given a probation order is treated for almost all
1574
purposes as if he had not been convicted of the offence; though if he breaches the order and comes back to court he is liable to be sentenced in some other way for it. As long as he goes straight he can tell the world afterwards that he has no previous convictions. That will not be true in future. A conviction that leads to a probation order being passed will count as a conviction in the same way as one which leads to a community service order, until in due course it becomes spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
I remind your Lordships that in the main we are not talking about first-time petty offenders. We are talking more and more about people who have in the past committed a number of crimes and who may now have been convicted of a serious offence. I do not see why the records of those kinds of offenders should benefit when those of offenders who have been fined or given community service do not.
It has been pointed out by my noble friend that the National Association of Probation Officers opposes the change introduced by the Bill. That is perfectly true. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was perfectly fair when he said that almost every other organisation which deals with offenders and which has made its views known takes the contrary view. The National Association of Probation Officers is perfectly entitled to its views. However, I am not sure that those views necessarily reflect the opinion of all probation officers. I am sure that no one would suggest that the views of one organisation should be regarded as tablets of stone in the face of the arguments which I have set out and indeed in the face of the views expressed by just about everyone else, even if they did succeed in shocking my noble friend Lady Faithfull. The opinions of all probation practitioners are worth hearing, as are those of magistrates and judges.
In the light of this further explanation I hope that my noble friend will accept that the probation order of the future is a different kind of beast from what it was in the past. It has a different characteristic and a different purpose. That being so, I hope that he will be able to accept the view which is taken by the Government and which is taken by most other organisations on this matter and will be content to see this clause remain part of the Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Faithful] for the support that she gave in the light of her own experience. I am also extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers because for the first time in the course of our proceedings we have had a really full description of what is now intended. It is not on the face of the Bill; it was not in the White Paper. We now have a very much fuller picture. I should naturally like to consider that.
Before I go any further perhaps I may say that, in deploying the case which I did, I described and acknowledged the part that probation has to play in the case of those offenders who have been before the courts on several previous occasions. I am glad to know that the Government consider that there is great scope for probation with regard to those people—perhaps an even greater scope than there has been in practice in the past.

1575
As I said, I regarded this amendment as a peg on which to hang a discussion. It has proved to be a much more interesting and full discussion than I had ever hoped for. It is most unlikely that I shall pursue this matter any further, although I must confess that in principle I still dislike the idea of probation becoming a sentence. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Amendments of 1973 Act]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 67, line 7, leave out ("his detention in pursuance of a hospital order under Part III") and insert ("the making of a hospital order or guardianship order within the meaning").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 44.
Amendment No. 34 to Part II of Schedule 1 extends the scope of paragraph 5(1). This provides at present that a probation order with a requirement to undergo treatment for a mental condition may not be made on an offender whose condition is such that he needs to be detained in a mental hospital under a hospital order. A hospital order under Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983 may be made if two medical practitioners satisfy the court that the offender is suffering from a mental disorder whose nature or degree makes it appropriate for him to be detained in hospital for medical treatment. Such offenders should clearly be in hospital rather than out in the community on a probation order.
We propose that a similar restriction on making a probation order with a treatment requirement should apply if the offender's condition warrants instead a guardianship order under the Mental Health Act. Guardianship orders are similar to hospital orders, in that two medical practitioners must satisfy the court that the offender is mentally disordered and that the nature or degree of the mental disorder warrants his reception into guardianship. The difference is that he would not be detained in a mental hospital, but instead would be placed under the guardianship of a local authority social services department or some other person approved by it. That authority or person would have to be willing to receive him into guardianship.
Under Section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983, a court may not make either a guardianship order or a hospital order unless it is satisfied that one of these would be the most suitable way of dealing with his case. Amendment No. 34 therefore extends paragraph 5(1) so as to prevent a court making a probation order with a treatment requirement when either a guardianship order or a hospital order would be more appropriate instead. That leaves probation orders under paragraph 5 for those who are mentally disordered, but who can still look after themselves in the community. Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 44 are minor drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 35 and 36:
Page (7, line 16, leave out from second ("a") to end of line 19 and insert ("mental hospital").
Page 68, line 8, leave out subparagraph (10) and insert:
1576
("(10) In this paragraph 'mental hospital' means a hospital within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983 or mental nursing home within the meaning of the Registered Homes Act 1984, not being a special hospital within the meaning of the National Health Service Act 1977.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 37 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 68, line 16, leave out ("dependent on drugs or alcohol") and insert ("a drug or alcohol misuser").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 39 to 43, 45 and 46. To refresh your Lordships' memory, these amendments were originally put forward in Committee because of a desire to see some clarity in terminology as regards the Home Office, the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security and the various other statutory and voluntary organisations which have to deal with this very difficult group of people about which we are talking. I refer to those who come before the courts charged with a variety of offences which may possibly have been caused by their use or misuse of drugs or alcohol.
It seemed to me in Committee, and it still does, that it is ridiculous that different departments and organisations within the same Government cannot agree on a common terminology, especially when they have to liaise together so often. I believe that the probation service is being given much more funding so that it will be able to make recommendations to judges and magistrates. People from the voluntary sector who will treat these people will also be required to give advice and recommendations to the courts. A variety of other people, including doctors and social workers, will also be called upon. However, none of those people currently use the terminology of the Bill; namely, "dependent on drugs or alcohol". Therefore, there is bound to be confusion at some stage because, historically, such people do not like to use it. In Committee I suggested the phrase "problem user". My noble friend the Leader of the House did not like it. So I went away and considered the matter and, in this amendment, I have used the word "misuser".
One of the reasons that my noble friend the Leader of the House gave in Committee for not accepting the amendment was that he wanted the words in the Bill to be more precise. That is one of the problems; it is too precise. None of the experts, be they doctors, professors or those who are not medically qualified, will use the word "dependency" because there is so much debate as to what it means. That is why it was discarded so many years ago—I believe that it was 15 years ago—by the Department of Health. Moreover, many other people will not use the word because it is so narrow.
The term "drug or alcohol misuse" as set out in my amendments not only encompasses an habitual drinker or drug user; it also encompasses a drinker who on occasions drinks too much and a drug user who uses drugs occasionally but not habitually. A person who commits an offence on the odd occasion that he consumes too much alcohol or uses drugs will not be assessed as alcohol or drug dependent by the

