Sitting of 26 January 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  NIMMO SMITH/FRIEL REPORT
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before the House a Return of the Report of the Inquiry by Mr. W. A. Nimmo Smith QC and Mr. J. D. Friel, into an allegation of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in Scotland, instructed by the Lord Advocate.—[Mr. Lang.]

Oral Answers to Questions

  HEALTH
  Madam Speaker: Question 1.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I object to the extraordinary and unusual procedure involving the notice of motion—
  Madam Speaker: Order. Let me help the hon. Gentleman. There is no Question for me to put to the House in regard to the motion. The return is unopposed by the Minister who will have to make it, and under our procedure no objection can be made. We must now move on to Question 1.

  Bronchitis
  Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new proposals she intends to introduce to reduce the numbers of deaths caused by bronchitis.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): It is estimated that 80 per cent. of deaths each year from bronchitis and chronic obstructive airways diseases are associated with smoking. The "Health of the Nation" White Paper commits us to ambitious targets to reduce smoking, and sets out a comprehensive strategy to achieve these targets, including action on price, health education, ensuring effective controls on advertising, and a great national health service role in reducing smoking.
  Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister recall giving a different figure when he told my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that nine out of 10 deaths from bronchitis and emphysema—22,000 deaths per year—were caused by smoking? Does he also recall that during the general election campaign the marketing manager of Imperial Tobacco Limited said that his company had given the Conservative party 2,000 poster sites because it wanted the party to do its bidding when in
  856
  government? Why do the Conservatives always surrender to the tobacco lobby, ignoring all the weight of scientific evidence? Are they stupid, or are they corrupt?
  Mr. Sackville: If the hon. Gentleman seriously thinks that there is any improper connection between the Government and the tobacco industry, he may ask why we have operated a pricing policy which has increased the real price of cigarettes by 43 per cent. in the past 10 years.
  Mr. Sykes: Is my hon. Friend aware that, owing to the Government's policy on cigarette prices, the percentage of the adult population who smoke has fallen from 45 per cent. in 1974 to 30 per cent. today?
  Mr. Sackville: Indeed—and we intend to meet our target of 20 per cent. by the year 2000.
  Mr. McCartney: As usual, the Minister has completely missed the point. He has an opportunity today to do something about the 17,000 children who need hospital treatment each year because of passive smoking. He could also do something about the hundreds of children who take up smoking every day: he could announce a ban on tobacco advertising. The Government and the tobacco industry are alone in Britain, Europe and the world in opposing the banning of tobacco advertising. Is it not about time that the Government stood up for the interests of the 17,000 children who are affected by smoking, rather than standing up for the interests of the tobacco industry?
  Mr. Sackville: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that other countries in Europe have better policies on smoking than ours, he may wish to consider why it is possible to buy international brands of cigarettes and import them into this country at prices 20 per cent. lower than ours in Italy, 35 per cent. lower in France, 40 per cent. lower in Spain and 45 per cent. lower in Greece. He may also wish to ask the socialist brothers in Europe why they approve of a policy which subsidises tobacco growers to the tune of £1 billion per year.
  Mr. Rathbone: Does my hon. Friend accept that Great Britain, where there is viable and energetic marketing of cigarettes, has a higher incidence of low-tar cigarette consumption than almost any other country? Does he also accept that, contrary to the Select Committee report, there is no link whatever between advertising and the incidence of smoking among young people?
  Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is no proven link, but we shall continue our programme of education to deter young people from taking up smoking.

  Tomlinson Report
  Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the capital sums required by London FHSAs for upgrading general practitioner facilities to implement Tomlinson report proposals.
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The Government are considering ways in which health care in London can be improved, especially primary health care. I shall make a full statement shortly.
  Mr. Gerrard: Does the Minister accept that substantial investment is needed to bring GP surgeries up to standard, especially in areas of London such as my constituency,

  857
  which has the highest proportion of single-practitioner GP practices in the country? Why will not she give the House the estimated cost per surgery? I assume that she must know the figures. Does she not understand that people in London want to know when their primary health care will be improved and what it will cost, and to be assured that the money will not come from cutting other health service facilities?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I accept that the people of London want to know what is going to happen and to bring the uncertainty to an end. They rightly want to be confident that changes will be based on improvements in primary health care. Significant further advances in primary health care have been made. Capital investment, for example, has doubled in the past two years, but very much more needs to be done. We are having detailed discussions before making announcements.
  Mr. Carrington: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Londoners are keen to see greater investment in primary health care, but that they also need investment in hospitals? Will she join me in welcoming the opening of the Chelsea and Westminster hospital, at a cost of £204 million, which is the most advanced, state-of-the-art hospital in Europe and will provide magnificent health care to west London? Does she agree that that represents a marvellous achievement for London's health service and is a testimony to the investment that the Government are making in health care in London? Will she also—
  Hon. Members: No.
  Madam, Speaker: Order. This is Question Time, not the time when Members make statements. The hon. Gentleman must have had three bites of the cherry already. I am sure that the Secretary of State is more than capable of answering.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on his fluency in advocating the excellence of the new hospital. London will indeed remain a centre of excellence in hospital care, in research and in education. But we must look forward and make changes. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) is also right that that must be balanced with proper recognition of the role of primary care. These are difficult decisions, but they are decisions which we shall take.
  Ms. Primarolo: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), the Secretary of State referred to the improved investment in primary care. She must surely be aware that the Tomlinson report showed that 46 per cent. of GPs are performing below the national average, which is only 7 per cent. She is probably also aware that the Acheson report of 1981 stated that only 15 per cent. of GPs were performing under the national average in London. Since 1981, 5,000 beds have been closed to pay for improved primary care in London. There has been a threefold deterioration in the service. When will the Secretary of State take some action instead of lecturing us and offering platitudes?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady clearly fails to understand that significant improvements have been made in London, mainly as a result of the new GP contracts, which the Labour party voted against. The deprivation payments, the targets payments for immunisation and cancer screening have at last led to improvements in
  858
  inner-city areas, but more needs to be done. I welcome the hon. Lady's appreciation of many of the valuable points that are made in the Tomlinson report. She also referred to the Acheson report. Many of its recommendations have been implemented, the most important being the new GP contract which has set the tone for family doctor services across the country. The Labour party voted against that.

  Social Services
  Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to develop independent inspection of social services provision in line with the citizens charter.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): We shall build on the work of local authority inspection units and the Department's social services inspectorate by increasing independence, accountability and the involvement of lay people. Our plans are set out in the consultation document "Inspecting Social Services" published last October. These will be implemented once we have considered the responses now being received.
  Mr. Ottaway: Does my hon. Friend agree that anyone who needs a lesson on the need for independent inspection and regulation need only look across the river to the borough of Lambeth? If that is an example of Labour local government at work, is it not better that we introduce Conservative community care reforms as soon as possible?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. The example of Lambeth borough council—a uniquely disastrous blend of socialist dogma and managerial incompetence—is a timely warning of the need for rigorous inspection, not so much of the independent providers, who are already accountable through the registration process and the market, but of the local authorities' own activities, which have only recently become subject to inspection as a result of our legislation and where our proposals will further tighten scrutiny.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The Secretary of State will be aware that, as a result of the implementation of Government community care policy with Government funding, existing services for mentally handicapped people are to be closed in Coventry. How on earth will he inspect and ensure that people have their rights under the citizens charter when the facilities no longer exist?
  Mr. Yeo: By far the best safeguard of high standards is the mixed economy of care that we are using as the bedrock of our new community care policies. Coupled with the extraordinarily generous resourcing of the new policy, which next year makes available about 15 per cent. more money for personal social services expenditure throughout the country, it will mean that there is no reason for services to be reduced in Coventry or anywhere else. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman will urge his councillors to ensure that the council makes the fullest possible use of the independent sector. For some reason, some Labour authorities have been so reluctant even to consult the independent providers that we have today had to issue a direction requiring them to do so.
  Mr. Rowe: When talking about the inspection of social services, will my hon. Friend remember that one of the best and cheapest ways to ensure that standards are maintained

  859
  is to encourage a much wider use of volunteers in a variety of ways within the social services, not only to extend the reach of professionals but to bring into a range of what might have remained murky corners the bright light of public interest?
  Mr. Yeo: Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want all local authorities to make the fullest possible use of all types of independent provision, most notably the voluntary organisations which have a distinguished role not only in residential or nursing homes but in domiciliary and day care services. Organisations such as Age Concern are already making full use of volunteers, and local authorities that have adopted an outward-looking policy are contracting with voluntary organisations to improve the delivery of services, especially domiciliary services.

  Community Care
  Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last met the Association of Directors of Social Services to discuss the implementation of the changes in community care.
  Mr. Yeo: I last met the president and secretary of the Association of Directors of Social Services on Monday 21 December.
  Mr. Steinberg: The Minister will be aware that Durham county council has already had to close eight old people's homes because of Government policies. Is he also aware that, due to those policies, it is now possible that it will have to close even more and that homes in the private sector might have to be closed? Bearing in mind the fact that the Government argue for choice for elderly people, will the Minister explain how the closure of all those homes will provide choice for elderly people in my constituency?
  Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman could not be further from the mark. Frankly, I am astonished that he even raises the point. In his county of Durham, the personal social services standard spending assessment for next year is £54 million, which is more than 18 per cent. above what the county is spending this year. Unless the Labour council in Durham calls in Lambeth borough council for advice, there is no conceivable possibility of any cuts in Durham having anything to do with the resourcing of the policy or with the Government's attitude.
  The Government are giving all social services clients the right, backed by a statutory direction, to choose where they want to go. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman says, I am not surprised that people may not be choosing Durham county council homes. The fact is that Durham could spend a further £8 million and still be within its SSA. On top of that, it is getting a special transitional grant of £7.4 million to fund community care.
  Mrs. Roe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have fully honoured their commitment to funding community care? Is it not now up to the local authorities, which will give the lead in these services, to establish their priorities, accept the challenge and make the decision to use those resources effectively and efficiently?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. In many areas, local authorities already recognise the wisdom of the concept of the policy and the fact that they have been resourced most
  860
  generously to deliver it. I am confident that a high standard of community care will be available to people, especially in the areas in which there is good co-operation between the social services department and the health authority.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: Bearing in mind that we are now a mere nine weeks to the day from the April community care changes, is it not totally unacceptable that disabled people and local authorities still do not know how the successor to the independent living fund will operate? Is the Minister aware that within the past week I have received two totally contradictory parliamentary answers, one from him and one from the Department of Social Security, as to whether there will be a ceiling after April on the cost of help towards independent living? Will the Minister tell me straight whether there is to be a care cost cap?
  Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman presumably knows that we have included in the ring-fenced money for community care a further £26 million to enable local authorities to make their contribution to the successor arrangements for the independent living fund. I am happy to make it clear that there will be no ceiling on the amount that local authorities can use to provide services for clients, whether they would formerly have been clients of the independent living fund or not. It will be for the local authority to decide how much local authority money is to be used to provide services.
  Sir John Hannam: Now that the independent living fund will no longer make cash payments in cases of severe handicap, will my hon. Friend adopt the Disabled Persons (Services) Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), which is also called for by the Association of Directors of Social Services and by all the local authority associations, and which seeks to reintroduce the practice whereby local authorities could make direct cash payments in deserving cases to severely disabled people.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I am aware that there is a lot of support in a number of quarters outside the House for giving local authorities the power to make cash payments which could then be used by individuals to purchase services on their own behalf. The Government are not ready at this stage to take that on board. We believe that it is the function of the social security system to make cash payments to individuals.
  The cornerstone of our community care reforms is the empowerment of the individual. Instead of the present arrangement whereby people automatically claim income support payments from the Department of Social Security, there will be individual assessment of people's needs, taking into account their wishes, the wishes of their families and of their carers—[Interruption.] The Opposition are not interested in the policy, but my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) is interested, and he is a well-known authority on the subject —[HON. MEMBERS: "Address the Chair."] I believe—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I say to the entire House, Back-Bench Members as well as Ministers, that I want to have direct questions and very speedy answers to them so that we may move down the Order Paper and so that I may call other hon. Members who have substantive questions.
  Mr. Yeo: The policy that we shall implement in April will incorporate a number of features that will be of great advantage to individuals.