1577
agencies who provide care. He will be assessed as someone who misuses drugs or alcohol. The difference is crucial when considering the treatment possibilities, and the severity of the problem concerning drug or alcohol use, which has to be assessed at that time.
Schedule 1 6(10) explains the reference to "dependency", and is the widest possible reference. It says:
"In this paragraph the reference to the offender being dependent on drugs or alcohol includes a reference to his having a propensity towards the misuse of drugs or alcohol, and references to his dependency on drugs or alcohol shall be construed accordingly".
That is not a definition of "dependency"; it is a definition of "misuse" and it is one of the widest definitions I have ever heard. It is like saying that all carpets are blue, including red, green and yellow ones. It is not that way. The people described in that definition are not dependent; they are misusers. It is ludicrous to put on the front of the Bill the narrowest of definitions and then to say at the back of the Bill that that narrow definition is the widest possible definition, when that first narrow definition will not be understood or used by any of the people who will have to use this part of the Bill.
The second reason my noble friend the Leader of the House gave in Committee was that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs did not recommend my earlier phrase "a problem drug user and drinker". In preparing the amendment I took the trouble therefore to inquire closely into the recommendations of the working party on the Criminal Justice Bill of that Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. I found, obviously, that my noble friend was correct. It did not advise the use of the word "problem". However, it also did not advise the use of the word "dependency". My information is that it advised that the word "dependency" should not be used and that the terms of my amendment should be used.
In short, all I am asking my noble friend to accept is the advice of the working party of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs; the advice of the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse, which is the largest co-ordinating body of drug and alcohol treatment organisations; the advice of Alcohol Concern, which is the largest body operating in this field; to use the same terminology as that used by the Department of Health; and to use the same terminology as is used in the Misuse of Drugs Act, which is not the "dependency on drugs" Act. Within the regulations to that Act, the term "misuser" is accurately defined. It is known by the courts and has been used by them for a long time.
This is an amendment which will cost no money. It is an amendment that makes no change to the principle of the Bill. It just makes the Bill more workable for those who will have to work it. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, as your Lordships will be well aware, every Welshman regards a squabble about semantics as second in interest only to rugby football, both as a participatory and spectator sport. Nevertheless, the words "dependency" and "dependent" have proved unsatisfactory to
1578
a wide range of opinion, and they have done so for a long time. As far back as 1982 the Government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs recommended the use of the term "problem drug taker", about which we heard in Committee, rather than the range of terms that has developed, including the rather odd "drug dependent", "drug addict" and "drug misuser". A few years earlier the Advisory Committee on Alcohol recommended the use of the term "problem drinker". Yet in most cases the phrase "drink or drug misuser" could be used to replace "dependent" or "dependency" without loss.
The Standing Conference on Drug Abuse has often expressed anxiety that there should be some degree of commonality in terminology. In adopting the recommendations of the ACMD and the Advisory Committee on Alcohol, there will be consistency and comprehension when using terms and their definitions, as recommended by the Government's own advisory groups. The Government would surely be wise to follow the advice of those people they had set up to give them advice.
This is more than a matter of legalistic consistency and bureaucratic tidiness; we are in danger of confusing precision with accuracy. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was correct in his response on 16th April 1991. He said that the words "dependent" and "dependency" are "more precise". That is exactly the point: they are too precise to be accurate. We fear that they may exclude, by their very precision, those people with a drug or alcohol-related problem from appropriate treatment.
By using the term "drug or alcohol misuse", we could encompass those whose drug or alcohol problem at particular times will bring them into contact with the criminal justice system, as well as those individuals who habitually misuse drugs. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, earlier queried whether "drug or alcohol problem" would refer to an offender who regularly drinks too much or one who sometimes has one drink too many. That is the same problem as the Band of Hope used to have with the word "temperance". I ask noble Lords to consider: is the temperate man the man who never gets very drunk or the man who gets very drunk but only sometimes? Semantics is a wonderful game and we can play it all night. The term "drug or alcohol misuse" not only encompasses—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Lord include the man who gets slightly drunk all the time?
10 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I believe that the Band of Hope took that condition into consideration gravely, often and for a long period. The term "drug or alcohol misuse" not only encompasses an habitual drinker or drug user but also a drinker who on occasions drinks too much and a drug user who uses drugs occasionally but not habitually. A person who commits an offence on a particular occasion when he has taken too much alcohol or used drugs will not be described as drug

1579
dependent by the people who have to assess him, but he would qualify as someone who misuses drugs or alcohol.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, the difference is crucial in talking about treatment when the severity of the alcohol or drug use has to be assessed. Paragraph 6(10) of Schedule 1 attempts a definition of "dependent" by including the phrase,
"his having a propensity towards the misuse of drugs or alcohol'".
That still does not clarify the situation or identify for inclusion those who we fear could be left out of treatment.
I spent a merry half hour this afternoon in the Library of your Lordships' House with the Oxford English Dictionary. I do not mean some little pocket version but the whole 19 volumes of it on the Library shelf. I browsed happily through the entry under the word "propensity". It is not a long entry and I commend it to noble Lords who have an idle half hour. The main, central meaning is inclination, disposition, tendency, bent. For those of a curious disposition, the first use of the word comes in 1570 in Foxe's Acts and Monuments. In that sense, we all have a propensity towards drugs and alcohol, as we all have a propensity towards sin. It means little more than an interest or curiosity, the gravitational pull of our human nature. For our present purposes, "propensity" is far too general, far too imprecise. At the one end we have too great a precision; at the other too much imprecision.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, would, we believe, mean that all offenders who commit an offence could benefit from treatment if it is appropriate. No one is excluded from the opportunity because they are not dependent or have a permanent inclination or predisposition. I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the House.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I have little to add to the speeches of the two noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, covered the ground very well in moving his amendment. It seems—to take a lay view of the situation—that the words "dependent" and "dependency" are far too precise. That was deemed to be so during the Committee stage, when I did not speak on this. However, it seems to me there was some virtue in this precision. Many offenders may go out and offend under the influence of alcohol, and indeed I might feel so moved myself if I became exasperated with a member of my local authority, which happens to be Lambeth. I might become so exasperated that I would go on a binge of alcohol and feel moved to break the windows of the town hall in Brixton, thus committing an offence. It seems to me that it would be unjust and indeed inaccurate if I had to fulfil the requirements of the definition of someone who is dependent on alcohol. There are many, like me, who might become abusers from time to time, although in my own case I think it is unlikely and I use this only as an illustration. I have nothing stronger than a glass of wine occasionally.
It may be that a young man might go out occasionally and create an affray under the influence of drink, but even if he does that regularly he need not
1580
necessarily be dependent on alcohol. I am sure that the browsings of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, led him to think that a "predisposition" or "permanent inclination", which is the Oxford dictionary definition—or "propensity", which is what supports the Government's definition—is something which is inappropriate to apply to many people who offend.
Briefly, it seems appropriate that all those who commit an offence should come within the definition which is appropriate to their offence. To apply the words "dependent on alcohol" surely is not the right definition. It is a question of people who abuse drink from time to time and who may commit an offence. I think that the definition in the amendment of "misuse" and of being a "misuser" is, for all practical purposes, the most appropriate and will be of the most benefit both to the courts and to offenders.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I could not help envying the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, in that he should have had half an hour to spare, looking up the definition of "propensity" in the Oxford English dictionary. I am sure that his researches were enormously interesting, but I cannot believe that his totality of knowledge might not have been advanced even more had he spent his time listening to the arguments from all sides during the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mancroft for explaining his amendments. I understand his concern that the Bill should be as precise as possible about the kind of behaviour for which treatment might be appropriate. This is clearly right, and my noble friend was most persuasive in his arguments. However, in fact I think that this is what the Bill already achieves.
My noble friend said that we ought to take account of the views of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, but in drafting the provisions of paragraph 6(10) of Schedule 1, that is exactly what we did. We took full account of the views of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. These are reflected in the definition of drug and alcohol dependency in paragraph 6(10) of Schedule 1 to the Bill. That paragraph makes clear that a requirement to undergo treatment may be made not only in the case of a person who is drug or alcohol dependent but also in the case of a person who may only occasionally misuse drugs or alcohol: that is, someone who may go on occasional "binges".
Paragraph 6(1) (a) makes clear that in either case the court must be satisfied that the use of drugs or alcohol caused or contributed to the offending. In other words, the courts must be satisfied both that the offender misuses drugs or alcohol either to the serious degree of dependency or to the lesser degree of misuse and that the offence of which the offender is convicted is connected with the dependency or misuse.
I believe that paragraph 6 of the schedule is clear enough on the matter. The text uses the words "drug or alcohol dependency". That is qualified by the definition in subparagraph (10). It is simply a question of drafting and does not in any way limit the scope of the provisions.