  Hospital Treatment
  Mr. Garrett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she is issuing to provider units concerning preferential access to hospital treatment for patients from GP fund-holding practices.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Guidance agreed with the joint consultants committee was issued to hospital consultants in June 1991. It precluded contracts for general practitioner fund holder patients that disadvantaged other patients.
  Mr. Garrett: In Essex and Hertfordshire, and soon in Norfolk, patients of GP fund holders are being admitted to hospital while other patients will have to wait until April or beyond. What is that if not a two-tier health service?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I will make the position exactly clear. The GP fund holders are funded on the same basis per head as the district health authorities. It is for each of them to spend that money through the year as they think best. In some areas the districts have placed their contracts and the hospitals have more than met those contracts and are delivering fast, effective patient care. In some circumstances, the fund holders have not yet spent all their funds and can set priorities in a different way. Instead of begrudging it, the hon. Gentleman should see how fund holders have spent their resources to show how better the district could set its priorities for the year ahead.
  In the hon. Gentleman's constituency the trust hospital has treated 4,000 more patients than last year. His constituency also has a new renal unit, a new third orthopaedic theatre and a new £1 million accident and emergency department. If we are learning from the fund holders, we should welcome the example and innovation that they set.
  Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that GP fund holding has been a tremendous success? It has improved patient care and choice for patients and it is popular with practitioners–14 per cent. of the population is now covered by GP fundholders. Does she also agree that clear guidelines have been issued by her Department against fast tracking and that they should be obeyed?
  Mrs. Bottomley: There are clear guidelines and it is important that we continue to observe them. GP fund holding has been a major source of innovation. For those who profess to support the patients, there is no better way of doing so than to give power to general practitioners. GP fund holding enhances the ability of the GP to act as an advocate on behalf of the patient. A recent survey in Doctor magazine showed yet again the way in which fund holders have been able to provide more efficient and effective care, integrating primary and secondary care in ways from which others can learn.
  Mr. Blunkett: Will the Secretary of State tell us, then, why GPs—including fund holders—throughout the country, consultants in the consultants and specialists committee of the British Medical Association, and all who work in and are aware of the health service are up in arms about a two-tier service, the existence of which the
  862
  Secretary of State refuses to accept? Is she aware of the case spelt out in The Guardian this morning by David Brindle? In view of her statement this afternoon, what action is she prepared to take to stop minor treatment taking precedence over major surgery and to prevent a two-tier health service in Britain?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman simply fails and refuses to understand the way in which the system works. At long last, we have a health service in which we can focus resources on the priorities set by the districts and GPs through the freedom that is given to GP fund holders. It is the job of the district to talk to local GPs about the priorities that they want set year on year as they place contracts. For 20 per cent. of the work, the GP fund holders have the freedom to allocate their priorities in a different way.
  The reason why I could never support the Labour party is that it believes—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. These interruptions are a complete waste of precious question time.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I could never support the Labour party because it believes in a system of levelling down, whereas we believe in a system of levelling up.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Are not the facts of the case as given by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) further proof that the fund-holding practices in his area obtain better value for patients than the district health authority does? Is not that further proof that we should extend the fund-holding practices further for the benefit of patients?
  Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. We want to extend the benefits of fund holding to all general practitioners, whether they apply, as do 20 per cent. of GPs, to become fund holders by this April, or find other ways of working more effectively with the district. The aim is to reverse the balance of power so that general practitioners, acting on behalf of patients, can have some leverage in the system.

  Elderly People (Deaths)
  Mr. Wicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the relative number of deaths of those aged 75 years and over in (a) the summer and (b) the winter; what comparable figures she has for other European nations; and what assessment has been made of the causes of any difference in the figures.
  Mr. Yeo: Figures from 1988 to 1992 for England and Wales in respect of people aged 75 and over indicate that, on average, some 55 per cent. of all deaths have occurred in the winter period —October to March. There are no readily available comparable figures for other European nations. Evidence suggests, however, that there are significant variations in winter mortality across Europe, although the reasons for these discrepancies are not yet fully understood.
  Mr. Wicks: Is the Minister not aware that facts published in his Department's journal "Health Trends" provide European and international comparisons? Is it not the case that, sadly, these reveal that we are top of the

  863
  European winter deaths league? These facts are well known. Will the Minister take action to end the annual cold war on Britain's pensioners?
  Mr. Yeo: To the extent that the published figures mean anything at all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—they show that Portugal is at the top of the European league, substantially higher than Britain. Given his background, the hon. Gentleman ought to know that the pattern of a higher death rate in winter is a long-established trend. The excess of winter deaths over summer deaths was higher in the winter of 1978–79 than it was in the winter of 1991–92. Therefore, it is difficult to lay blame at the Government's door.
  Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great advantages of being old in Britain is free access to our national health service? Does he further agree that a great many of the thousands of extra patients who have been treated since the Government's health reforms were implemented are elderly? That is why the vast majority of our pensioners support the NHS and think that it provides a wonderful service.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The results can be seen in the substantial fall in the number of deaths from hypothermia. Our older people benefit not only from the national health service but from advice under our "Keep warm, keep well" campaign which tells them about a wide range of matters, including benefits and insulation. A relevant factor in our success in helping old people in winter is that 67 per cent. of households containing older people have central heating. That is three times the percentage of 20 years ago.

  Hospital Admissions
  Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the impact of budgetary restrictions on hospital admissions in the current financial year.
  The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): The amount of money made available to the health service in England in 1992–93 was in real terms a massive 5.4 per cent. more than in 1991–92 which, together with the benefit of cash-releasing efficiency savings, has enabled over 200,000 more patients to be treated in the first six months of 1992–93 compared with the same period in 1991–92.
  Dr. Wright: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State's earlier denial of a crisis in the admission of patients to hospital is denied by the experience of patients up and down the country? What does the Secretary of State say to the general practitioner who wrote to me in the first week of January to tell me that he had just been told that, as a non-fund-holding general practitioner in south-east Staffordshire, he would not be able to admit patients to his major referral hospitals in Sutton Coldfield and Walsall until next April? What does the Minister and the Secretary of State say to my constituents who are now being denied hospital treatment? More importantly, what do they intend to do about it?
  Dr. Mawhinney: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what he should say to his constituent. He should tell him that this year there was a 5.5 per cent. real-terms increase in the resources made available to the Mid-Staffordshire district
  864
  health authority and that next year there will be a 1 per cent. real-terms increase. He should tell him that there has been a 35 per cent. increase in the number of in-patients and a 100 per cent. increase in the number of out-patients treated by the Mid-Staffordshire DHA, and that there has been a 380 per cent. increase in the number of day cases. The GP should speak to the DHA about structuring the contracts next year so that those figures may be improved even more. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will be sad that he is not pleased about the great improvement in health care that has been made available to them.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that the country is glad that so many more people are being treated in hospital? Will he confirm that when doctors say that cases are urgent it is rare for treatment not to be made available quickly?
  Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is worth pointing out that in this present year we are spending £629 per person on health care. In equivalent terms, the last figure under the Labour Government was £417. By next year, that will mean a massive 61 per cent. real-terms increase in resources.
  Ms. Lynne: Does the Minister accept that budgetary restrictions have led to a number of bed closures and is he aware that Rochdale health care trust has closed three wards? What does he suggest that I say to young patients, aged five and nine respectively, who now have to move to another hospital? It is traumatic enough for a child to be in hospital and they are very upset by a move.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I do not accept for one moment that there have been budgetary restrictions that have led to the results that the hon. Lady has just set forward. What I do accept is that the contracts, which have produced more resources this year and resulted in more patients being treated than ever before, need to be managed properly. They will be managed better if local managers involve local hospital doctors and consultants in the management process. They will be managed even better if GPs locally are brought into the process of determing how the contracting process should be carried forward. This is precisely the time of year when GPs who are not fund holders ought to be talking to the district health authorities about the shaping of contracts for next year.

  "Health of the Nation"
  Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have formulated to carry out the strategy outlined in the White Paper "Health of the Nation".
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The "Health of the Nation" strategy has been described by the World Health Organisation as a model for other countries to follow. There is a commitment to the strategy across government at the highest level, Action is now in hand to implement it in full. I have placed a summary of current action and initiatives in the Library.
  Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her reply. Does she remember the speech she gave last year to the Conservative party conference? [Interruption.] Everyone appears to remember it. She referred then to

  865
  aspects and elements of "Health of the Nation" and to her personal commitment to mental illness and the strategy relating to it. Will she therefore accept the grateful thanks of many of my constituents who are extremely concerned about this issue? Would she also agree that, because of the surge of interest in mental illness recently, what she said then has been completely vindicated?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend. Mental illness is three times as common as cancer and is a source of major disability and loss of time from work and must be a priority for us in the health service. It is a key area in the health of the nation and is vital in the implementation of community care. It is a question of resources. We are spending £1.7 billion on our mental health services, £43 million with the local authorities, but it is also a question of the delivery of those services. It is an area where I think that we must work together to secure better and more effective results.
  Mr. Wigley: May I question the Secretary of State further on the full utilisation of the capacity of hospitals to give treatment? Notwithstanding the increase to which her Minister referred for the first nine months of this year, does she accept what a consultant said on the radio last week—that he is unable, in the last quarter of this financial year, to undertake as much work as he could because of the shortage of resources? Surely this cannot be in line with her objectives for the health service. Can she try and get something done about it?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The House will well understand that it is a question of the way in which resources are used and the way in which we balance priorities. That will always be difficult, but much can be done from the centre and much has to be done locally. The key targets in the "Health of the Nation"—heart disease, cancer, accident, sexual health and mental illness—all have areas where we want to pioneer and innovate. All have areas where one has to balance between acute and community care. It is a question of taking people with us as we develop a strategy that the NHS reforms have made possible and which we have to deliver by the turn of the century.

  NHS (Efficiency Improvements)
  Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates she has made of the total savings to the NHS from efficiency improvements.
  Dr. Mawhinney: Since 1978–79, hospital and community health services activity has grown by 29 per cent. compared with an increase in current spending—adjusted for hospital and community health services pay and prices —of 9 per cent. This means efficiency has grown by 19 per cent. over 12 years. This includes cash-releasing savings, now running at a cumulative £1.7 billion per annum, and also other efficiency gains from using resources more productively. Total efficiency gains of 2 per cent. are planned for both this year and next.
  Mr. Riddick: Are not those figures highly impressive? Will my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the savings achieved through greater efficiency will not be squandered by retaining excess capacity for hospital provision in London? Does he agree that if the Tomlinson recommendations are not implemented, there will be fewer
  866
  resources for hospitals outside London and the losers will be NHS patients in the regions, in constituencies such as mine?
  Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is a very good record and it is to the credit of those who work in the NHS throughout the country that it has been achieved. I can confirm that the savings that have resulted have been used for other patient care. With regard to the latter point made by my hon. Friend, it is certainly one of the issues that are in the forefront of our minds as we contemplate the recommendations made by Sir Bernard Tomlinson.
  Mr. Enright: Is the Minister aware that it is the practice of several trusts, and I am thinking of Bassetlaw in particular, to buy expensive cars such as BMWs for their administrators, to take out car insurance for them all, and to spend NHS money in that way? Will he undertake to investigate that practice and find out how much it costs, because rip-offs such as those make Lambeth look like Snow White?
  Dr. Mawhinney: We on the Government side understand how embarrassed hon. Gentlemen are about Lambeth, but it will not go away and it will certainly not go away under the guise of pathetic—HON MEMBERS: "Answer".] I am trying to answer the question; the hon. Gentleman mentioned Lambeth. Secondly, I should have been more impressed by his question if he had bothered to take up the matter with me in a considered fashion by letter, but he has not done that. No doubt, if he does, we shall be able to respond. Trusts are treating more patients, using their resources more effectively and delivering better quality service, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not welcome that.
  Mr. Enright: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is aware that I cannot take points of order in the middle of questions.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition seem to think that one can buy a better service simply by calling for more money, whereas we like to spend the money effectively? Compulsory competitive tendering has already saved £140 million. Does this not prove that our policies work?
  Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and puts the case very well.
  I just want to add with reference to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) that apparently he has written to me, but I have not seen the letter yet. If that is indeed the case, I should clarify that.

  Hospital Administration Costs
  Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the total hospital administration costs in the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92.
  Mr. Sackville: In 1990–91 expenditure on administration specifically in hospitals in England totalled £454 million. A strictly comparable figure for 1991–92 is not available, as information is now collected on a provider unit basis, which includes functions previously performed at district level. However, it is clear that the cost of

  867
  administration has increased: the national health service needs better management and administration to ensure the success of the NHS reforms for the ultimate benefit of patients.
  Mr. Chisholm: I am quite surprised at that answer, because comparable figures for Scotland were given a few weeks ago, and indicated a 75 per cent. increase in hospital administration costs. Is it not likely to be far worse in England, given the greater number of trusts? Is that not borne out by an answer in Hansard on 23 November, which indicated that the health reforms so far had cost £1.179 billion? Will it not get worse as we have more and more GP fund holders and more and more trusts, especially as so many senior managers in trusts are paying themselves grotesquely large salaries?
  Mr. Sackville: The success of the reforms is clear from the activity figures, which show more patients being treated quicker and better. That takes first-class management and investment in information technology. The hon. Gentleman should visit his local hospitals, talk to doctors and management and see how they are using that information technology for the benefit of patients.
  Mr. Nicholls: Does the Minister agree that those hospital administration charges are only part of a budget which makes it possible to spend £100 million a day on the national health service? Will he remind Labour Members of the promise they made at the last election to spend an extra £1 billion and the fact that that would have represented only 10 days' running costs? That puts the matter in perspective.
  Mr. Sackville: An organisation that seeks to spend £100 million a day on health care must be properly managed. We are moving from a system under which nothing was costed to a system under which everything is costed precisely, for the better management of health care for patients.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is making official visits to India and Oman.
    Mr. Battle: Is the Secretary of State for Employment telling the truth when she says that the President of the Board of Trade did not consult her about pit closures?
    Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that my right hon. Friend was not consulted, would he like to tell me how it was possible for her to announce on the same day a wide-ranging package of measures directed at employment?
    Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend will be aware that as our trade with the European mainland constantly increases, a large proportion of it must pass through the county of Kent. Is he aware that the county of Kent and all the district councils in Kent are desperate to have a
    868
    considerable portion of that freight transferred to the railways? Will he ensure that when Ministers are considering the present proposals for the railways and the channel tunnel rail link, they do everything in their power to ensure that it is made possible for freight to be carried on the railway rather than on the cluttered roads of Kent?
    Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend knows, it is precisely to improve the efficiency and attractiveness of rail freight that many of our proposals in the context of the future of the railways are directed.
    Mr. John Smith: Given that the crisis in the coal mining industry arises directly from the Government's rigging of the electricity market, why will the Government not accept that reform of the market to allow coal to compete fairly is the crucial and overriding issue?
    Mr. Newton: I do not accept for a moment the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion. The problems in the coal industry arise from a long-term decline in the demand for coal which is being seen throughout the western world. The Government's policies are directed to addressing that and to securing the best possible future for the coal industry.
    Mr. John Smith: It is little short of astonishing that, even now, Ministers do not understand that the crisis arises from the botched privatisation of the electricity industry and not from any weakness in the British mining industry. Are the Government not aware that what the industry and the nation need is not some short-term fix to save the Government's face but a reform of the electricity market to allow British miners to compete fairly?
    Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will shortly bring forward proposals directed at the outcome of his review of the coal industry. Meanwhile, if I find anything astonishing, it is that on a day when interest rates have fallen to their lowest level for 15 years, the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot even congratulate the Government.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the Confederation of British Industry's latest poll, which shows the biggest increase in business confidence for five years? Does he agree that low inflation, low interest rates and a very competitive exchange rate give British producers a real edge in world markets?
    Mr. Newton: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We now have inflation at its lowest level for six years, interest rates, as I said, at their lowest level for 15 years, mortgage rates likely to be at their lowest level for nearly a quarter of a century and a marked increase in business confidence. We need Opposition Front-Bench Members to stop talking that confidence down.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: In the light of press reports confirming the "Timewatch" programme and—as some of us have known for a long time—that the Dublin Government supported the growth of the provisional IRA

    869
    in 1970, will the Leader of the House join the defence correspondent of The Daily Telegraph this morning in urging the Foreign Office and the Northern Ireland Office to engage in a diplomatic offensive against the Dublin Government to defeat terrorism and thus release 10 batallions of the Army to engage in international peacekeeping?
    Mr. Newton: While I understand why the hon. Gentleman thought it right to raise that point, I have no intention of commenting on allegations relating to events nearly a quarter of a century ago. What matters now is the shared determination of the British and Irish Governments to resist terrorism from whatever quarter, and I know that we have the hon. Gentleman's support in that.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend reflect that had we not so fortunately come out of the exchange rate mechanism on 16 September we might now have interest rates at something between 10 and 15 per cent. imposed upon us by the Bundesbank and against the interests of the British economy? Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to suggest to the Prime Minister that the best thing that he could do to revive confidence in the British economy would be to say that we shall never return to the ERM and that we want nothing whatever to do with a single currency in Europe?
    Mr. Newton: I do not think that, however enticing it is, I shall follow my hon. Friend into speculation about what would have happened if something that already has happened had not happened. He will know what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said about the ERM and I do not propose to elaborate on it now.
    Dr. Berry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Berry: Taking a more serious perspective on the economy than previous comments from Conservative Members, will the Leader of the House explain to the 4,637 unemployed people in my constituency of Kingswood and the 5,000 in his constituency of Braintree how it is that they are "a price worth paying" for the worst economic record of any post-war British Government?
    Mr. Newton: What I would say to those for whom concern is mutual on both sides of the House is that the policies that we have been pursuing and which have produced the results to which I adverted a few moments ago are providing the best basis for overcoming those concerns.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bottomley: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend the point that he has made which will get the greatest echo from all political parties? The boost to jobs, the reduction in mortgage payments and the boost to capital investments
    870
    from low interest rates will make people ask whether it is possible for the Leader of the Opposition to join with the Government in helping to attract more foreign capital investment into this country—and more jobs—so that fewer people will be out of work.
    Mr. Newton: It would certainly be very welcome far beyond the confines of the House if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give any sign whatsoever that he sees what would be required. Instead, he promises payroll taxes, excessive profit taxes, social chapters and the rest of it, which would keep foreign investment out for good.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lloyd: Continuing with the bipartisan interest in unemployment, may I tell the Leader of the House that in my constituency mass unemployment during the 14 years of Conservative government has resulted in high crime rates, the sale of drugs and its associated violence and individual family tragedies? My constituents are now incredibly angry at the inaction of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. Rather than asking my right hon. and learned Friend to help them out, will the Leader of the House tell us what the Government plan to do about these problems, when will they do it and when can we see some results?
    Mr. Newton: I find that a strange question, especially against the background of our exchanges so far and on the very day that interest rates have fallen to their lowest level for 15 years. What is more, the hon. Gentleman might at least have acknowledged that unemployment in his constituency last month was 16 per cent. lower than in 1987.
    Mr. Butcher: Did my right hon. Friend notice the very welcome announcement by Jaguar in Coventry that it is to invest £700 million in developing three new models for the market? When our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister returns to the House, could he pass to him an invitation to visit Coventry so that he can show his support for the engineering profession and the engineering industry which will spearhead our recovery?
    Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's request, which I shall draw to our right hon. Friend's attention when he returns. One of the encouraging signs in our economy during recent months has been the renewed strength of the car industry, in part as a result of the very overseas investment to which I referred earlier and which certainly would not have come here had the Opposition had their way.
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gerrard: Does the Leader of the House recall that in March 1991 the Government tried to buy their way out of their troubles with the poll tax by reducing it by £140 a head? They found the money to do that by raising VAT

    871
    from 15 to 17.5 per cent. Now that the poll tax is finally about to disappear, can we expect VAT to be cut by 2.5 per cent? If not, why not?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman can expect the introduction of a system of council tax that will be a great deal better than what his right hon. and hon. Friends are offering with a return to the rates.
    Mr. Tracey: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the fullest possible investigation is being undertaken into the behaviour of Lambeth borough council, where one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated in local government appears to have taken place?
    Mr. Newton: I think—I hope—that I can speak for both sides of the House in expressing concern about the allegations of a breakdown in financial control in the London borough of Lambeth. The proper authorities—the Audit Commission and the police—will be investigating the matter. As my hon. Friend says, if the allegations prove to be true, it will be a good illustration of some of the problems in Labour local authorities. I hope that the Opposition Front Bench will join us in condemning them.
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does the Leader of the House agree that when considering energy policy, we should look not at short-term market forces but at long-term needs? That applies especially to collieries threatened with closure, such as Parkside. It has always been highly profitable and it has reserves for 70 years. Should not the future of such collieries be based on the future demand for coal, which will become increasingly competitive as other fuels become more expensive?
    Mr. Newton: By now, it must be clear to all in the House that the review is very thorough and is not looking simply at the short term. It is taking account of the reports by Committees of the House and a wide range of independent consultants. The results will be made known in due course, as appropriate.
    Mr. Milligan: My right hon. Friend has just explained the position in Lambeth, but is not Lambeth only one of many similar Labour local authorities throughout the country? For example, Monklands and Sheffield have been misusing taxpayers' funds, yet they have some of the poorest taxpayers in the country. Has not the time come to have a full public inquiry to discover whether there is a common thread?
    Mr. Newton: As I have already indicated, in the first instance inquiries into allegations of the sort that have been made against a number of authorities—by and large, Labour authorities, as my hon. Friend has said—are matters for the Audit Commission and the police. Were a common strand to emerge, I should expect the concern to be reflected on the Opposition Front Bench, and not just on the Government Front Bench.
    Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.
    Mr. Newton: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mandelson: What does the right hon. Gentleman think the behaviour of British Airways towards Virgin Atlantic says about the business ethics of British Airways, and what does he think the failure of anyone at the top of British Airways to resign says about the integrity of that airline's management?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that these matters have been the subject of legal action between Virgin and British Airways. That being the case, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.

Nimmo Smith/Friel Report
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, I should like to read to the House a statement being made today by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate in another place. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order, as the Secretary of State is about to make an important statement. Those hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber should do so quietly, and conversations should be conducted outside the Chamber so that we may make some progress. The House must settle down so that we may hear the Secretary of State.
Mr. Lang: My noble and learned Friend's statement reads as follows:
"In September of last year I asked Mr. William Nimmo Smith, QC and Mr. James Friel, Regional Procurator Fiscal of North Strathclyde, to inquire into certain allegations suggesting that there had been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in Scotland. The report of their inquiry has today been published as a Return to an Address of another place.
The inquiry was set up following the leaking to the Press of an internal police report about allegations that decisions in relation to five criminal cases had been taken for improper reasons, namely, to prevent disclosure of information said to identify certain individuals in the legal profession as homosexuals. The allegations relating to the decisions were therefore allegations of possible criminal conduct. Mr. Friel and Mr. Nimmo Smith were asked to report to me. When I received their report, it was my duty to consider whether there was any basis for criminal proceedings."
My noble and learned Friend's statement continues:
"I have now studied their full and detailed report. It concludes that the decisions in each of the five cases were taken on a proper basis. In particular, it finds that there is no evidence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, or that the course of justice has been perverted or that the alleged motive for such a conspiracy has ever existed. On the basis of the report I have decided that no criminal proceedings fall to be instructed. Further, the report makes it clear that there is no evidence of irregularity in the conduct of business in the Crown office or procurator fiscal service.
On a wider front, in order to allay public anxiety it was my intention when I established the inquiry that, subject to any restriction necessary for the purposes of possible criminal proceedings, the report would be published in full. Since no question of criminal proceedings arises, the report has been published in full.
The allegations in the police report appear to have been more readily believed because of certain rumours which were circulating among police officers and others about members of the Scottish legal profession. Mr. Nimmo Smith and Mr. Friel have investigated these rumours and have concluded that they are without foundation.
To appreciate the force of its conclusions, the report requires to be read as a whole. Those who wish to form a considered view on the matters covered by the report will therefore wish to study and reflect upon the whole text."
My noble and learned Friend's statement concludes:
"The report contains criticisms of certain officers in the Lothian and Borders police force. These are matters for the chief constable and not for me. There are, however, two matters emerging from the report which relate to the police and which I wish to discuss. The first is the failure of certain officers to understand the role of the independent prosecution authorities in Scotland. The second is that officers may misunderstand the decisions properly taken by those prosecution authorities in particular cases. I intend therefore to pursue with the chief constable what can be done, having
874
regard to the principles which guide the relationship between the police and prosecution authorities in Scotland, to prevent such misunderstandings in future."
Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the interest taken in these matters by a number of my hon. Friends, particularly by my Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has pursued the subject diligently, will the Secretary of State, in the context of his statement, explain to the House why he felt it necessary to support the motion for an unopposed return? May I join the Secretary of State in thanking the Lord Advocate for agreeing to set up an inquiry, certainly on the suggestions of my hon. Friends the Members' for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and for Linlithgow?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although many had called for a judicial inquiry, Mr. Nimmo Smith and Mr. Friel have conducted a thorough and exhaustive inquiry of unprecedented depth? Can he tell the House what precise action the chief constable of Lothian and Borders has taken in respect of the authors of the report and other matters within his remit and for which he is responsible to the Secretary of State? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the chief constable's response? Above all, what steps has the Lord Advocate taken to ensure that communication between the police and the Crown office is improved, to avoid what appears to have been a major breakdown of understanding of their separate and distinct roles?
Does the Secretary of State agree that, unless anyone has evidence to the contrary, the report should be accepted and that nothing is served by continued speculation in the absence of any such fresh evidence?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. May I begin by welcoming him back to the House fully restored, we all hope, to health?
The hon. Gentleman referred to the statement that I made, but I should emphasise that it was my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate's statement which I have repeated in the House. It is important to establish that. It was my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate who set up the inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the basis on which the report is laid before the House. It is published as a return to an address of the House and thus affords absolute privilege for those who publish it in accordance with the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. This procedure is well precedented and has survived for 150 years; it is a sensible way to ensure that there is no need to contemplate any reduction of the content of the report as published.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about Mr. Nimmo Smith and Mr. Friel, both of whom enjoy a high reputation in legal circles in Scotland for their ability, for their independence of mind and for their rigorous approach to the handling of evidence. It is, as the hon. Gentleman said, a thorough and exhaustive report, and I commend it to hon. Members to be read in great detail and thoroughly before firm views are reached about its conclusions.
The chief constable is responsible for actions in the police force, and he has taken a number of actions as a result of the consequences of this matter. He initiated a review of various areas of police operation, and an action plan was drawn up. There has been a redefinition of the responsibilities allocated to the three assistant chief constables, and a new chief of the CID has been appointed.