1581
The expression "drug or alcohol dependency" is also used in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Section 50 of that Act deals with the funding of voluntary organisations which provide care or services for:
"persons who are, have been, or are likely to become dependent upon alcohol or drugs".
Those are exactly the services that may be used for a probation order with a requirement to undergo drug or alcohol treatment. It is helpful to reflect that terminology in the Criminal Justice Bill provisions.
I suggest that this is not a matter of substance but of drafting. My noble friend Lord Mancroft said that his view was supported by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, Alcohol Concern and the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse. All of those bodies are experts on drug and alcohol matters but not necessarily on the drafting of legislation. We have taken advice on the matter and I am satisfied that those who are specialists in drafting are in turn satisfied that the drafting is correct, even though to the layman the appearance may be to the contrary.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, it is probably too late in the evening to divide the House over a matter of semantics. I would not dream of doing so anyway. It might be suggested that I am just playing with words. However, surely the difference between good and bad legislation is the quality of the words. After all, that is what legislation is. The words are important because people must understand them. It does not matter to me what a book written in Czechoslovakian says because I am not a Czechoslovak and I cannot read Czechoslovakian. However, for those who have to deal with people who misuse drugs and alcohol and
1582
have to report to the courts on them, the words in this part of the Bill—the words that they will have to use in their work—are very important. As the Bill stands the word "dependency" might as well be double Dutch. They rejected it 15 years ago.
I shall give a classic example. People who take cocaine cannot ever be described as clinically dependent on it. It is not possible to be so. That has long been acknowledged to be the case. However, if one is mugged by a crazed cocaine freak one will not ask him whether he is dependent on it or he misuses it. The answer is that he misuses it, but he will still appear before the court.
My noble friend has said, quite rightly, that the word "dependency" is explained in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Bill. It is indeed. However, the description given there is not a description of dependency; it is a description of misuse.
As I said, it is too late in the evening to pursue the matter. It does not matter to me what is written in the Bill but it matters very much to the probation officers who will be trained to deal with the problem. In their training they will be taught about misuse; they will not be taught about dependency. It will make a great deal of difference to the social workers who at the moment use the word "misuse"; they do not use the word "dependency". It will make a great deal of difference to doctors and psychiatrists who give evidence to the courts, and who do so today and have for many years past. They use the word "misuse" and not "dependency". Needlessly, for the sake of drafting, they will be left with an unclear definition which will make life difficult for them. That is a pity. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 39 to 43 not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 69, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (9).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was s Token to with Amendment No. 34. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe):My Lords, before I put the Question, I should inform the House that, if this amendment is agreed to, Amendment No. 45 is pre-empted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Community service orders]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 7, line 39, leave out ("sections 17A and 17B below") and insert ("paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule (Reciprocal enforcement of certain orders) to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (reciprocal enforcement of certain orders)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 50, 51, 92, 93, 97 and 99 to 104.
This set of fairly substantial amendments makes arrangements for persons subject to certain community sentences imposed by a court in England or Wales to carry out the sentence in Scotland or Northern Ireland if that is their normal place of residence. It also makes arrangements for an offender convicted or sentenced in Scotland or Northern Ireland to carry out the sentence in England or Wales if that is where he or she lives. The amendments bring the existing provisions for reciprocal enforcement up to date in the light of the new framework for community penalties provided in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Curfew orders]:
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 8, line 28, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("eighteen").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can explain the amendment fairly briefly; indeed, it is self-explanatory. It increases the minimum age for the curfew orders from 16 to 18. If it were accepted, courts would still be able to include a curfew requirement in a super vision order passed on a young offender under 18, but the amendment would prevent them from imposing the new curfew order unaccompanied by social worker supervision on an offender under 18.
There are a number of problems connected with the imposition of curfew orders on young people which are additional to those connected with the use of curfews on offenders of any age. One of the problems is the possibility that the curfew might cause great difficulties within families. In cases where there were already considerable tensions between parents and child, such an order might greatly aggravate those tensions. Curfews might also be oppressive for parents. If the parents are to make a serious attempt to ensure that their children abide by the curfew, that could well require them to stay at home from the early evening onwards. In the case of a single parent in that position, finding himself or herself unable to go out in
1584
the evening and, in the case of two parents, being unable to go out together would, I imagine, be a cause of considerable friction and tension within the family.
If there were good reasons for the provision, one could perhaps understand it, but, as the power is already available to pass a curfew order accompanied by a supervision order on a young offender under 18, I do not see why that should not remain the position. If the age was raised from 16 to 18, that would be so. In other words, it would not be open to the courts to pass a curfew order without a supervision order on anyone under 18. That would be an improvement on the present situation. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I too shall comment briefly on the amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I am no enthusiast for curfew orders. I have never been persuaded that they are enforceable and, to the extent to which we shall now introduce electronic monitoring, I have become even more doubtful. I was not opposed in principle to the experiments with electronic monitoring. I thought that they were admirable. Unhappily, the experiments proved that the thing was a daft idea. It is only because Ministers have—rather foolishly in my view—committed themselves to its use that electronic monitoring is to be introduced when we know, even before it is introduced, that it will be a failure.
I should like to ask the noble Earl one question: will 16 and 17 year-olds who are at school have the appropriate instrument attached to them while they are at school? This will be a truly humiliating position for these children. Is it argued that that will happen? One of the advantages of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is that that would not be possible because in fact people who were at school would obviously be excluded by the terms of the amendment. However, it would be most unfortunate if we had a situation where some children of school age had electronic monitoring devices attached to them at school. As I said, it is a humiliation scenario and in my view it is quite wrong for it to be introduced in legislation.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, it might be the reverse of a humiliation scenario. It might be a scenario for boasting when children have such tags attached to them. Indeed it might prove a signature for the macho child, who would invite others to join him in his daredevil acts. I cannot believe that the Government can have that in mind, but that will be the outcome, if it does not result in the humiliation scenario, which seems to me to be equally likely.
The point about family upset is an important one. Families with children under 16 should not be put under the stress to which this will put them without the support of the social services or probation officers. I support this amendment very strongly. I am sorry that it has been moved so late at night. I hope that it will be received sympathetically by the noble Earl, despite the hour.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that whether I view this amendment sympathetically or otherwise has nothing

1585
to do with the hour. I am quite content to view it in its totality at this hour of night or at two o'clock in the afternoon. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has never been greatly enamoured by the idea of curfew orders and now the noble Lord, Lord Harris, misguidedly follows in his footsteps. But we believe that the curfew orders will provide the courts with an effective way of dealing with offenders who have committed certain types of crime or whose offending is associated with particular activities. Quite obviously the noble Lord, Lord Richard, does not feel that.
In my view, curfew orders are a valuable new community penalty that could, for example, be used to keep offenders away from particular places, such as shopping centres where young people may get involved in shoplifting, and from particular events, such as football matches, local clubs or discotheques; or from being on the streets at particular times of day when the offender may be subject to peer group pressure to become involved in certain kinds of offending.
There is no other available community penalty that would fill quite this role and we believe it right that it should be available to the courts for 16 and 17 year-olds as well as for older offenders. By keeping young people out of harm's way, a curfew order can help prevent the offender from re-offending and in turn help to protect the public.
The decision to make the curfew order available for 16 and 17 year-olds reflects our general approach to dealing with 16 and 17 year-old offenders. This approach was set out in the White Paper.
Many teenagers of this age are old enough and mature enough to accept full personal responsibility for their behaviour; others are not. The arrangements for dealing with such offenders should reflect that by providing the courts with a wide range of disposals, so that they can match the sentence to the particular needs and behaviour of the young offender. This is why the Bill makes available not only the curfew order but also other community penalties which have not been available before for this age group.
Making available to the courts a range of different community penalties which are capable of being tough and demanding, and which can take account of different patterns of offending, will help to minimise the use of custody. It is an outcome which I think we all want. It will in particular give the courts sufficient confidence in such penalties to use them for offenders who have committed quite serious offences and who are clearly at risk of custody.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, is right. Night restriction orders are available for offenders of 16 and 17 years. Although they resemble curfew orders to an extent, they are more limited in scope. They can be imposed only as part of a supervision order. They operate only during the evening or at night and the maximum length is only 10 hours. The curfew order will provide the courts with more flexibility. The ability to use electronic monitoring as a means of enforcement will give the courts confidence in the effectiveness of such orders.
1586
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that for children to have those electronic monitoring devices attached to them at school is pretty humiliating. Being an offender who has been to court ought to be pretty humiliating too. However, the tags are quite discreet. The new type that I have seen is no bigger than a digital watch. Of course, the courts will be sensitive to the situation of offenders who are still at school. No doubt they would not use a curfew order with electronic monitoring in such a case. But many 16 or 17 year-olds have already left school.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, used what I thought was an extraordinary argument. He said that these children should not be put to that stress. We have to stop and consider why they are put to that stress, if that is what they are subjected to. It is because they have offended. It is because we are trying to avoid them mixing with the people who encourage them to offend at the time that they are likely to mix with them. It is in order to encourage them to keep out of mischief and wrongdoing. Those are the reasons behind such an order. If that is stress, so be it. But they are the persons responsible for creating the stress to which they have subjected themselves.
I believe that making a curfew order available for 16 and 17 year-olds will be a helpful and worthwhile improvement to the sentencing arrangements for that age group.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down will he address the point that I put to him? I do not like curfew orders. For some extraordinary reason the Government seem to be attached to them. Will he address the argument that such orders should not be imposed on 16 and 17 year-olds without being accompanied by a social supervision order. The total absence of such orders for those aged between 16 and 18 will probably cause more trouble than the imposition of a curfew.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, a curfew order has one specific effect: it keeps the person away from trouble at the time when he or she might be in trouble. There is no reason why there should not be other orders attached to the individual as well as the curfew order.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I hear what the noble Earl says. I am disappointed. Of course other orders can be imposed with the curfew order. We argue that with the rather sensitive age group between 16 to 18 years one should not have solely a curfew order. It should be accompanied by some supervision; otherwise we shall run into trouble with the curfew order.
I am disappointed. However, at this late hour and with the thin attendance in the House I have no other alternative but to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Enforcement etc. of Community Orders]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 76, line 20, leave out ("it") and insert ("he").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. It ensures that the Clerk of the Court is properly referred to as "he" and not "it".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 50 and 51:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
Reciprocal enforcement of certain orders
(". Schedule (Reciprocal enforcement of certain orders) to this Act shall have effect for making provision for and in connection with—

(a) the making and amendment in England and Wales of community orders relating to persons residing in Scotland or Northern Ireland; and

(b) the making and amendment in Scotland or Northern Ireland of corresponding orders relating to persons residing in England and Wales.").

Before Schedule 3, insert the following new schedule:

PART I
TRANSFER OF COMMUNITY ORDERS TO SCOTLAND OR NORTHERN IRELAND
Probation orders: Scotland
1.—(1) Where a court considering the making of a probation order is satisfied that the offender resides in Scotland, or will be residing there when the order comes into force, section 2 of the 1973 Act (probation orders) shall have effect as if after subsection (1) there were inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) A court shall not make a probation order in respect of any offender unless it is satisfied that suitable arrangements for his supervision can be made by the regional or islands council in whose area he resides, or will be residing when the order comes into force."
(2) Where a probation order has been made and—

(a) a magistrates' court acting for the petty sessions area specified in the order is satisfied that the offender proposes to reside or is residing in Scotland; and

(b) it appears to the court that suitable arrangements for his supervision can be made by the regional or islands council in whose area he proposes to reside or is residing,

the power of the court to amend the order under Part IV of Schedule 2 to this Act shall include power to amend it by requiring him to be supervised in accordance with an angements so made.
(3) Where a court is considering the making or amendment of a probation order in accordance with this paragraph, Schedule 1A to the 1973 Act (additional requirements in probation orders) shall have effect as if—

(a) any reference to a probation officer were a reference to an officer of the regional or islands council in whose area the offender resides or will be residing when the order or amendment comes into force;

(b) the reference in paragraph 2(5) to the probation committee for the area in which the premises are situated were a reference to the regional or islands council for that area;

(c) paragraph 3 (requirements as to attendance at probation centre) were omitted; and

(d) the reference in paragraph 5(3) to a mental hospital were a reference to a hospital within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, not being a State hospital within the meaning of that Act.

(4) A probation order made or amended in accordance with this paragraph shall—

(a) specify the locality in Scotland in which the offender resides or will be residing when the order or amendment comes into force; and

1588

(b) specify as the appropriate court for the purposes of subsection (2) of section 183 or 384 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 a court of summary jurisdiction (which, in the case of an offender convicted on indictment, shall be the sheriff court) having jurisdiction in the locality specified under paragraph (a) above.

Probation orders: Northern Ireland
2.—(l) Where a court considering the making of a probation order is satisfied that the offender resides in Northern Ireland, or will be residing there when the order comes into force, section 2 of the 1973 Act shall have effect as if after subsection (1) there were inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) A court shall not make a probation order in respect of any offender unless it is satisfied that suitable arrangements for his supervision can be made by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland."
(2) Where a probation order has been made and—

(a) a magistrates' court acting for the petty sessions area specified in the order is satisfied that the offender proposes to reside or is residing in Northern Ireland; and

(b) it appears to the court that suitable arrangements for his supervision can be made by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland,

the power of the court to amend the order under Part IV of Schedule 2 to this Act shall include power to amend it by requiring him to be supervised in accordance with arrangements so made.
(3) Where a court is considering the making or amendment of a probation order in accordance with this paragraph, Schedule 1A to the 1973 Act shall have effect as if—

(a) any reference to a probation officer were a reference to a probation officer assigned to the petty sessions district in Northern Ireland in which the offender resides or will be residing when the order or amendment comes into force;

(b) the reference in paragraph 2(5) to the probation committee for the area in which the premises are situated were a reference to the Probation Board for Northern Ireland;

(c) references in paragraph 3 to a probation centre were references to a day centre within the meaning of section 2B of the Probation Act (Northern Ireland) 1950; and

(d) the reference in paragraph 5(3) to treatment as a resident patient in a mental hospital were a reference to treatment (whether as an in-patient or an out-patient) at such hospital as may be specified in the order, being a hospital within the meaning of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, approved by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland for the purposes of section 2 of the Probation Act (Northern Ireland) 1950.

(4) A probation order made or amended in accordance with this paragraph shall specify the petty sessions district in Northern Ireland in which the offender resides or will be residing when the order or amendment comes into force.
Community service orders: Scotland
3.—(1) Where a court considering the making of a community service order is satisfied that the offender resides in Scotland, or will be residing there when the order comes into force, section 14 of the 1973 Act shall have effect as if for subsection (2A) there were substituted the following subsection—
"(2A) A court shall not make a community service order in respect of any offender unless—

(a) the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that arrangements exist for persons who reside in the locality in Scotland in which the offender resides, or will be residing when the order comes into force, to perform work under

1589
community service orders made under section 1 of the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act 1978; and

(b) it appears to the court that provision can be made for him to perform work under those arrangements."

(2) Where a community service order has been made and—

(a) a magistrates' court acting for a petty sessions area for the time being specified in it is satisfied that the offender proposes to reside or is residing in Scotland;

(b) the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that arrangements exist for persons who reside in the locality in Scotland in which the offender proposes to reside or is residing to perform work under community service orders made under section 1 of the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act 1978; and

(c) it appears to the court that provision can be made for him to perform work under the community service order under those arrangements,

it may amend the order by specifying that the unpaid work required to be performed by the order be so performed.
(3) A community service order made or amended in accordance with this paragraph shall—

(a) specify the locality in Scotland in which the offender resides or will be residing when the order or amendment comes into force; and

(b) require the regional or islands council in whose area the locality specified under paragraph (a) above is situated to appoint or assign an officer who will discharge in respect of the order the functions in respect of community service orders conferred on the local authority officer by the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act 1978.

Community service orders: Northern Ireland
4.—(1) Where a court considering the making of a community service order is satisfied that the offender resides in Northern Ireland, or will be residing there when the order comes into force, section 14 of the 1973 Act shall have effect—

(a) in the case of an offender aged sixteen, as if the reference in subsection (1A) to 240 hours were a reference to 120 hours; and

(b) in any case, as if for subsection (2A) there were substituted the following subsection—

"(2A) A court shall not make a community service order in respect of any offender unless it appears to the court that provision can be made by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland for him to perform work under the order."
(2) Where a community service order has been made and—

(a) a magistrates' court acting for a petty sessions area for the time being specified in it is satisfied that the offender proposes to reside or is residing in Northern Ireland; and

(b) it appears to the court that provision can be made by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland for him to perform work under the order,

it may amend the order by specifying that the unpaid work required to be performed by the order be so performed and, where the offender is aged sixteen, by making any such reduction in the aggregate number of hours specified in the order as is required by sub-paragraph (1) (a) above.
(3) A community service order made or amended in accordance with this paragraph shall—
1590

(a) specify the petty sessions district in Northern Ireland in which the offender resides or will be residing when the order or amendment comes into force; and

(b) require the Probation Board for Northern Ireland to select an officer who will discharge in respect of the order the functions in respect of community service orders conferred on the relevant officer by the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.

Combination orders: Scotland
5. Paragraphs 1 and 3 above shall apply in relation to combination orders—

(a) in so far as they impose such a requirement as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 10 of this Act, as if they were probation orders; and

(b) in so far as they impose such a requirement as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, as if they were community service orders.

General
6.—(1) Where a community order is made or amended in any of the circumstances specified in this Part of this Schedule, the court which makes or amends the order shall send three copies of it as made or amended to the home court, together with such documents and information relating to the case as it considers likely to be of assistance to that court.
(2) Where a community order is made or amended in any of the circumstances specified in this Part of this Schedule, then, subject to the following provisions of this paragraph—

(a) the order shall be treated as if it were a corresponding order made in the part of the United Kingdom in which the offender resides, or will be residing at the relevant time; and

(b) the legislation relating to such orders which has effect in that part of the United Kingdom shall apply accordingly.