875
There have also been a number of reassignments of CID officers to uniformed duties. The aim is to ensure that officers do not remain overlong in specialist posts. The chief constable has demonstrated a firm resolve in dealing with the matter. He continues to enjoy the confidence of the police authority, as he does of myself.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the relationship between the police and the Crown office, and that is a matter, as my noble and learned Friend's statement said, to which attention is to be given. My noble and learned Friend intends to meet the chief constable shortly to discuss how both the relationship between the police force and the Crown office and the understanding among the police force of the Crown office's responsibilities can be improved.
I hope that that covers all the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome back to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, whom we are delighted to see with us and well.
May I raise three matters that arise out of the report? The first is the wisdom of writing expensive reports on an inquiry into rumour. The second is the wisdom of appointing corporals to investigate whether the generals have been interfering with the privates. Should we not have had much more senior people, such as retired judges or people of significance, to pass judgment on the judiciary? The third matter is whether the report is sound when its principal author gave an interview to a crook who pretended to be a journalist and who told him what it was going to contain, having attempted to steal the evidence against himself being a known homosexual. That seems to me to raise matters of grave impropriety which taint the report. I ask for my right hon. Friend's views.
Mr. Lang: Before my hon. and learned Friend uses such words as "taint", I urge him to read the report.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I have done so.
Mr. Lang: I think that he will be impressed, as I have been, by the thorough and rigorous approach brought to bear on these difficult matters by Mr. Nimmo Smith and Mr. Friel.
My hon. Friend raised three matters with me. First, he questioned the wisdom of carrying out a report into rumour. I think that the House will agree that the rumour and speculation had become so established and was so festering in the Scottish scene that it was becoming a matter of serious public concern and one that rightly had to be dealt with, and dealt with directly and thoroughly. That, I believe, and any reasonable person reading the report would believe, has been achieved by Mr. Nimmo Smith and Mr. Friel.
My hon. and learned Friend suggests that the matter should have been handled by someone more senior, suggesting perhaps a retired judge. As criminal charges might have been brought, it would have been inappropriate to have the inquiry carried out by a serving judge. I think that my hon. and learned Friend will agree that that would have been inappropriate.
876
The report, which, once studied, will confirm this, is so thorough and so detailed that the need to appoint two individuals of the rigorous and competent qualifications of Mr. Nimmo Smith and Mr. Friel is fully justified.
Thirdly, on the question of interviews, I draw my hon. and learned Friend's attention to paragraphs 1.9 and 1.10 where he will find listed the persons interviewed by Mr. Nimmo Smith and Mr. Friel. I think that the list runs to some 90 persons. Clearly, it was their purpose to obtain as much information as possible, to establish evidence and to seek corroboration of it, from some people of a rather unreliable nature whose evidence could not necessarily be taken on trust.
Mr. Nimmo Smith and Mr. Friel have carried out a difficult task thoroughly and effectively and the report's overall effect is to justify the clear conclusions that they reach.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Was the report completed before the publication of an interview obtained from Mr. Nimmo Smith by someone masquerading as a journalist? Does the Secretary of State accept that, while it is right that we should consider the report as a whole, we must have regard to the fact that a number of other inquiries at the hand of the chief constable have not yet been completed? Will he undertake that the results of those inquiries will also be published so that we may have the opportunity to form a complete judgment?
Finally, if, notwithstanding the publication of the report, some people still believe that they have evidence to support the allegations, is it not their duty to present it to the proper authorities? If they are unwilling to do that, is it not about time that this speculation was brought to an end?
Mr. Lang: I understand that the report had been completed before the outcome of Mr. Nimmo Smiths interview with Mr. Donaldson was published. Indeed, Mr. Donaldson's report does not feature in the report of the inquiry. As for the question of other inquiries, internal matters affecting the police force are for the chief constable. I do not think that it would be appropriate to publish those decisions, but that is a matter for the chief constable. No doubt he will read of the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern.
The question of possible criminal charges arising from other inquiries is a matter for the procurator fiscal, not for me. As for the hon. and learned Gentleman's final point, certainly it is the duty of anyone who has further evidence that he considers relevant, or who wishes to make further allegations—notwithstanding the fact that the report has now been completed—to bring those matters to the attention of the authorities.
Mr. Alistair Darling: Does the Secretary of State accept that, notwithstanding what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), there is no reason to doubt the integrity of this far-reaching and in-depth report? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that anyone who believes that the report is anything other than a true and accurate account of what happened can do so for only one of two reasons: either such a person has a vested interest in undermining public confidence in the Scottish judicial system, or he insists on peddling his prejudices about gay people in society as a whole as well as gay people who may hold judicial office?

877
If there is no evidence to cast doubt on the report, is it not time that it was accepted at face value, and all unwarranted speculation ended?
Mr. Lang: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's views about the credibility and accuracy of the report; I certainly accept its conclusions. The House will have noted the hon. Gentleman's speculations on the motives of those responsible for spreading the rumours.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Was this, in substance, a criminal inquiry?
Mr. Lang: I think that the hon. Gentleman should read the terms of reference, which are set out in detail in the report. The report could have given rise to criminal charges, because it examined the possibility that there might have been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that would be a very serious charge.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Does the Secretary of State accept that all this has been going on for quite a few years? Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have been hearing the rumours for quite some time. Does it not come down to the fact that the police service mistrusts the judiciary to some extent, and will the publication of the report help to heal that? Will there be an investigation of what is influencing the suspicions within the police service and what is at the root of the problem?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman has identified a problem established and clarified by the report. Some members of the police force—a limited number, I suspect—misunderstand the precise role of the prosecuting authorities. There may also be a need for the prosecuting authorities, on some occasions, to explain more clearly their reasons for proceeding, or not proceeding, with charges.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Secretary of State mentioned transfers from the CID to uniformed branches. Will he give the House an assurance that officers who seem to suffer from a certain degree of misunderstanding have not been punished severely within the service?
Mr. Lang: The degree of punishment and the actions of the chief constable within Lothian and Borders are matters for the chief constable. Ultimately, any police officer who feels that he has been wrongfully treated in connection with a disciplinary matter has the right of appeal to me; but it is, in the first instance, a matter for the chief constable.
Mr. John McAllion: Mr. Nimmo Smith is a Queen's Counsel. He was educated at Eton, Balliol and Edinburgh university. He is very much a part of the legal establishment in Edinburgh. Indeed, he depends for his career advancement on that legal establishment. Does the Secretary of State accept that the report would have been strengthened if it had been conducted by someone outwith the legal establishment in Edinburgh?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman's view is very much a minority one. The appointments of Mr. Nimmo Smith and Mr. Friel were widely welcomed. When the hon.
878
Gentleman has read the report—I quite understand why he has not yet had a chance to do so—he will realise, from the quality and texture of its detailed analysis of the issues, that it could probably have been compiled only by people with close experience of legal matters and legal procedure.
Mr. Eric Clarke: Is the Secretary of State really saying that we must accept this carte blanche? He seems to have failed to convince Conservative Back Benchers, such as the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). It seems that Mr. Nimmo Smith was hoodwinked, very naive, or both. I know that morale among the constabulary in Lothian and Borders is very low. They see scapegoats being so-called retired prematurely and demoted to the uniform branch. I can assure you that when one of them—
Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman speak through the Chair, please?
Mr. Clarke: I can assure the Minister that when one of them had his retirement farewell it was a pack-out—a show of solidarity by his fellow officers that he was wrongfully retired.
Mr. Lang: I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the report, and once he has read it in its entirety he will probably find it persuasive overall, as I did. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has accepted the conclusions of the report, which are clear cut.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I welcome the publication of the report, but does the Secretary of State accept that the effective prosecution of justice in Scotland is an inalienable right to each and every citizen, must be beyond question and must have the confidence of the population? The Lord Advocate has asked that we read the report in full and reach a considered view. Does that mean that the Secretary of State is considering allocating parliamentary time to considering the legal system in Scotland, in which we could not only explore the results of this inquiry but consider other aspects that are causing concern such as legal aid, the amount of time that policemen must spend hanging around courts, the need to appoint further procurators fiscal and so on? Parliamentary time is desperately needed, and there is consensus on the need for such a discussion.
Mr. Lang: I share the hon. Lady's sentiment about the importance of maintaining confidence in our prosecution service, which is kept distinct and separate from the actions of the legislature. The allocation of parliamentary time to consider the legal matters that she described is not directly a matter for me but is for the usual channels. I am sure that her thoughts will have been noted.
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I should like to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), but might not it be helpful in future if the Crown office were to give some indication of why charges are not being brought rather than using the catch-all phrase, "not in the interests of justice"? Might not it be illuminating in other cases where charges are not brought, such as in cases of domestic violence?
Mr. Lang: It is important that the Crown office should preserve its independence and should not be held to account for every decision that it takes, and thus have to

879
enter into the debate at all times. Having said that, and subject to that qualification, as a result of the report a need has been identified for the chief constable of Lothian and Borders to speak to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and to consider what can be done to improve the understanding of each other's positions between the police and prosecution authorities.
Dr. John Reid: I have no reason to believe that the report is anything other than thorough and was carried out objectively, but, having no legal expertise, it seems to me to leave us with a problem. As I understood what the Secretary of State said, the basis of the reports, which have persisted for a considerable number of years and with considerable strength, was apparently a figment of the imagination of a small number of unspecified policemen who are apparently not only prejudiced but do not understand the workings of the legal system in Scotland and have a terrible propensity to gossip. I find that extremely difficult to believe as an explanation for the continuation and strength of the rumours.
However, if it is true, is not the Secretary of State asking us to believe that something drifted on for all these years without a conspiracy by the same police officers? In apparently clearing up one accusation of conspiracy, has he not implied that there was a conspiracy to undermine the legal system but one which came from police officers?
Mr. Lang: No, I am not drawing that conclusion, nor do I think that the House should. I urge the hon. Gentleman to read the report in detail. It is severely critical of certain officers, and it is true that some saw a conspiracy; but I expect that they will also want to read the report thoroughly and may reach different conclusions as a result. Certainly the report reaches a clear verdict, and I urge the House to consider it carefully before commenting further on these issues.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Whether the smoke has been generated without fire, and following the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), will the Secretary of State take it from me that people from the Lothian and Borders area have the highest regard for the leadership of their police force? Does he agree that we are lucky to have the services of a chief constable and deputy chief constable of such a high calibre in the Lothian and Borders police?
Mr. Lang: Yes.
Mr. David Trimble: It is clear from the comments that the rumours and this case generate a concern that goes beyond the cases mentioned. I hope that the report will allay that concern, but I am curious about what the Secretary of State said about the reasons for making the report in this form, as a return to an address. Am I right in thinking that it was made in that way because parts of the report require the protection of the privilege of the House and would give rise to legal proceedings if it were published in the usual way? Does that not imply that parts of the report are therefore a little dubious or uncertain, and point to the need for a full, thorough judicial inquiry perhaps, as has been suggested, by someone from outside, finally to put the matter to rest?
Mr. Lang: I do not think that there is a case for starting another inquiry and going over the same evidence and background again in the absence of any new evidence. As for the publication of the report as a return to an address, it is a well established procedure which has been in place for more than 150 years. Its use does not imply any value judgment as to liabilities that might arise on particular individuals from the report, but it protects against that possibility, sets aside any uncertainty and enables all aspects of the report to be laid fully and clearly before the House.

Points of Order
3.58 pm
Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that during the Second Reading of the National Lottery etc. Bill yesterday I raised with you a point of order, as reported in columns 716–17 of Hansard.
My point of order was about the GAH group, which was commissioned by the Government to produce a report on the establishment and operation of a lottery and its impact on other industries. At the time, you said that you would look into the matter. I was especially concerned about an exchange that took place between the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) and the Secretary of State for National Heritage which seemed to confirm that the hon. Member for Crosby was quoting from an article in The Guardian, which itself quoted from the GAH report. In addition, in confirming that, the Secretary of State was in effect quoting from that report.
It is worth mentioning that the GAH group was apparently formed on 8 June 1992—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not relevant to the point of order.
Mr. Howarth: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, in replying to the debate, referred at column 803 to the GAH group report and gave some detail of what is in it. I feel strongly that, in effect, Ministers were quoting, if not directly—we do not know whether they were quoting directly without seeing the report—from the report.
Although I am sure that I do not need to, I draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to page 382 of "Erskine May". Under the heading:
"Citing documents not before the House",
it says:
"A Minister of the Crown may not read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the Table. Similarly, it has been accepted that a document which has been cited by a Minister ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interests."
The concealment of the report is in itself injurious to the public interest. It is now time that the Government were made to reveal the contents of the report which has clearly formed a great part of their thinking. I maintain that the report was quoted during the debate last night.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter and for giving me an opportunity to respond. I have taken the opportunity to examine yesterday's Official Report. The Secretary of State for National Heritage responded to an intervention from the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton).
I make it clear to the House that the rule that a document that has been referred to should be laid upon the Table in its entirety applies only when part of it has been read to the House or when quotations have been read from it. Summarising or confirming—the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) made a point about confirming—the accuracy of other people's summaries does not bring the rule into operation. The Secretary of State did not give a direct quotation from the document in question, nor did any other Minister. There is no obligation to lay the document before the House.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I accept your ruling unreservedly, but, I suggest that when you used the word "confirming" you opened the door to a Minister asking a sympathetic Back-Bench Member to quote from a document and then confirming it from the Dispatch Box as a means of partly introducing to our proceedings something that should be made totally available.
Madam Speaker: The words I used were
"Summarising or confirming … the accuracy of other people's summaries".
I do not want to go further than that. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North made the point that the intervention concerned a summary from The Guardian.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice. If a report is the subject of a ministerial statement, would it be possible for hon. Members to be given access to such a report some 30 minutes before the statement? Statements give ministerial interpretations of reports and their findings. It would be useful for hon. Members to be given access to such reports 30 minutes before statements are made.
Madam Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the matter, although I do not necessarily support his point of view. He may wish to pursue the matter with the Leader of the House on another occasion.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At Question Time, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) in which he quoted Government statistics, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), referring to the statistics, said:
"To the extent that the … figures mean anything".
A Minister has thrown doubt on the accuracy of Government statistics. It is difficult for us to understand how we can have a sensible debate in the House if Ministers do not believe the figures they are giving. That is especially important in light of the fact that we are about to have a debate on health matters. Ministers should make it clear when they speak in which statistics they believe and in which they do not believe.
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make that point, he must do so directly to a Minister through the debate. Perhaps if he catches my eye during the debate he can make that point to a Minister then.
Mr. Edward O'Hara: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), Madam Speaker. May I seek your guidance? There is a philosophical question of what is a summary and what is a quotation. I have before me column 716 of the Hansard report for 25 January. The hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) quoted the statistics of 17–5 per cent. and 1,100. The Secretary of State referred to those statistics as quotations from the GAH report. Figures such as those which my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North quoted were obviously quotations from the report. I seek your guidance on whether that might be regarded as a quotation and not a mere summary.
Madam Speaker: The answer is that it is not a direct quotation; it is a summary. I have gone as far into that matter as I am able. I have dealt with three points of order on the matter today. Indeed, I dealt with points of order on it yesterday evening. I have made it clear that summarising or confirming the accuracy of other people's summaries does not bring the rule into operation. I have tried to be as helpful as I can to the House on the matter.

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

  PUBLIC PATH ORDERS
  That the draft Local Authorities (Recovery of Costs for Public Path Orders) Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  Question agreed to.