(3) Before making or amending a community order in those circumstances the court shall explain to the offender in ordinary language—

(a) the requirements of the legislation relating to corresponding orders which has effect in the part of the United Kingdom in which he resides or will be residing at the relevant time;

(b) the powers of the home court under that legislation, as modified by this paragraph; and

(c) its own powers under this paragraph,

and an explanation given in accordance with this sub-paragraph shall be sufficient without the addition of an explanation under section 2(3) or 14(5) of the 1973 Act.
(4) The home court may exercise in relation to the community order any power which it could exercise in relation to a corresponding order made by a court in the part of the United Kingdom in which the home court exercises jurisdiction, by virtue of the legislation relating to such orders which has effect in that part, except the following, namely—

(a) in the case of a probation order or a combination order, a power conferred by section 186(2) (b), 187, 387(2) (b) or 388 of, or paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 to, the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975;

(b) in the case of a probation order, a power conferred by section 4(3) (d) or (4B) (d) or 6 of, or paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to, the Probation Act (Northern Ireland) 1950; and

(c) in the case of a community service order—

(i) a power conferred by section 4(2) (b) or 5(1) (c) or (d) of the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act 1978;

1591

(ii) a power conferred by Article 9(3)(a) or (b) or (5)(b) or 10 of the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1976; or

(iii) a power to vary the order by substituting for the number of hours of work specified in it any greater number than the court which made the order could have specified.

(5) If at any time while legislation relating to corresponding orders which has effect in Scotland or Northern Ireland applies by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above to a community order made in England and Wales—

(a) it appears to the home court—

(i) if that court is in Scotland, on evidence on oath from the local authority officer concerned; and

(ii) if it is in Northern Ireland, upon a complaint being made to a justice of the peace acting for the petty sessions district for the time being specified in the order,

that the offender has failed to comply with any of the requirements of the legislation applicable to the order; or

(b) it appears to the home court on the application of the offender or—

(i) if that court is in Scotland, of the local authority officer concerned; and

(ii) if it is in Northern Ireland, of the probation officer concerned,

that it would be in the interests of justice for a power conferred by paragraph 7 or 8 of Schedule 2 to this Act to be exercised,

the home court may require the offender to appear before the court which made the order.
(6) Where an offender is required by virtue of sub-paragraph (5) above to appear before the court which made the community order, that court—

(a) may issue a warrant for his arrest; and

(b) may exercise any power which it could exercise in respect of the community order if the offender resided in England and Wales,

and any enactment relating to the exercise of such powers shall have effect accordingly, and with any reference to the responsible officer being construed as a reference to the local authority or probation officer concerned.
(7) Where an offender is required by virtue of paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (5) above to appear before the court which made the community order—

(a) the home court shall send to that court a certificate certifying that the offender has failed to comply with such of the requirements of the order as may be specified in the certificate, together with such other particulars of the case as may be desirable; and

(b) a certificate purporting to be signed by the clerk of the home court shall be admissible as evidence of the failure before the court which made the order.

(8) In this paragraph—
"corresponding order", in relation to a combination order, means a probation order including such a requirement as is mentioned in subsection (5A) of section 183 or 384 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975;
"home court" means—

(a) if the offender resides in Scotland, or will be residing there at the relevant time, the sheriff court having jurisdiction in the locality in which he resides or proposes to reside; and

(b) if he resides in Northern Ireland, or will be residing there at the relevant time, the court of summary jurisdiction acting for the petty sessions district in which he resides or proposes to reside;

"the local authority officer concerned", in relation to an offender, means the officer of a regional or
1592
islands council responsible for his supervision or, as the case may be, discharging in relation to him the functions assigned by the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act 1978;
"the probation officer concerned", in relation to an offender, means the probation officer responsible for his supervision or, as the case may be, discharging in relation to him the functions conferred by Part III of the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1976;
"the relevant time" means the time when the order or the amendment to it comes into force.

PART II
TRANSFER OF CORRESPONDING ORDERS FROM SCOTLAND
Probation orders
7.—(1) The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In each of sections 183 and 384 (which provide, respectively, for probation orders in solemn and in summary proceedings), in subsection (1A) for the words "by the local authority in whose area he resides or is to reside" there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

"(a) in a case other than that mentioned in paragraph (b) below, by the local authority in whose area he resides or is to reside; or

(b) in a case where, by virtue of section 188(1) of this Act, subsection (2) of this section would not apply, by the probation committee for the area which contains the petty sessions area which would be named in the order".

(3) In each of sections 188 and 389 (which provide, respectively, for probation orders relating to persons residing in England being made in solemn and in summary proceedings)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for the words "that the offender shall perform unpaid work" there shall be substituted the words "which, while corresponding to a requirement mentioned in paragraph 2 or 3 of Schedule IA to the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, would if included in a probation order made under that Act fail to accord with a restriction as to days of presentation, participation or attendance mentioned in paragraph 2(4)(a) or (6)(a), or as the case may be 3(3)(a), of that Schedule";

(ii) for the word "17" there shall be substituted the word "16";

(iii) the word "and", where it secondly occurs, shall cease to have effect; and

(iv) at the end there shall be added the words "; and where the order includes a requirement that the probationer perform unpaid work for a number of hours, the number specified shall not exceed one hundred";

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) for the words "that the probationer has attained the age of 17 years and proposes to reside in or is residing in England" there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

"(a) that the probationer has attained the age of 16 years;

(b) that he proposes to reside, or is residing, in England; and

(c) that suitable arrangements for his supervision can be made by the probation committee for the area which contains the petty sessions area in which he resides or will reside"; and

(ii) after the word "section", where it secondly occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or to vary any requirement for

1593
performance of unpaid work so that such hours as remain to be worked do not exceed one hundred";

(c) in subsection (3)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for the words "section 3(2) or' and "section 3 or there shall be substituted, respectively, the words "paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 1A to" and "paragraph 5 of Schedule 1A to"; and

(ii) in paragraph (b), for the words "subsections (4) to (6) of section 3 of" there shall be substituted the words "subparagraphs (5) to (7) of paragraph 5 of Schedule 1A to";

(d) in subsection (4), for the words from "the Powers" to the end of the proviso there shall be substituted the words "Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 shall apply to the order—

(a) except in the case mentioned in paragraph (b) below, as if that order were a probation order made under section 2 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973; and

(b) in the case of an order which contains a requirement such as is mentioned in subsection (5A) of section 183 or 384 of this Act, as if it were a combination order made under section 10 of the said Act of 1991:

Provided that Part III of that Schedule shall not so apply; and sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 3 of that Schedule shall so apply as if for the first reference in the said sub-paragraph (3) to the Crown Court there were substituted a reference to a court in Scotland and for the other references in those sub-paragraphs to the Crown Court there were substituted references to the court in Scotland."; and
(e) in subsection (5), for the words from "for which" to "this section" there shall be substituted the words "named in a probation order made or amended under this section that the person to whom the order relates".
(4) Sections 189 and 390 (which make further provision as to probation orders in, respectively, solemn and summary proceedings) shall cease to have effect.
Community service orders
8. Section 6 of the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act 1978 (community service orders relating to persons residing in England and Wales) shall be amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (1)(a), for the words from "for paragraphs" to the end of paragraph (b) as substituted in section 1(2) of that Act there shall be substituted the words ", in subsection (2), paragraph (b) were omitted and for paragraph (d) there were substituted the following paragraph-"; and

(b) in subsection (2), paragraph (b) shall cease to have effect.

Supervision requirements
9. Section 72 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (supervision of children moving to England and Wales or to Northern Ireland) shall be amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (1)(b), for the words "to a juvenile court acting for the petty sessions area" there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraphs—

"(i) in the case of residence in England and Wales, to a youth court acting for the petty sessions area (within the meaning of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969);

(ii) in the case of residence in Northern Ireland, to a juvenile court acting for the petty sessions district (within the meaning of Part III of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981).";

(b) in subsection (1A)—

1594

(i) for the words "The juvenile court in England or Wales" there shall be substituted the words "A youth court";

(ii) after the word "12" there shall be inserted the words ", 12A, 12AA, 12B or 12C"; and

(iii) paragraph (a), and the word "and" immediately following that paragraph, shall cease to have effect;

(c) in subsection (2), for the words "The juvenile court in Northern Ireland" there shall be substituted the words "A juvenile court";

(d) in subsection (3), after the words "by a" there shall be inserted the words "youth court or, as the case may be"; and

(e) subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.

PART III
TRANSFER OF PROBATION ORDERS FROM NORTHERN IRELAND
10.—(1) Where, in the case of an offender of or over the age of 16 years, a court in Northern Ireland considering the making of a probation order is satisfied that the offender resides in England and Wales, or will be residing there when the order comes into force, section 1 of the Probation Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 (probation orders) shall have effect as if after subsection (1) there were inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) A court shall not make a probation order in respect of any offender unless it is satisfied that suitable arrangements for his supervision can be made by the probation committee for the area which contains the petty sessions area in which he resides or will reside."
(2) Where a probation order has been made by a court in Northern Ireland and—

(a) a court of summary jurisdiction acting for the petty sessions district in Northern Ireland for the time being specified in the order is satisfied that the offender has attained the age of 16 years and proposes to reside or is residing in England and Wales; and

(b) it appears to the court that suitable arrangements for his supervision can be made by the probation committee for the area which contains the petty sessions area in which he resides or will reside,

the power of the court to amend the order under Schedule 2 to the Probation Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 shall include power to amend it by requiring him to be supervised in accordance with arrangements so made.
(3) Where a court is considering the making or amendment of a probation order in accordance with this paragraph, sections 2, 2A and 2B of the Probation Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 shall have effect as if—

(a) any reference to a probation officer were a reference to a probation officer assigned to the petty sessions area in England and Wales in which the offender resides or will be residing when the order or amendment comes into force;

(b) the reference in section 2(2) to treatment (whether as an in-patient or an out-patient) at such hospital as may be specified in the order, being a hospital within the meaning of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, approved by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland for the purposes of that section were a reference to treatment as a resident patient in a mental hospital within the meaning of paragraph 5 of Schedule 1A to the 1973 Act;

(c) the reference in section 2A(5) to the Probation Board for Northern Ireland were a reference to the probation committee for the area in which the premises are situated; and

(d) references in section 2B to a day centre were references to a probation centre within the meaning of paragraph 3 of Schedule 1A to the 1973 Act.

(4) A probation order made or amended in accordance with this paragraph shall specify the petty sessions area in England and Wales in which the of ender resides or will be residing when the order or amendment comes into force.
11.—(1) Where a probation order is made or amended in any of the circumstances specified in paragraph 10 above, the court which makes or amends the order shall send three copies of it as made or amended to the home court, together with such documents and information relating to the case as it considers likely to be of assistance to that court.
(2) Where a probation order is made or amended in any of the circumstances specified in paragraph 10 above, then, subject to the following provisions of this paragraph—

(a) the order shall be treated as if it were a probation order made in England and Wales; and

(b) the provisions relating to such orders of the 1973 Act and Schedule 2 this Act (except paragraphs 9 and 10) shall apply accordingly.

(3) Before making or amending a probation order in the circumstances specified in paragraph 10 above the court shall explain to the offender in ordinary language—

(a) the requirements of the 1973 Act relating to probation orders;

(b) the powers of the home court under that Act and Schedule 2 to this Act, as modified by this paragraph; and

(c) its own powers under this paragraph,

and an explanation given in accordance with this sub-paragraph shall be sufficient without the addition of an explanation under section 1(5) of the Probation Act (Northern Ireland) 1950.
(4) The home court may exercise in relation to the probation order any power which it could exercise in relation to a probation order made by a court in England and Wales, by virtue of the 1973 Act, except a power conferred by paragraph 3(1) (d), 4(1) (d), 7(2) or 8(2) of Schedule 2 to the 1973 Act.
(5) If at any time while the 1973 Act applies by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above to a probation order made in Northern Ireland it appears to the home court—

(a) on information to a justice of the peace acting for the petty sessions area for the time being specified in the order, that the offender has failed to comply with any of the requirements of the 1973 Act applicable to the order; or

(b) on the application of the offender or the probation officer, that it would be in the interests of justice for the power conferred by paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Probation Act (Northern Ireland) to be exercised,

the home court may require the offender to appear before the court which made the order.
(6) Where an offender is required by virtue of sub-paragraph (5) above to appear before the court which made the probation order, that court—

(a) may issue a warrant for his arrest; and

(b) may exercise any power which it could exercise in respect of the probation order if the offender resided in Northern Ireland,

and section 4(2) to (7) of the Probation Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 shall have effect accordingly.
(7) Where an offender is required by virtue of paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (5) above to appear before the court which made the probation order—

(a) the home court shall send to that court a certificate certifying that the offender has failed to comply with such of the requirements of the order as may be specified in the certificate, together with such other particulars of the case as may be desirable; and

1596

(b) a certificate purporting to be signed by the clerk of the home court shall be admissible as evidence of the failure before the court which made the order.

(8) In this paragraph "home court" means, if the offender resides in England and Wales, or will be residing there at the time when the order or the amendment to it comes into force, the court of summary jurisdiction acting for the petty sessions area in which he resides or proposes to reside.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 47. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
Clause 16 [Fixing of certain fines by reference to units]:
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 12, line 32, after ("above)") insert ("unless the court is satisfied that this would be unreasonable having regard to the circumstances of the offender").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the amendment was discussed in Committee the noble Lord the Leader of the House replied for the Government. He did little more than reiterate what was said by Mr. John Patten in another place. The noble Lord said that he was concerned to see that the minimum of the unit fine was not set at a derisory figure. The amendment relates to the unit fine system, which we all agree is admirable. It is a system for which many noble Lords have been pressing for years. We are delighted that the Government have embraced it after carrying out a powerful experiment in four magistrates' courts in different areas of the country. Its value is proven.
We have only one quarrel with the admirable system; it is that it sets the minimum unit fine of £4 per week. There are at least two good features of the unit fine system. The first is that it enables people to pay according to their means. The second is that a unit can be set during a period of time—perhaps 30 weeks—which is affordable to both poor and rich people. Occasionally it happens that even £4 per week is too great a sum for a poor person to pay. Rather than sentence such a person to pay that amount which he cannot afford, on which he will default and in consequence go to prison, a unit of £3 or £2 is set which he can afford. In consequence he will not go to prison.
That is a simple and sensible system which was followed by all four magistrates' courts in different parts of the country. Since the Committee stage I have been in touch with the clerks of those four courts. They have written to say that they support the amendment. The clerks have not had time to consult all the magistrates involved but they are confident that they speak on behalf of the majority. All four are unanimous in saying that the amendment is necessary. Furthermore, during the interval between the Committee and Report stages the clerks held their annual general meeting and decided to offer their unanimous support for the amendment. That is a significant development.
In Committee the noble Lord the Leader of the House said that a minimum unit fine was set in the four experimental areas. It is true that voluntarily the courts set themselves a limit of £3. However, it was only a guideline and not a legally binding, statutory minimum fine. Therefore, with the utmost diffidence I differ from the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who has just entered the Chamber. The four experimental areas were not operating under a legally binding statutory limit. They were operating only under a minimum which they set themselves as a guideline. Three out of the four areas departed quite frequently from that although only exceptionally when they found that the defendant could only pay at a rate of less than £3 per week.
I believe that the evidence which I have gathered in the interval between the Committee stage and now proves that those areas were not operating under a legally imposed minimum but were operating under a voluntary guideline which they set themselves and from which they departed fairly frequently, but only in cases of need.
I should have thought that a guideline is sufficient to demonstrate that a fine should not fall below a minimum standard except, as we say in this amendment, where the magistrates consider that exceptional circumstances exist. It is the commitment to prison that we are always trying to avoid.
In Committee the noble Lord the Leader of the House seized on the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that one solution - and it is a solution - would be to extend the period of time over which the fine could be paid. It could be stretched over a period of 60 weeks rather than 30 weeks. Therefore the money could be obtained in that way. However I do not believe that it is desirable because courts could only reduce weekly instalments to realistic levels by ordering a fine to be paid over very long periods—sometimes a year or longer. That practice has been deprecated or frowned upon by the courts and, indeed, by the Court of Appeal. That course should not be followed if it has been officially frowned upon by the Court of Appeal.
Secondly, if a fine is to be spread over a year or longer, it is much more likely to result in default than a realistic fine which can be paid within a reasonable period of time. This amendment is very modest. We seek to retain the minimum fine so that there is a general guideline as to what should be the minimum. As a rule, that minimum should be adhered to and it should not be a matter for derision. However, the courts should have discretion, as in the four experimental areas, to reduce the unit to something less than £4; that is, to £3, £2 or even £1. The courts should not do that unless they are absolutely sure that the circumstances of the case merit an exception to the rule.
I do not think that I need to say any more. The evidence I have accumulated from the clerks to the magistrates of the four courts is conclusive. They are convinced that the magistrates would wish to operate in that way in the future. It is both humane and fair
1598
that the magistrates should be allowed that discretion. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I agree with the noble Lord that the unit fine system is a good system and only in exceptional circumstances should one need to apply the provisions of the amendment. However, if a person is asked to pay more than he can manage, then in his eyes the law is brought into disrepute. He is being asked by the court to do something he knows he cannot do. There are also the side effects to consider. If a person is asked to pay £4 and his circumstances are such that he cannot do so, it often leads that person into further crime.
A point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, was that the offender might pay over a period of time. I looked into that matter too; I believe that over a long period the law of diminishing return sets in. Offenders find that it is such a millstone round their neck that after a time they cease to find it important and do not pay. Therefore the amendment should be used only in exceptional circumstances but should be included in the Bill to allow the magistrates some flexibility.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I too support the amendment. I congratulate the Government on introducing the unit fine scheme. We on these Benches fully support it. Secondly, I should point out that in three of the experiments in particular—Bradford, Swansea and Teesside—the percentage of units calculated at less than £4 was very interesting. At Bradford 34 per cent. of fines were set at £3 or less, with 11 per cent. being set at £1 or £2 a week. At Swansea 41 per cent. were set at £3 a week or less, with 13 per cent. being set at £1 or £2. At Teesside no less than 47 per cent. of the fines were set at £3 a week or less, with 39 per cent. being set at £1 or £2. The figures for Basingstoke were slightly different. However, that is a fairly well off part of the country and few fines were below £3 a week, although even there the magistrates fined the occasional offender at £1 or £2 a week. Less than £4 a week is not abnormal in Bradford, Swansea or Teesside. For that reason I do not see why discretion should not be given to the magistrates to set the fine at those figures if they believe them to be correct.
It was suggested that one way out was that £4 a week should be accepted as the basic minimum but that the offender who cannot afford £4 a week—he can perhaps afford only £2 a week—should be given longer to pay. That is an astonishingly illogical situation. The object of fixing the unit is to take into account the minimum disposable income of the person being fined. If the fine is fixed at £4 a week but it is then decided that the minimum disposable weekly income is only £2 a week, what is being brought into disrepute is the fixing of £4, not the payment of £2. It strikes me as being an absurd system to say that an offender can have double the time to pay that he would have had if we had calculated the minimum disposable income correctly; namely, we cannot impose £2 but must impose £4 and therefore he should have twice as long