Newly Qualified Drivers
4.5 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it compulsory for newly qualified drivers to display plates indicating that they are recently qualified; to limit the engine size of the vehicles that they may drive; and for connected purposes.
As clarification, may I explain that newly qualified drivers are not exclusively drivers under the age of 25. Although the vast majority of newly qualified drivers are under that age, other newly qualified drivers are aged from 25 upwards, in some cases even to over 60.
As I said when I moved a similar Bill almost three years ago to the day, in the past 25 years there has been a revolution in motoring. Improved living standards have ensured that there is far wider car ownership. Instead of a norm of one car per family, it is now often the case, and indeed likely, that members of the same family own two or even three cars.
Furthermore, advances in technology, design and engine power ensure that cars are more sophisticated and powerful than 25 years ago. More than 29 million people have licences to drive a motor car. In 1988, 1,039,000 people passed their driving test. Of those, 73 per cent. were aged between 17 and 25; 21 per cent. were aged between 26 and 40; 5 per cent. were aged between 41 and 60; and, perhaps surprisingly, 0.3 per cent. were aged over 60.
It is abundantly clear from those statistics that the vast majority of newly qualified drivers are young people aged between 17 and 25. The accident, injury and death rates among that age group are unacceptably high. I fully recognise that in the past few years the Department of Transport and successive Ministers have made strenuous efforts to reduce road accidents and injuries. Their efforts are highly commendable and successful, with death rates declining noticeably.
However, there is still a serious problem that needs to be tackled and I suspect that hon. Members from all parties recognise that. The casualty rates for 1991 highlight the case. In that year, drivers killed at ages between 16 and 19 represented 4.6 per 100,000 of the population. Drivers killed at ages between 20 and 29 represented 4.5 per 100,000. of the population—almost as unacceptably high. For age groups above that, the average falls dramatically to 2.2 per 100,000.
A recent study carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory for the Department of Transport on attitudes, opinions and development of skills in the first two years of novice drivers reinforced those statistics. It showed that 28 per cent. of respondents to the study's questionnaire had been involved in at least one accident as a driver since passing the test. Of those, 25 per cent. had been driving for only 12 months; 27 per cent. for only 18 months; and 35 per cent. for up to 24 months. It also showed that some 33 per cent. of those who had been in an accident had been in one that resulted in an injury. From their own statistics and estimations, 34 per cent. felt that it was likely that they would be at least partly to blame if they had an accident in their first 12 months of driving.
The report goes on to highlight the fact that those who had been driving for two years had higher scores on confidence in decision making than those who had been driving for a shorter period. This group also reported more frequently failing to notice someone waiting at a crossing, failing to use the mirrors when they should, making

885
misjudgments in driving, trying to beat others at getting away and doing things that they knew were dangerous. Interestingly, the report shows the proportion of new drivers who had been involved in an accident was greater between 18 and 24 months after passing the test than between 12 and 18 months. The report and the statistics clearly show that there is a serious problem regarding newly qualified drivers and road safety.
The Bill seeks to improve safety not only for newly qualified drivers, but for other drivers and innocent pedestrians. Part of the problem emanates from the fact that as soon as they pass the driving test inexperienced drivers are given the same privileges and rights as someone who passed the test more than 20 years ago and has gained experience and maturity for driving over that time. That is a mistake. My Bill would require all newly qualified drivers to display a P plate for up to 24 months after passing the test, indicating that they were probationers. The plate would be a constant reminder to such drivers that they are newly qualified and it would also advise other drivers of that fact.
It was interesting to see in the Transport Research Laboratory report that more than half the respondents felt that requiring newly qualified drivers to display a special plate to let others know that they were inexperienced would prevent many or a great many accidents. Some may say that such a proposal is unenforceable, but I do not share that view. I suspect that when L plates for learner drivers were introduced, people said that they were unenforceable, but experience since their introduction shows that the system seems to work well.
Secondly, I should like to see newly qualified drivers being restricted to driving cars of 1300 cc or less for 24 months after passing their tests. In theory at present, on his or her 17th birthday a person can pass the driving test, leave the test centre, and drive away in a Porsche, a series 7 BMW or any other high-performance car. If such a youth, who would clearly be inexperienced, got into difficulties he would not be able to handle the car properly. That is wrong and it is dangerous to allow it.
I am a realist and I appreciate that the Bill will not reach the statute book in this Session. However, the problems of newly qualified drivers and their safety are pressing matters which, I am sure, concern a great many people throughout the country. If the Bill draws further attention —especially the attention of the Department of Transport and its Ministers—to the problem, raises the level of discussion, improves the understanding of the problems and leads to a reduction in the number of tragic accidents and injuries on our roads, it will be worth while. I commend the measure to the House.
4.14 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The whole House will join my hon. Friend in his concern to reduce the casualties among young drivers just as much as among other groups. He is right to draw attention to the increased risk associated with the early years of driving. I caution the House, and I shall ask the House to reject the motion on
886
the ground that there could be evidence about whether his proposal would work. He proposes that those who are recently qualified should have a plate that substitutes for the L for learner plate, when the driver has to be accompanied by a supervisor, a P plate for probationer or R for restricted. Many countries have these requirements. Within the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland has a similar requirement, but there is no evidence that I know of that it has much impact.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford in paying tribute to the Minister for Roads and Traffic who has done a great deal to push forward the continuing aim of reducing accidents set out in the "Health of the Nation" White Paper. In the age group to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford referred, road crashes are the primary cause of death for people recently qualified. I think that we need to ask for the evidence on whether his proposal would make a significant difference. I fear that we are facing what appears to be the common sense solution, similar to the one that we used to have with the calls for random breath testing for drink driving. Because something appears to have worked somewhere, it was obviously going to have great advantages here. In fact, in drink driving, which was the real problem, we have seen a continued reduction, especially among the groups to which my hon. Friend has referred.
I ask the House to reject the motion and to say that we look forward to hearing at some appropriate stage from the Minister whether research can be commissioned and to say to young drivers that they ought to follow the points that my hon. Friend is making and that it is unwise to drive in a way that involves extra risk, especially when there are others in the car. They should save their lives and those of others by following common sense driving solutions which I am sure most hon. Members follow, even though most of us are above the age of 19.
Madam Speaker: The Question is, That the hon. Member has leave to bring in his Bill. Those in favour say Aye, to the contrary No. The Ayes have it — [interruption.]—Order. When an hon. Gentleman or, for that matter, an hon. Member has opposed a ten-minute Bill, his voice simply has to follow his rejection and that has happened in this case. Now we can proceed.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Alan Duncan, Mr. David Porter, Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. James Cran, Mr. John Whittingdale, and Mr. Bob Dunn.

Newly Qualified Drivers
  NEWLY QUALIFIED DRIVERS
  Mr. Simon Burns accordingly presented a Bill to make it compulsory for newly qualified drivers to display plates indicating that they are recently qualified; to limit the engine size of the vehicles that they drive; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 March, and to be printed. [Bill 120.]
Opposition Day
[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  National Health Service
  4.17 pm
  Mr. David Blunkett: I beg to move,
  That this House regrets the growing crisis within the National Health Service; condemns the commercialisation of the health service and the development of two-tier health care; expresses concern at the total fragmentation of health care due to underfunding and the impact of the internal market, Trusts and GP fundholding; regrets the destruction of NHS dentistry and the uncertainty over the future of London's health care; deplores the lack of accountability now at the heart of the NHS; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to act immediately to tackle this crisis before the end of this current financial year and to begin a review of their so-called health reforms for 1993/94.
  Madam Speaker: I have had to limit speeches to 10 minutes between 6 pm and 8 pm because of the demand by Members to participate in this debate. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Blunkett: There is a crisis at the heart of the national health service. That is why I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are moving this motion. The NHS is under-funded. It is being undermined. Unfortunately, it is under the direction of a weak and indecisive Secretary of State. A sophisticated sophistry of statistics is invented by the PR Department who present her, albeit wonderfully, in the guise of mother superior of the NHS.
  We have before us an amendment by Her Majesty's Government which has the cheek to welcome the NHS changes and to talk about the
  "record numbers of patients being treated",
  when waiting lists are increasing, operations are being cancelled and, as we all know, across the country there is a real crisis in our hospitals.
  The amendment also mentions
  "elimination of two-tier waiting lists in the regions".
  Well, instead of two-tier waiting lists in the regions, the Government have created a two-tier health service across Britain. The amendment goes on to claim
  "a substantial reduction in long waiting times generally".
  We all know that the time taken to undertake serious elective surgery is rising in proportion to the number of minor ailments being treated in this two-tier service.
  The NHS, far from being safe in the Government's hands, is gradually and regrettably beginning to fall apart. Instead of policies for caring, we have competition. Instead of service, we have commercialisation. The internal market and the two-tier service are undermining equal access, which is now being denied to patients throughout the country. Information sought by the Opposition and by Back Benchers of all parties is being denied increasingly by a Government frightened to tell the truth. In the words of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, statistics—what was the phrase?—if you can believe them, or for what they might mean.
  Hospitals are no longer called that; they are called provider units. Patients are now described as episodes. Instead of a health service of which all of us can be proud, we have something that has turned into a commercial
  888
  enterprise. Promises have been broken, and broken again, from small promises about drug and alcohol units being safeguarded and ring-fenced, to the promise that was made leading up to the general election that the Government would be spending billions of pounds more each year on our NHS. Instead, on 12 November, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that that promise, built into the public expenditure predictions on which the Conservatives fought a general election, has now been set aside, with a cut in England alone of £700 million in the projected budget for next year.
  A promise is not worth a thing when it is in the hands of Conservative Ministers, and that promise has been substantially broken for one very clear reason: because of the total incompetence of Government Ministers in handling our economy. We have had the fiasco of black Wednesday; the £2 billion plus gold and currency reserves that were squandered; the inability to manage the health service, with £300,000 per bed being spent on the Chelsea and Westminster hospital; and an audit service that is not allowed to publish its results, not allowed to tell the truth to the people of the west midlands, Wessex and elsewhere about the mismanagement of the service that is supposed to be operated in their name.
  Mr. Jerry Hayes: The hon. Gentleman spoke eloquently a moment ago about broken promises. Does he remember the promise that he made to the Blackpool Labour party conference on 30 September 1992, when he spoke about the Tories' own Frankenstein monster, meaning national health service trusts? He went on to say —I paraphrase—that the people of Britain had a right to know when, if ever, the Government would admit that their great trust experiment was not working and was in urgent need of reassessment. He has just broken that promise, has he not, because he has reversed his policy; he is not going to abolish trusts at all.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am sorry to disillusion the hon. Gentleman. I presume that he must read The Daily Telegraph, which misreported me. Having not sent a journalist to the briefing meeting and therefore not being aware of the facts, The Daily Telegraph then declined to publish my letter setting out the truth. The Secretary of State said on "Question Time" about 10 days ago that she supports the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), which is coming forward next Friday, but unfortunately will not be voting for it. She should have a word with the editor of The Daily Telegraph, because the right of reply is important if we are to have an honest and sensible debate.
  As we are dealing with trusts, let us get something straight. Even the Secretary of State admits that trusts are non-accountable, that they are not working and that she will have to bring them to heel. There is the well-funded federation that represents their views, not forgetting the £60,000 spent on the salary of the new chief executive, recruited from Tory party central office. It will all be wasted because the Secretary of State knows that she will have to make trusts accountable.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I willingly give way.
  Madam Speaker: Order. To whom is the hon. Member giving way? Several hon. Members wish to intervene.
  Mr. Blunkett: I give way first to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), on the ground that at least he knows in which direction he is going.
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I am not sure what to read into that, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way.
  In relation to NHS trusts, if the hon. Gentleman denies the report in The Daily Telegraph to which reference has been made, may I ask him to comment on the report in The Times on 14 January of this year, which quoted him as saying that he would not be in favour of abolishing NHS trusts, just
  "integrating them into some future coherent NHS strategy"?
  What did he mean by that?
  Mr. Blunkett: I do not have any difficulty in saying that non-accountable, completely undemocratic, self-governing trusts will not exist under a Labour Government, because we believe in democracy and accountability, with the involvement of local people, by which I mean not just business people and Conservative party friends. I am not talking about the sort of nepotism that is now being practised in a remarkable way throughout the country.
  The latter part of the Government amendment, which refers to the Opposition politicising the health service, takes the biscuit, considering what has been going on in Britain. South Glamorgan is only the tip of the iceberg —not so much a two-fingered handshake as the ability to shake hands with one's next door neighbour and promise that neighbour a job the following week. All have their snouts in the trough. That is happening in the health service in Britain.
  In that context, let us consider the health service and the integration of community services with hospitals that made such a difference to planning the service. Let us then question community care, which the Government have ill planned and under-funded.
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The hon. Gentleman talks about snouts in the trough. Is he referring to people such as Helen Hayman and Rabbi Julia Neuberger, who have agreed to become chairmen of NHS trusts?
  Mr. Blunkett: The Minister need only talk to her hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) to get a picture of snouts in the trough and the facts about the transfer of the chairman of the Merseyside region, Sir Donald Wilson, to the west midlands, presumably to peddle the same nepotistic attitudes and policies. The fact that the Secretary of State can quote the names of Labour and Liberal Democrat members is indicative of how many people are being appointed—[Interruption.]—with Tory party cards in their pockets.
  Accountability is non-existent for trusts and general practitioner fund holders. To whom are they accountable? Is it to the region? Is the region accountable to the Secretary of State? Is the Secretary of State accountable to this House, remembering that every time we raise questions about detailed matters we are given the platitude that the statistics for which we ask are not collected or held centrally? The politicised management executive is not accountable; nor are health authorities and family health services authorities.
  It was the European Policy Forum, and not a left-wing think tank, which talked about the new, undemocratic,
  890
  paternalistic way in which Government agencies and the Department of Health are now being operated. It said that we have a new magisterial epoch in which people get jobs not because they are elected or accountable but because they have friends in high places.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again on the question of accountability. He complains that trusts are not accountable, yet his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said in the House less than two years ago that the simple test for judging the trusts was whether they did more or less work for NHS patients. Does the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) confirm that test or does he repudiate it?
  Mr. Blunkett: I do not confirm the test, the results or that trusts are working. Doctors, consultants and patients across the country, reading their local newspapers, watching their regional television programmes and listening to regional radio, will know what is happening to their health service.
  Professor John Ward, director of medicine at the Royal Hallamshire hospital, said in the local paper last week:
  "The service has reached breaking point."
  Speaking about his meeting with Sir Duncan Nichol, the head of the management executive, two days later, he said:
  "I shall be putting the boot in."
  I do not think that we should blame the messenger; we should blame the Secretary of State and the Government who provide the message. The boot will go in from us and from the electorate up and down the country.
  In that one hospital alone, six emergency admissions in one afternoon were sitting in the corridor waiting for a bed, not in a general ward but in the admissions ward. In the words of Professor Ward, 850 emergency admissions were dumped in the hospital between September and the end of December. All three emergency hospitals in the city of Sheffield have been on red alert for virtually all of 1993. That situation is repeated up and down the country, from Cambridge to Birmingham, across the length and breadth of the land. If it is not a red alert, it is a yellow alert.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: No, I want to make a little progress. In the same report, Sister Milne said:
  "Waiting times on trolleys can be five, six or seven hours."
  The Secretary of State knows all about waiting times of five, six or seven hours, because that very reliable organ of Conservative party propaganda, edited by a minor public schoolboy, The Sun, reported that her mother had waited for seven hours in St. Mary's hospital before being seen to.
  I did not know whether to believe the Secretary of State's family or The Sun. My instincts told me to believe the family. I believe that the Secretary of State's brother and family are honourable people, but if she does not stand up and contradict them, I shall have to believe that the minor public schoolboy who has frightened Conservative Members so much in the past few days was telling the truth after all.
  Instead of taking action on behalf of patients, the Secretary of State bows to publicity stunts. We had one this morning; a new British Telecom health line. I do not know whether the health line will be available for people seeking emergency ambulance cover when they cannot get through on 999 or whether, BT style, the new health line