1599
to pay. It will lead to enormous confusion. A much simpler way of dealing with the matter would be for the Government to accept the thrust of the amendment we support moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, it is a question of sensible administration. People who have knowledge of these experiments—namely, the justices' clerks concerned—are in favour of the scheme. I find it extremely difficult to understand why the Government have been so stubborn in the past on this matter. I very much hope that the noble Earl is about to rise and tell us that he is prepared to accept the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment. It is extremely difficult for the Government to justify their position, which is opposed by all those who have direct knowledge of the system.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, does not exactly encourage me to accept the principle of the amendment when he says that we have been stubborn the whole way through. That is the last thing we have been. We have been as accommodating as we possibly can. The effect of this amendment is to allow the courts the discretion to set the value of a unit below the minimum value proposed in Clause 16(4) of the Bill whenever the courts felt that £4 a week would be too much for the offender to pay. That comes very close to having no minimum value at all. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said when this amendment was discussed in Committee, the Government believe that a minimum unit value is important to the credibility of the scheme. We think that £4 is about the right starting point for this minimum value.
It is necessary to ensure a proper balance between the need to be fair to the offender by taking account of his or her means and the need to be fair to the victim and the public at large by taking full account of the seriousness of the offence. A scheme which adopted no minimum value or a very low minimum value might easily result in fines being set at a derisory level. This would not, I suggest, win the confidence of the victim, the public or indeed the offender.
The £4 minimum value adopted in the Bill is based on the experience of the pilot projects. It is higher than the minimum value adopted in the Swansea, Teesside and Basingstoke pilot projects where a £3 minimum was used. However, when judging whether the proposed £4 minimum is sensible or not it should be remembered that the unit fine scheme set out in the Bill will not come into operation until 1992. That will be some, three years on from the period when courts in the pilot projects were using a £3 minimum. Set against this background, a £4 minimum does not, I think, seem excessive.
For some offenders £4 may be more than they can afford to pay on a weekly basis. However, the unit fine scheme is about determining an appropriate penalty for an offence. It is not about deciding how the fine should be paid. If a unit fine based on a minimum value of £4 is too much for the offender to pay on a
1600
weekly basis, the court has the discretion to allow the offender to pay in weekly instalments of less than £4. As a general rule that is, I believe, the right way to accommodate low income offenders.
I accept that in some cases that may involve an offender paying off a fine over a lengthy period. That is undesirable. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for drawing my attention to that by his amendment. A 40-unit fine with a unit value of £4 would mean a fine of £160. If the offender can afford only £2 a week it would take him or her well over a year to discharge the fine. I cannot advise noble Lords to accept the proposed amendment which, as I said, would come close to having no minimum value at all.
Despite the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, might think that I am being stubborn, I shall be happy to look at the matter again and to bring back an amendment at Third Reading in order to help to address the point. If that is stubbornness I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will say that it is a jolly good form of stubbornness.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, certainly. I would not wish to abuse—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken twice already.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am much obliged. The noble Earl will recall that on three previous occasions he has not risen to draw attention to the fact that people have been speaking after the Minister. I was about to say in response to the noble Earl that the Government have been stubborn in the past but that I hope on this occasion they will adopt a more accommodating attitude. They have done so, and I am much obliged.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, the Government have adopted an accommodating attitude, for which I am extremely grateful. The noble Earl kept us on tenterhooks for rather a long time before he came forward with his concession, for which I am duly grateful. The noble Earl spent some time defending the minimum. Perhaps he will give credit to me and to my colleagues on all sides of the House who have spoken in the debate. None of us attacked the minimum as such. All we asked for was a discretion for magistrates to depart from the minimum where they thought fit to do so. All the time that he was keeping us on tenterhooks he was defending something on which he had not been attacked at all. Never mind, I have no doubt that it was good for us to be stretched on tenterhooks. We are very much obliged to the noble Earl for giving us this lollipop. We look forward to the amendment at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 13, line 9, leave out from ("Where") to ("the") in line 10 and insert ("the offender—

(a) has been convicted in his absence in pursuance of section 11 or 12 of the 1980 Act (non-appearance of accused); or

(b) has failed to comply with an order under section 18(1) below,

and (in either case)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 54. These amendments deal with a potential difficulty in the operation of the unit fine scheme. The difficulty arises when, as sometimes—
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I think the noble Earl said that he would speak at the same time to Amendment No. 54.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I said Amendment No. 94. I shall try to articulate a little more carefully so that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, can hear properly.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Earl was mistaken. He did in fact give the wrong number.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, all kinds of funny things can happen. I looked and saw the number 94 and I thought I had said 94. However, I am quite happy to receive again the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich.
The difficulty arises when, as sometimes happens, a defendant is convicted in his absence. He may be absent because he simply failed to turn up at the hearing, or because he chose to plead guilty by post. Sections 11 and 12 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 enable a court to sentence an offender in his absence.
If the court wants to impose a unit fine, it will need information about the defendant's means. In practice, defendants will probably be invited to provide information about their means before the hearing. If they do not do so, it may be obtained by asking questions in court. This was the practice in the courts that took part in the unit fines pilot project, and it seemed to work fairly well.
If an offender does not provide advance information and is convicted in his absence, the court will have no alternative but to make an order under Clause 18 requiring him to provide a statement of means. Some offenders might still not comply with the order, even though that would be an offence. Then Clause 16(8) would come into play. The court would use its discretion, in the absence of any information about the offender's means, to determine the value of a unit —and hence the amount of the fine itself—as it saw fit. Before that, however, there will have been delays and adjournments to no good end.
The amendment to Clause 16 overcomes this problem. It enables a court to set a fine under Clause 16(8) when a defendant is convicted in his absence, without first having to make an order under Clause 18. This avoids the court having to adjourn in the hope that information about means will be provided.
This does mean that offenders would be fined in their absence and in the absence of information about their means. But this could well have been the outcome anyway, even after the making of an order under Clause 18. It would be important to ensure that the offender had due warning about the desirability of providing information about his means when he was sent information about the hearing. That is the purpose of the amendment to Schedule 10. It will be in
1602
the offender's interest to provide advance information, but even so, we would expect the discretion conferred by Clause 16(8) to be used to set a reasonable fine level. There are other safeguards: if the fine were set at too high a level in the offender's absence, it could be reduced following either a means inquiry or an appeal to the Crown Court.
I am indebted to the Justices' Clerks' Society for drawing our attention to this potential difficulty. I hope your Lordships will agree that these amendments will make the unit fine scheme easier to operate in the particular cases to which they apply. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 54:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Reasons for rejecting other methods of enforcing a fine when imprisoning a fine defaulter
. The following subsection shall be substituted for section 82(6) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980—
"(6) Where a magistrates' court issues a warrant of commitment on the ground that one of the conditions mentioned in subsection (1) or (4) above is satisfied, it shall state that fact, specifying the ground, in the warrant and where it specifies the ground that the conditions mentioned in subsection (4) (b) above are satisfied it shall state in open court the reasons for its opinion that all other methods of enforcing payment of the sum are inappropriate or unsuccessful.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before speaking to this amendment I should like to make the observation that the Justices' Clerks' Society is having a field day. It has won on two successive amendments; namely, Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. It has indeed been a great day for the society.
Amendment No. 54 is a variant of one which I moved in Committee. I attach considerable importance to it. The proposed new clause requires that any court imprisoning a "fine defaulter" shall state its reasons for rejecting other methods of enforcing a fine. When I moved a similar amendment in Committee, the noble Lord the Leader of the House pointed out that it omitted the requirement which is currently contained in Section 82 of the Magistrates' Courts Act that the court must also be satisfied that the default was due to the offenders,
"wilful refusal or culpable neglect".
Therefore, the proposed new clause which I put before the House tonight has been redrafted to meet that criticism. Its aim is to eliminate the imprisonment of fine defaulters, except where it is genuinely impracticable to obtain payment in any other way. I should stress that I am pursuing the same object in another context as regards the Child Support Bill.
I am sure that it is the aim of all of us to try to keep fine defaulters out of prison. However, I must point out that the current rate of such defaulters is terrifyingly high; it is just about 17,000 a year. Clearly we must attack the problem of this huge number of people in prison in every way that we can. In 1989, 22 per cent. of all prisoners entering prison, and 40 per cent. of those given sentences of six months or less, were imprisoned for fine default. The number of people entering prison poses a huge administrative burden on the system. Indeed, the processing of 17,000