  891
  will simply say, "You are being held in a queue, this is normal for the NHS.". Whatever it is, I do not think that it is a particularly good gimmick.
  I do not think that the doctors thought it a particularly good gimmick when on new year's eve the Secretary of State took herself off to plague them at her local hospital. I should be careful about quoting correctly because I think it was The Daily Telegraph that reported her striding down a corridor at the stroke of midnight having talked to doctors and nurses who were too busy dealing with casualties on new year's eve to take seriously her eulogies about the new NHS reforrns.—[Interruption] The Secretary of State seems to be saying that no one was with her. It must have been a phantom reporter who put out the news that Virginia Nightingale was ministering to the sick and the wounded on new year's eve. I hope that the right hon. Lady has a very happy new year. I hope that next year she will be able to drink a toast to a health service that has improved rather than deteriorated.
  Perhaps the right hon. Lady will take notice of Dr. Ian Bogel, chairman of the general medical services committee of the British Medical Association. When describing the guidelines on access to the NHS, he said:
  "Equal access to secondary care has been flouted by hospitals which cancel operations but continue to treat GP fund holders' patients."
  That is repeated throughout the country.
  A letter from the Plymouth health authority states:
  "It is increasingly clear that GP fund-holding practices have the capability and are intent on encouraging the development of mini clinics in dermatology outside the hospital service. This has the effect of taking NHS money away from the acute unit to the detriment of that unit. We propose to set up a clinic with sessions at Greenbank hospital every Wednesday evening between 5 and 7 o'clock with the specific intention of seeking patients from GP fund-holding practices."
  The letter then lists seven reasons why GP fund-holding practices should take up the work. It continues:
  "While it is clear that this will create a two-tier system within the service, it will have no greater effect than that already commenced by several general practices employing their own dermatologists outside the hospital service."
  Dr. Liam Fox: For the sake of clarity, will the hon. gentleman tell us whether it is Labour party policy to abolish both NHS trusts and GP fund-holding practices?
  Mr. Blunkett: I think that I have comprehensively dealt with trusts, so I shall comprehensively deal with GP fund holdings. I have made it unequivocally clear—it is on the record of every occasion on which I have spoken—that the Labour party and I, as its spokesman, are against GP fund-holding practices and a two-tier service.
  The reason for our opposition is that given by Dr. Michael Jenner of Tonbridge. In a letter to me last week, he said:
  "I know of a case in my practice where a patient had been on the waiting list for two years for a minor complaint and had to be admitted before a patient with a potentially malignant diagnosis because of the patients charter saying no one should wait more than two years … The NHS is rapidly becoming split in two and morale is at the lowest I have experienced in the 25 years I have worked in the service. My only advice to patients now is for them not to vote for the present Government."
  Mr. Ken Eastham: Only this week I received a letter from a doctor in north Manchester about the Booth Hall children's hospital and a child aged
  892
  six who had been referred to it for an operation in January 1992. That child is still waiting and the earliest date for the operation is now May this year. He referred to the child's suffering and to the education that he had missed. It is a disgrace. If we were a third-world country, with a shortage of theatres and wards, we could understand the reason for long waiting lists—but that children's hospital has actually closed a theatre and a ward.
  Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is quite right. In 1987, when we last had a crisis in the health service—not the worst for 30 years, as the British Medical Association described this one, but so serious that the last Prime Minister had to decide to demolish the whole NHS so that it could be dealt with—there were 100,000 fewer people on waiting lists, and children such as the one to whom my hon. Friend has referred were being admitted and dealt with before minor cases.
  The Government have simply devised a new, bizarre and irrational way of running out of money. The doctors are there, the nurses are there and the hospital wards are there, but the contracts have run out. Whatever increase there has been in productivity has been dissipated by the system that is currently being operated. A person with a serious but non-life-threatening ailment cannot get in to hospital, but when a person from a GP fund-holding practice has a minor illness, care can be bought.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Can the hon. Gentleman name any Labour Government who left office with waiting lists lower than when they came to power? In fact, every Labour Government left office with waiting lists higher than when they came to power, whereas all Conservative Governments have seen waiting lists fall.
  Mr. Blunkett: Had we managed to get rid of the Conservative Government on 9 April we should have had a startling and outstanding example of a Government leaving office with waiting lists much higher than those they had inherited. The Government have to hark back to 1978 for the lowest interest rates, and to 1968 for the lowest level of inflation. People ought to be reminded that many of the great records are held by Labour Governments. And we shall hold them again.
  The NHS reforms are making matters worse. Waiting lists have increased since 9 April, and they are continuing to increase. The money does not follow the patients; the patients follow the money—if they are lucky. That is the truth of the matter. But what do the Government do about it? They talk to doctors about slowing down, about pacing themselves, about spreading the money over 12 months instead of nine months, about preventing embarrassment for the Government when the NHS has run out of money after nine months of the financial year.
  The Government seek not to help hospitals to treat more people or to treat more serious cases, but to hide the truth from the British people—slow down, put down, perhaps lay off. That is the logic. If there are consultants who cannot work to full capacity, who cannot take on serious cases, are they to be laid off'? Are nurses to be laid off? Are more contract works simply to be taken on so that they can be laid off at the drop of a hat? Hospitals still have to be heated, the beds are still there, even if they are not made up, and the on-costs still have to be met. But the cosmetic surgery of the so-called waiting list initiative takes priority over the real needs of patients and of care in the health service.

  893
  Let us not have the fiddled figures paraded as though the Government were doing better. Waiting lists have lengthened, but there is a new technique—people are not put on waiting lists at all. People are now being told that they cannot be given a definite date for a hospital bed. Therefore, they do not appear in the statistics. This is gross distortion worthy of George Orwell, and the Government are getting away with it.
  What is more, as the patients charter and the waiting list initiative take effect, the Government deliberately skew the figures so that one can no longer find out nationally how long it takes to get a first appointment with a consultant. The first appointment is the most important of all, as it is at that point that an illness is diagnosed as being serious or minor. And that is critical to the saving of life. Yet, having tabled a parliamentary question a few weeks ago, I was told that the Department saw no need for national collection of statistics on waiting list times.
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the very recent past an epileptic young woman of 19 in my constituency was taken into hospital and discharged, was taken into hospital again, and discharged, and was taken in a third time and died? Surely that indicates the nature of the problem in the national health service.
  Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend, as ever, speaks from the heart about the truth that emerges from our postbags day in and day out, week in and week out. Consultants, other doctors and patients write to us about the stark reality that Conservative Members are unable to face.
  What about activity levels, about which the Secretary of State spoke at Question Time today? As John Chawner, the chairman of the committee of consultants and specialists, pointed out to the Secretary of State in a letter of 22 December, more day cases—minor cases—are being dealt with, while more serious cases are being made to wait. In addition, research shows that 28 per cent. of so-called episodes of activity levels turned out to be fraudulent. A patient was moved from one ward to another—and was counted as a new episode. The whole thing is a farce and a fiddle. One can no longer believe anything.
  What are these changes costing us? Longer waiting lists, more suffering, greater worry and £1,180 million. This is a scandalous waste of money that could have been spent on patient care, on improved quality and on equal access. And all this is happening during a winter when there has been no major epidemic. There has been no major outbreak of flu, except in my own case.
  Mr. Pickles: Given that 90 per cent. of doctors have now reached the immunisation target, why does the hon. Gentleman object to fund holders? Is not this an example of success?
  Mr. Blunkett: I have never criticised immunisation. The hon. Gentleman needs an injection of common sense, decency and care to stop his blithering—the blithering in which he used to engage when he was leader of Bradford city council.
  Instead of care and action, we have public relations offensives. In newspaper and television interviews the Secretary of State tells us how wonderful things are.
  894
  Journalists become star-struck the minute she smiles beguilingly and gives her enchanging, "mother superior" view of the world. But the record speaks for itself. In July we had her announcement about dentistry, which created such chaos that, since then, 250,000 people have been removed from the NHS dental lists. Of these, 13,000 live in Surrey, the county of the Secretary of State. And in the Prime Minister's constituency 99 per cent. of dentists are refusing to register adult patients.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I urge the hon. Gentleman to look again at his information. There are 1 million more people registered with dentists than there were last July, and there are 7 million more courses of adult treatment than there were in 1979. Finally, Bloomfield has said that dentists' earnings are now at a record high. The hon. Gentleman might like to consult the record to see what happened to dentists' earnings in real terms when his party was in power. They fell by more than £3,000.
  Mr. Blunkett: The Secretary of State, as I suggested at the beginning of my speech, is a sophistry of statistics, but the reality is different. The deregistration of patients, the refusal of dentists to take on patients, the increase in private dental practice encouraged by the Government, the steer given to the Bloomfield inquiry, which has all sorts of suggestions about a new, privatised service, cannot disguise the truth. The registrations were encouraged by the Government on the grounds that unless dentists found their records and registered those who had not been to visit them in the past two years, they would not "benefit" from the new system. When the Secretary of State eventually comes to the House, as she is so often reluctant to do, to make a statement on what she will do about dentistry in the national health service, we will deal with this matter comprehensively.
  In September the London ambulance service staggered, as it had done for months, from crisis to crisis. What action was there from the Secretary of State? None. There was a resistance to action, a resistance to getting rid of the people running the service, a resistance to doing anything to safeguard life and limb—until she was forced to come to the House when the whole system collapsed in October.
  Right through the summer and autumn, the West Midlands regional health authority was nothing less than a fiasco—millions of pounds wasted on privatisation and consultancies, audit reports, National Audit Office reports, but no action, a refusal to take any steps to deal with the chairman or with the authority's incompetence until the Secretary of State was forced to take action when Sir Roy Griffiths said that it could not carry on any longer. When the chairman went, whom did she appoint? Sir Donald Wilson, the 70–year-old chairman of the Merseyside region. She really has a sense of humour. The only thing I can say for her is that she is not ageist. If the Secretary of State listens to her hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, she will know just what the west midlands is in for in the months ahead.
  What else in October? The Secretary of State announced with a fanfare of trumpets that she would consult on the Tomlinson report. There was to he a major review of London's health care.
  Mr. James Clappison rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I am not giving way, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have given way more than most hon. Members on the Front Bench.
  The Tomlinson report, and the consultation on it, was to be the great step forward for London's health care. A major announcement was to be made after the Minister of State had toddled around the hospitals, not consulting the people of London or the local communities, the patients, the people who mattered. Then a message came round from Downing street to the Secretary of State. It said that she must forget about the frontal attack, about the comprehensive approach, because the Government were running scared. She was to announce that Bart's would be saved. We are all grateful for that; the campaign run by the Daily Mirror and the Evening Standard and by my right hon. and hon. Friends in London has done a superb job, and I am pleased about it.
  But what sort of a Secretary of State announces one week, at the beginning of January, that it is full steam ahead and no change, and the next week is called into No. 10, and it is all overturned? Or perhaps it is not quite all overturned, as we will hear if we can get the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House about what she intends to do—because what they were not prepared to do in a full frontal attack they are determined to do by stealth. That is the truth of the matter on Tomlinson.
  What about January? What about Ben Silcock being mauled by a lion at London zoo? I pay tribute to the Secretary of State's commitment to mental health issues. I even accept her sincerity in the media blitz that she launched in the aftermath of that accident. But what happened to her promise that action would be taken? The Daily Mail splashed it across the front page. She appeared on television, metaphorically with her arm around a number of her friends, telling everybody how much she cared and that steps would be taken immediately. What has happened? Precisely nothing. Once again, it is all wind and no action, and the same will be true for future announcements on what is to happen to the regions.
  The Secretary of State has not even made an announcement about what is happening to health authorities. Their number is being reduced from 190 to 85 without an announcement to the House and without giving us the opportunity to debate such issues sensibly on the Floor of the House. We have the withdrawal of information that I have spoken about, and the Touche Ross report which the Secretary of State will presumably leak out on Friday afternoon, telling us again that nothing will be done.
  We had tobacco and the Smee report: no action. The Secretary of State eventually chaired the first meeting on 13 November in that ill-fated six months when the Government had the presidency of the European Community. There was no action by way of banning tobacco advertising or joining forces with our colleagues in Europe to take decisive steps.
  What about prescription charges? We expect increases in them to be announced in the next few weeks. Will the new cost be £4 or £4.25?
  What about the Bloomfield report on dental services which the Secretary of State referred to? Will nursing mothers and pregnant women be denied free treatment, which is what the Bloomfield report threatens? Or will the Secretary of State take the advice of someone who once wrote about families cutting down on visits to the doctor because they could not afford the prescription charges,
  896
  who wrote about mothers who could not afford the then small prescription charge not visiting the doctor for a cure for minor ailments?
  The author wrote that people looked around for other cures. When they could not afford a cure for their toothache, some of them, said the author, used to bite on a clove. Adult members of these families would not go to the dentist because of the charges and consequent problems. They could not afford it with children to look after, or, as one family said, they would not go unless they were in absolute agony.
  Who was the caring, decent person who talked about frightful housing, who talked about being unable to afford prescription charges, who talked about the problem of access to the dentist? It was the Secretary of State for Health, in an earlier, caring period when she worked with the Child Poverty Action Group and wrote pamphlet No. 8.
  Is the right hon. Lady now the caring young woman who got down to the realities of what was happening in family life or is she the Secretary of State beholden to a Cabinet, to colleagues such as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) who appears still to run health policy from the back seat?
  Our health service is in a mess, and this expensive mess has been created by the Government. I pay tribute to those in the health service who have fought to keep it going over the years. I pay tribute to those who have been telling the truth about our health service despite the risks and problems that they face. I pay tribute to those who are working to improve the quality of patient care, and I pledge that we will continue to fight for a comprehensive health service, tackling prevention, investing in primary and community care, intent on early intervention and, above all, linking health with housing, unemployment, poverty and inequity, a health service that provides equal access for all, a health service that is accountable and a health service of which all of us can be proud.
  4.58 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its reforms to the National Health Service which have led to record numbers of patients being treated, the elimination of two year waiting lists in the regions, a substantial reduction in long waiting times generally and significant improvements in the quality of care; looks forward to more general practitioner fundholders and National Health Service trusts and the further improvements they will bring; and believes that in the modern health service the focus should be on patients and prevention and not on politicisation, which remains the dominant concern of Her Majesty's Opposition.".
  The Opposition motion refers to a crisis in the health service, but in reality the debate is more about a crisis in the Labour party and the particular crisis facing the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). The dilemma for Labour health spokesmen is that they are condemned to pass as an unread chapter unless they cart generate a crisis. The hon. Gentleman has deepened his troubles today. His speech was wanting in substance, it was wide of the mark and none of my hon. Friends is any the wiser about Labour party policy on health than he was at the start. Labour party policy on health is a policy-free zone. Hundreds of thousands of staff and millions of

  897
  patients and their families and friends will have found it difficult to recognise their national health service from the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  Throughout the country, millions each year rely on the care that they receive from the health service. Time and again, the Opposition take individual cases, exploit them out of all recognition and paw upon personal detail to try to create a crisis in the service.
  I will tell the hon. Gentleman about one of the individuals that he mentioned in his speech. I do not want to intrude on the privacy of all the many other individual cases in which his party trades. I will tell him about my mother who, like many others, could not speak more highly of the care that she received not only at Queen Mary's but also at Guy's, where she had been extremely ill beforehand. My mother spoke, as so many others do, with respect, affection and admiration for all that is achieved by NHS staff, and she was not best pleased by the way in which her privacy was intruded upon at a moment of considerable illness.
  Ms. Jean Corston: Will the Secretary of State tell the House when any Labour Member has criticised an individual member of staff working in our NHS hospitals? They are the people who are coping with the mess that she has created.
  Mrs. Bottomley: Those with memories which go back as far as the general election will know that the Opposition trade in individual cases taken out of context.[Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends mentions the case of Jennifer's ear; I need say no more.
  This is the first time for nearly two years that the Labour party has chosen to debate health in its own time. For a party which is so arrogant about its supposed special claim to the NHS, it is remarkably reluctant to debate the matter in this place—and from the hon. Gentleman's speech, it is all too clear why.
  During the general election Labour turned our children's wards into a political battlefield. The voters rightly punished it for its repugnant tactics, but it is clear that it has learnt nothing from that. Scaremongering and shroud waving are still the base elements of its approach.
  We hoped for fresh thinking on health from the hon. Gentleman, but there was precious little sign of that in his speech today. He has dashed any hopes that a Labour Government would play a constructive role in improving people's health. Where was his admission that the health reforms are here to stay? When will the Labour party apologise for getting it so completely wrong? The hon. Gentleman's speech boiled down to the same old whine: more money for the NHS. His preoccupation, as always, is with inputs and not outputs. Yet in a recent press comment the hon. Gentleman said that the NHS had had a massive cash boost in the year of the election. It is hard to know which message he is trying to give. He cannot have it both ways. His mode of communication is not just waffle, but multi-directional waffle.
  Mr. Blunkett: As there was a cash boost for the general election and the Secretary of State has been parading it, and as I am not denying that, why is there such a crisis? Why is the money running out within three months of the
  898
  financial year ending in a year in which she says that the Government have an all-time record on spending on the NHS?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I shall be addressing the House on the situation in which we find ourselves, where hospital after hospital has exceeded all expectations in the amount of work that they have done. But NHS trusts and other hospitals also have to live within their budgets. If, two thirds of the way through the year, I were to break other parts of the NHS budget, I would be doing exactly the very thing for which I would expect the hon. Gentleman most to criticise me. The way in which I would do it would be to raid the community budget, or help myself to the budget for the mentally ill, community nurses, or all the other unfashionable areas of the health service.
  If we are to have a principled health service which delivers services according to a strategy which is right for the health of the nation, it is not right for a Secretary of State for Health three quarters of the way through the year suddenly to say, "No, you have all been providing more care of a higher quality: we will change all the priorities now and take money from the budgets of those least able to defend themselves."
  I am proud of our achievements. Hospitals have done well to achieve their high figures—some have treated 4,000, 3,000 or 2,000 more patients than they did a year ago—but they have to live within their budgets and manage the resource for the year.
  Mr. Richard Burden: If the Secretary of State feels that it is inappropriate to provide extra cash for hard-pressed hospitals, how does she explain the fact that the West Midlands regional health authority was prepared to make cash handouts to a privatised firm that it had set up?
  Mrs. Bottomley: That is far from the discussion about how hospitals can manage their budget through the year. There are serious questions about the West Midlands regional health authority. That is why I have appointed such a distinguished and eminent chairman as Sir Donald Wilson to take over in the short term. I deplore the ageist comments of the hon. Member for Brightside. This is the European year for older people and solidarity between the generations. Yesterday I launched the year with Sally Greengross. She talked of the problems of ageism; yet today the shadow health spokesman has shown the most shamelessly ageist approach to a most distinguished and eminent chairman. If the west midlands can achieve the results that Mersey has achieved, the hon. Gentleman's constituents will wonder what on earth he is talking about. They want similar reductions in waiting lists and waiting times and the delivery of health care in an effective, practical and sensitive manner.
  We now spend £100 million every day on the NHS, but the challenge—as always—will be to live within a budget. A budget has to be maintained for 12 months, not eight or nine months. Of course I share people's concern when they hear that hospitals are unexpectedly slowing down elective admissions or going on yellow or red alert in the face of exceptional seasonal pressures, but we must learn those lessons and ensure that in placing the contracts for next year we benefit from the experience of this year, pacing activity more effectively through the year and, above all,

  899
  ensuring that there are proper discussions with the district and the general practitioners and, within the hospitals, between the managers and the clinicians.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: On the issue of budgets and slowing things down, the Secretary of State talked about principles, but she now accepts that some people are waiting for serious operations while others, brought into local hospitals from fund-holding practices outside the area, are treated ahead of them. Where on earth are the principles in that? I shall not quote an individual case because the right hon. Lady goes on about shroud waving, but she knows that that is happening throughout the country.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I shall say a little more in a moment about general practitioners' fund holding. The Opposition still seem to have failed to appreciate that it is GP fund holding that offers the real lever for change if we want a service which is sensitive to patients' interests, because the advocate for the patients in the health service is the general practitioner.
  Only last week, the hon. Member for Brightside said that in the long term there would be a shift of resources from traditional hospital care. Yet today he argues the reverse—that money can only come from other services to go into the hospitals. He cannot have it both ways. The majority of services are not affected by the present end-of-term pressure on budgets.
  The British Medical Journal survey, which has been much quoted, also hides a number of other issues. In Calderdale, for example—
  Mrs. Alice Mahon rose—
  Mrs. Bottomley: Is the hon. Lady going to tell us that in Calderdale only 14 patients now wait for more than a year? That is a dramatic achievement. In Manchester., the number of patients waiting for one to two years has been halved. In Brighton, by March no one will wait longer than 18 months, and an extra 1,500 patients will have been treated. In Norwich and Norfolk, 4,000 more patients will have been treated, and 3,000 more will have been treated at Stoke Mandeville.
  Mrs. Mahon: The Secretary of State mentioned Calderdale. A close relative of mine has suffered under that practice. Will the right hon. Lady tell us how many people are waiting to see a consultant before going on to a waiting list? I have absolute proof of what is going on: it is going on in my family.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I shall say more later about waiting times, and about what we have achieved. I should very much like to move to a stage at which benchmarks operate for first out-patient appointments. I am sure that that is the next step—having brought down in-patient waiting times, to start setting benchmarks for out-patient waiting times. That is the way forward—to deliver change throughout the service, and to make clear, steady progress.
  I should make it clear that the amount of money currently involved is less than three quarters of 1 per cent. of total hospital and community budgets. The problem must be seen in perspective but, relatively small though it is, I do not think that we should ignore it. Doctors and managers do not always get together to work out how to plan activity through the year. General practitioners and district health authorities still have more to do in
  900
  discussing priorities for the year ahead. I want to encourage closer co-operation between managers and consultants, GPs and other professionals, in the drawing up of contracts for health care between purchasers and providers. That is where discussion should rightly take place. We also need careful co-operation in the monitoring of performance against contract through the year.
  I am pleased that the chief executive of the NHS and the chief medical officer have established a working party to examine those questions in detail with the professions, and to spread advice and assistance. The chief executive, Sir Duncan Nichol, will shortly issue further helpful guidance to the NHS. It is important for the lessons that we have learnt from this year to be acted on, and used further to improve the contract process for next year.
  Mrs. Barbara Roche: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I will, but only because the hon. Lady stood against me in my first by-election.
  Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I remember that by-election with relish; I also remember that we discussed health on that occasion.
  The Secretary of State mentioned the yellow bed alert. She will recall that my region, North East Thames, had such an alert. How does she reconcile her policy with the damaging effect that it will have on the more than 130,000 people on the London waiting list? Does she not agree that it will cause them tremendous harm?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady will be aware that pressures in the winter are a traditional part of health care management. Yellow alerts, and other pressures caused by a variety of unforeseen circumstances, must be managed' better: we must be better prepared. I should make it clear, however, that all urgent and emergency cases are seen. Our emergency service is unrivalled anywhere in the world.
  Overall decisions about priorities must be made by the district authority, which acts as the champion of local GPs. It must form a strategy for health, deciding priorities between different areas of interest and concern. That coherent approach must be followed to deliver ever-rising standards of health care, which will achieve health gains for local communities.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I want to make a little more headway. I have already given way a huge amount. I want to talk about the achievements of the NHS reforms—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I have been enormously generous in giving way. I have given way almost entirely to Opposition Members; I fear that I have neglected my hon. Friends. I now wish to proceed with my speech.
  The NHS reforms have been a tremendous success. We see that success in the record number of patients being treated this year. The number of acute in-patients treated is up again—more than 4 per cent. higher than last year, and even higher than that in the trusts. The health service is on course to treat 7.6 million patients this year; an extra 600,000 a year are being treated only two years into the new health service.
  Those record increases have been accompanied by reductions in waiting times. We have now eliminated waits of more than two years in the regions; what for many years