1603
receptions—that is, reception, discharge and paperwork—could be cut to the huge benefit of the system and of those who are subjected to imprisonment for fine default.
The Bill provides two measures: first, the unit fine system, which we recently discussed and which we hope to improve on Third Reading; secondly, the provision to deduct fines from income support payments. It will now be possible for courts to attach not only earnings but also income support and to distrain goods. Therefore, considering the wide-ranging powers which the courts now have to obtain payment, it should be rare in future for them to have to resort to imprisonment.
However, from the research papers which I mentioned in Committee, it seems that, although there is a considerable power for courts to search for other enforcement options than imprisonment, they do not do so. The amendment is designed to help them to do so. For that reason, I hope that the Government will consider that it goes with the grain of the Bill rather than against it.
The discipline of giving reasons in the form required by the proposed new clause would help to focus the courts' attention on the alternative enforcement measures which are available to reduce the chances of defaulters being unnecessarily imprisoned. I need say no more. I hope that the simplicity of that argument will cause the Government to agree either to this wording or to something very similar on Third Reading. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I support the amendment. The arguments were put with clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and do not need repetition by me. It is a sensible amendment. The courts should give reasons. That concentrates the mind. In those circumstances the chances are that fewer people will be sent to prison for fine default. When the figure is nearly 17,000 a year, something should be done.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, accused me of keeping him on tenterhooks ort Amendment No. 52. I shall try not to do so this time. I shall come to the points more directly to minimise his frustration and his impatience. I am afraid that I am not persuaded that the law governing the enforcement of fines needs to be changed in the way the amendment envisages. The law already requires that the court must be satisfied that default is due to the offender's wilful refusal or culpable neglect and that it must have considered or tried all other methods of enforcing payment. The amendment would not add to the factors which the court must consider. It would merely require the court to state its precise masons for having concluded that all other methods of enforcing payment were inappropriate or unsuccessful. A court may well be of the opinion that an order to attach earnings would be inappropriate because it knows that the defendant is unemployed,
1604
but the amendment would require its reasons to be given in open court as regards every possible method of enforcement.
Given the variety of methods of enforcement available to a court, a requirement to state reasons for every option would considerably slow down the court's proceedings. I would not argue against such delay if I believed that it would lead to a better final decision, but, as I have said, given that all those matters must already be considered by the court, I cannot see that the requirement to give reasons in open court would have that improved result.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred to the number of people sent to prison for fine default and said that it was very high. Fines are imposed in about 1,200,000 cases a year and only about 17,000 people end up in prison for default. That amounts to about 1.5 per cent.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, is the Minister seriously saying that "only" 17,000 people are committed to prison? I should have thought that "only" was the most extraordinary term to use in regard to the very high number of 17,000.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Lord prefers me to omit the word "only" I shall do so. Fines are imposed in 1,200,000 cases a year; 17,000 people a year end up in prison.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, has the Minister sat down?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, although I am standing up now, I was not standing up when the noble Lord asked the question.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, the Minister has finally sat down, apparently satisfied that 17,000 admissions, processing, and discharging of people in the prison system is worthy of the description "only" as if it were some minor matter. It is a matter of great importance and highly costly. The figure of 17,000 is large. Imprisonment affects not only the prisoners but their families and their prospect of living useful, constructive lives subsequently.
It would be well worth it if magistrates were forced to say that they had exhausted every option before they reached a decision to sentence someone to imprisonment for fine default. I find it disappointing that the Minister has been unable to accept the amendment. It leaves a good Bill weaker than it otherwise might me. One of the Bill's objectives is to keep people out of prison. We offer the Minister some help towards achieving that end, but unfortunately he is rejecting it. Clearly I can do no more at this time of night than ask leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Recovery of fines etc. by deductions from income support]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 16, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 41 and insert ("In subsection (1) above-").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 55 and also speak to Amendment

1605
No. 56. The purpose behind these amendments is to make clear precisely what is meant by the term "fine" for the purposes of deductions from income support. Our concern has been to ensure that the definition of "fine" should be clearly set out in order to specify the purposes for which deductions from income support may be used.
Certain road traffic offences concerning vehicle excise licences impose penalties instead of fines. It is often the case that an offender, in addition to having a penalty imposed, may be required to pay the back duty owed on a vehicle excise licence. At present these penalties are enforced as though they were fines. We wish to ensure that such payments may also be deducted from income support to prevent the possibility that a failure to pay results in the offender being committed to prison. I think your Lordships would agree that that would be a most unfortunate situation and one which would reduce the usefulness of deductions from income support as a means of keeping defaulters out of prison. In the same way, we should not like an offender who had been ordered to pay a contribution towards his costs, which are also currently enforced in the same way as fines, to be unable to do so by means of deductions from income support, for fear that he too might end up in prison. I must emphasise that these additional items would not in any way increase the total weekly amount that could be deducted from income support to pay fines. The same ceiling would be in place to safeguard the offender.
The minor amendments to the definitions of "income support" and "prescribed" in this clause are purely technical amendments to definitions that already existed in Clause 21.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 17, line 3, at end insert:
("(3A) In this section—
"fine" includes—

(a) a penalty imposed under section 8(1) or 18(4) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 or section 102(3) (aa) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (penalties imposed for certain offences in relation to vehicle excise licences);

(b) an amount ordered to be paid, in addition to any penalty so imposed, under section 9, 18A or 26A of the said Act of 1971 (liability to additional duty);

(c) an amount ordered to be paid by way of costs which is, by virtue of section 41 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, treated as having been adjudged to be paid on a conviction by a magistrates' court;

"income support" means income support within the meaning of the Social Security Act 1986, either alone or together with any unemployment, sickness or invalidity benefit, retirement pension or severe disablement allowance which is paid by means of the same instrument of payment;
"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Bill
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at seven minutes past eleven o'clock.

  DEFAMATION: RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION PAPERS
  DEFAMATION: RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION PAPERS
  PEAT: ENCOURAGING THE USE OF SUBSTITUTES
  PEAT: ENCOURAGING THE USE OF SUBSTITUTES
  NON-FOOD AID HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE
  NON-FOOD AID HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE
  RAMSAR SITES AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AREAS
  RAMSAR SITES AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AREAS
  BST: MANUFACTURER'S LIABILITY
  BST: MANUFACTURER'S LIABILITY
  FEOGA GUIDANCE SECTION GRANTS
  FEOGA GUIDANCE SECTION GRANTS