  901
  was a dark feature of the NHS has gone. Since our reforms were introduced, there has been a fall of more than 50 per cent. in the number of patients waiting for more than a year. In line with our manifesto and patients charter commitments, we are on course to eliminate waits of more than 18 months for hip, knee, and cataract operations. A number of regions and areas are heading for an 18-month maximum wait across the board: Mersey, South Western, Northern—
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend has mentioned hips, knees—[HON. MEMBERS: "And boomps-a-daisy."] And, no doubt, boomps-a-daisy. The trouble is that the nature of what can be done in the health service is changing very fast, which creates an entirely different kind of debate about priorities. But for the Government's reforms, it would be impossible to have a sensible debate about priorities, because until now we have not had the faintest idea what any of the procedures in the health service cost.
  Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend's welcome intervention has precisely identified one of the profound changes brought about by the NHS reforms. I hope that he will elaborate on his arguments if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Reducing long waiting times is central to the patients charter. We have spent more than £200 million on the waiting time fund in the past six years, and today I am announcing an allocation of a further £2 million from the £39 million fund this year to pump-prime 30 innovative pacesetter projects to reduce waiting times further. Each project will harness innovation, spread good practice and set quality benchmarks in the service which others can aim to meet.
  We are determined—and we shall continue—to take the waiting time battle further.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Waiting for what?
  Mrs. Bottomley: As the hon. Gentleman rightly implies—and as I have already said in the House—we want to set waiting time targets for out-patient as well as in-patient appointments. This is yet another example of the way in which the Government have won the argument. Labour Members want us to go further, faster, and I am the first to agree.
  NHS trusts are good for patients and staff, and they are here for good. It is far from clear whether the hon. Member for Brightside has yet been able to make up his mind about trusts, but I can tell him that patients have. They will have noticed, for example, the developments in the hon. Gentleman's own area. They will have noticed the £22 million Firth wing at the Northern General trust in Sheffield which opened last May, the two new children's and six new adults' surgery wards, and the state-of-the-art theatre suites and recovery rooms.
  The hon. Member for Brightside referred to accountability. I despair at the fact that, even at this stage, he is so unclear about the way in which accountability works. The trusts are accountable financially to their management executive, but they are accountable through their contracts to the district—to the purchaser, who acts on behalf of local people, securing quality improvements, having detailed discussions and championing the interests
  902
  of local people. That opportunity simply did not exist in the past. The district could not tell a hospital, "We like this aspect of your work, but are not happy with other areas; our GPs are unhappy about one development, but are pleased about your progress in another department." Under the contracts, which are open to the public, accountability is exercised more effectively than ever before.
  There has been a revolution in information—in the plans, the accounts, the annual meetings. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said, when the Labour party was in power no one had the faintest idea what anything cost in the health service, what a hospital's budget was, or how resources were used. That suited Labour Members—sponsored, to a man, by the National Union of Public Employees—because they did not want the public to know what they were doing and how they were spending money.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Bottomley: Many hon. Members will want to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make their own contributions, but my hon. Friends want me to put on record the tremendous achievements of the health service. I feel duty bound to do so, because my hon. Friends want to know what I am about to say. I am about to announce a record capital allocation to the national health service —nearly £2 billion. Taking internally generated capital into account, total NHS capital spending for next year is expected to break the £2 billion barrier for the first time. This £2 billion programme will allow trusts and health authorities to take the initiative in developing their services to meet the needs of the future. As my hon. Friends will be only too well aware, it will support the construction industry and support jobs at the same time. It is scarcely surprising that the Labour party is so embarrassed by my announcement of this £2 billion programme, because, as my hon. Friends are aching to say—
  Mr. Andrew Miller rose—
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Give way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The Secretary of State will indicate when she is giving way to hon. Members, but it is clear that there are occasions when she is not. It is no good the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) saying, "Give way".
  Mrs. Bottomley: As I feared, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) took my punch line. As soon as I sat down, he rightly said this is why the Labour party was making so much noise—that the Labour party cut the capital programme by 28 per cent. That makes the £2 billion that I have announced really look quite something. The punch line is that when the Labour party was in power the capital programme was not a record £2 billion but was cut by 28 per cent.
  I very much want to deal with the question of GP fund holding—a voluntary scheme that we hope to extend more widely. We hope that the benefits of fund holding, even for GPs who do not become fund holders, will be taken for granted by all GPs. GP fund holders have helped to raise standards across the board and to integrate primary and secondary care. They have reduced waiting times and brought more health care into the community. The Labour

  903
  party, wallowing in the politics of envy—as ever—derides this as the success of a two-tier service. As ever, its policy is equal misery for all. We can never have levelling up; we must always have levelling down from the Labour party.
  Let me make it clear that we are going forward with fund holders and we shall make it easier for them to extend services for their patients. The regulations will be changed to ensure that budget holders can cover the cost of providing a wider range of services, covering a range of diagnostic testing and minor surgical procedures which are outside the scope of their existing contract. This will make it easier for them to provide extra services where they are qualified to do so and to bring specialists into their practices. As a result, fund holders will be able to provide those services for patients without having to go to the trouble of setting up limited companies.
  We are the party of change and of progress. We have set in place, with our health reforms, a health service fit for the next century. For more than 40 years, the NHS was driven by institutions and illness, not by patients and prevention. We are changing the focus to concentrate on the needs of patients today and tomorrow and on work for better health. We can look forward to achieving the aims of the National Health Service Act 1946:
  "a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people … and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness."
  We have established the mechanisms to decide priorities on a national and local basis, and we are not prepared to leave the service to stumble from problem to problem with only the knee-jerk excuse of underfunding to fall back on like the Labour party. We are determined to use the potential of our greatest resource—our skilled and committed work force. In the face of the most negative opposition and the most scurrilous and distorted tactics that the Labour party could muster, the Government have accepted the challenge of reform and carried it through.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: The Secretary of State rightly referred to our skilled and dedicated work force. I received a letter this week from a consultant who says:
  "junior medical staff, nurses and therapists are on their last legs and morale is lower than ever before."
  When will the right hon. Lady get off the clouds, put her feet firmly on the ground and listen to the people who know what is really going on in the health service: the 29 consultants who say that she had said that she will only interfere in the west midlands—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The purpose of an intervention is to raise a single poignant point, which the hon. Lady did.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I can tell the hon. Lady when morale was lower: when the Labour party was in power and it cut nurses' and doctors' pay and spending on the health service. Of course there is more for us to do, but we are reducing junior doctors' hours and giving people hope and confidence in the way forward.
  Let me speak about the great achievements of the new strategy for health, putting prevention right at the heart of the delivery of health care. I hope that I shall receive co-operation from the Labour party as we take forward that strategy, which is chaired at the highest level by the Lord President to ensure that all members of the Government play their part in achieving and taking forward health gain.
  904
  We are determined to see further shifts of power in the NHS—away from institutions and providers to patients. The patients charter has been very important in spelling out the rights and standards that patients should expect.
  It is interesting to see the sneering approach of the hon. Member for Brightside to the new telephone information line. Many members of the public, many of our constituents and many patients are not clear about what services or health advice is available and do not know where to go for help. Today I launched the national helpline, which was a commitment in the patients charter and in our manifesto. The number is 0800 66 55 44. That single freephone number, which is available to all, will better empower patients to make the best possible use of the health service. The sneering, patronising attitude of the Labour party shows that it fails to understand that the number will enable our constituents to make better use of the service.
  Mr. Den Dover: I applaud my right hon. Friend's superb speech, which accurately represents the situation in my constituency of Chorley. More in-patients and out-patients are now being treated in the community, and below budget. There is one major cause for concern, indeed, I will call it crisis: more than 6,000 of my constituents have been put out of the national health service dental system. I know that my right hon. Friend has already received a report of the dentists' pay review, and I hope that in the closing minutes of her speech she will be able to deal with that problem.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I am happy to deal with the matter for my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover). One million more adults are now registered for dental care than in July. Dentists' earnings are also at an historic high. Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's report, which I hope that my hon. Friend will refer to his dentists and patients, and also consider himself, offers a number of options for change.
  Opposition Members seem surprised that the Government do not have a knee-jerk response to every publication that we produce for consultation. We wish to talk to dentists, the health service and others about whether there are ways in which we can change the system of remuneration. My hon. Friend should be sure, however, that his constituents have access to an NHS dentist. The family health services authority should employ a salaried dentist. If there are any difficulties, I shall personally be more than happy to look into them.
  The hon. Member for Brightside spoke about information. Sometimes he tried to lambast the Government for not making available the information that he wants for his own purposes, and which we do not collect because it is not needed to help to run the service. In the next breath, he claimed that there were too many managers and accountants and too much bureaucracy, which is precisely what would be needed if we were to collect a huge amount of unnecessary data.
  The role of management in the health service is of great importance: something like two NHS staff out of every 100 are managers.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way to me twice. Can she tell me why the Yorkshire regional health authority yesterday refused to provide me with figures on waiting lists which it has available at its headquarters in Yorkshire? Other regions have been prepared to do so, so why was Yorkshire regional health

  905
  authority not prepared to release those figures, even though it had had to collect them for its own internal purposes? Is the Secretary of State prepared to take action to stop the secret society taking hold of the NHS?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I do not know the content of the hon. Gentleman's discussion yesterday with the Yorkshire regional health authority, but I feel strongly about information being available, which is why I have today launched the national helpline. It is not only the hon. Gentleman who should have information—I believe that members of the public should also have it, and I shall certainly consider the matter for him.
  Mr. Jimmy Boyce: As the Secretary of State is so ready to go to Chorley to talk to dentists there, will she speak to the dentists who are complaining in Rotherham? We assure her of a riotous welcome.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that warm invitation, but he should listen to what I am saying. I said that dentists' earnings were at an all-time high and that we now provide 7 million more adult treatments per year than in 1979. I was comparing that with what happened when the Opposition were in power—when dentists' real earnings fell by some £3,000 per year.
  The health service has an annual budget of £37 billion, it employs nearly 1 million people, and the money must be managed. I do not think that the Opposition understand that. They continue to promote a state of apartheid between managers and doctors. The Opposition also talk about accountability. My hon. Friends are deeply suspicious of what the hon. Member for Brightside means by accountability. We fear that he means that those who manage—
  Mr. Bernie Grant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State to—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall let the hon. Gentleman continue in a moment, but he must be clear that a point of order is a matter on which the Chair can rule, not a matter of the political content of speeches.
  Mr. Grant: I am surprised that you will not let me finish before you rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall let the hon. Gentleman finish, but I want to be sure that he is clear that it is something on which I can rule.
  Mr. Grant: I am sorry but, like other hon. Members, I raise a point of order and then you tell me whether it is true. Is it in order for the Secretary of State to make a promise to one of her hon. Friends but not to other hon. Members?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that has nothing to do with the Chair.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I do not think that I should make a promise to another hon. Friend that I would not also make to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant).
  My hon. Friends are deeply suspicious about what is in the mind of the hon. Member for Brightside when he talks of accountability. We know that he is really an
  906
  old-fashioned municipal socialist. I wonder whether he remembers telling the Association of Direct Labour Organisations last year that
  "municipal services were started because there was so much price-fixing and corruption when services were not in council control."
  That comment will cause a bitter laugh among the people of Lambeth today. I do not think that the people of Merseyside, with all their experience of Labour's chaos and the incompetence of the town hall, would swap the management of the health service for the form of accountability established by local government. I think that the hon. Gentleman's prescription for the health service would be Lambeth-style militancy, Lambeth-style madness and, I fear, Lambeth-style fraud.
  I now speak about a subject of great concern, I hope, to all hon. Members—the situation in London. There are inequalities of provision in the health service and they must be tackled. The issues that Sir Bernard Tomlinson has put on the agenda have long been recognised. Many hon. Members have long been worried about the extent to which they subsidised services in London. London spends 20 per cent. of the money on 15 per cent. of the people. Far more serious, however, is the fact that the health service for Londoners is not of the standard that I am determined that it should be. That is because of the great provision of institutions, many dating back hundreds of years, which are not appropriate to the health needs of today and tomorrow. In the past 100 years there have been 20 reports all urging change. At the end of the last century Florence Nightingale argued that St. Thomas's should move out to Blackheath.
  We must grasp this opportunity to ensure that there is change. It will not be easy. It means tough decisions, but we shall take them. I pay tribute to the work of the Minister of State, who has held thorough meetings with about 50 institutions and organisations so that we have the opportunity to listen to the views of the people most directly involved. We recognise the need to bring an end to uncertainty—nobody recognises that more than us—but we also have to make sensible, practical, clear decisions to make cost-effective improvements in health care which lead to improvements in treatment, research and teaching.
  We shall not transform the health service in London overnight, nor shall we impose change by central diktat. It will take time to correct the imbalances and distortions which have grown up over many decades. There will be different forces in play, not least the shifting pattern of referrals as health authorities inside and outside the capital exercise greater choice on behalf of their patients. The operation of the internal market must continue to play a part in determining the future pattern of services in London.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Secretary of State says that she is aware of serious problems with the administration of the health service in London. If that is so, why does she still support a report which proposes the closure of seven hospitals while 130,000 people are on the hospital waiting list in London?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I regret having given way. The hon. Member for Brightside has a more enlightened view of these matters than the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has. The hon. Member for Brightside has made it clear that the status quo cannot continue. I know that the hon. Member for Brightside got into trouble with

  907
  his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) for daring to have such an enlightened view. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, who normally saves his wrath for castigating Conservative Members, took his hon. Friend to task for having an enlightened view on the question of London. All reasonable and thoughtful hon. Members know that the change must happen—and it must happen on the basis of improved health services for London. All agree that the enhancement of primary care is a basic building block in that change.
  I was surprised that the hon. Member for Brightside spent so little time talking about care in the community. Care in the community is an enormously important policy which we are making a reality, not only in the policy, in the guidance and in the legislation, but in the resources. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood the issue of ring fencing for drug and alcohol support. When we debated the matter, we did not expect to have a ring-fenced sum for the whole of the transfer money. We have secured £565 million which will be ring-fenced for community care. That is 35 per cent. more than would have been spent through social security.
  There is an important opportunity here for local authorities. They are rightly proud that the Government have asked them to provide the lead in community care. That leadership means grasping challenges, establishing priorities, making decisions and shouldering responsibilities. It does not mean running back to the Government for more cash at every turn. Through the funds that we have made available, and through the consistent, practical support and guidance that we have given, we have honoured our commitments in full.
  Our community care reforms provide choice for individuals, choice for users and choice for carers. We are determined to protect the independent sector. We fear that Labour councils, left to their own devices, would distort the system as ever—in favour of their own services at the behest of their trade union masters. There would be the old temptation to ride roughshod over the interests of users in the interests of producers—[Interruption.] Before Opposition Members cry too loud, I should tell them that I worked in Southwark at the time of Nye Bevan house. I know many of the scandals with which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), has to cope when local authority providers fail to serve those who are entrusted to their care. The Government want first-class —not Lambeth-class—services for the elderly and needy. That is why we have insisted that a high proportion of community care money must be spent in the independent sector, and that is why we have backed up the reforms with statutory direction which enshrines the right of individual choice.
  I leave the last word on community care to Mr. David Townsend, once a special adviser to Baroness Castle and now director of social services in the London borough of Croydon. Mr. Townsend works at the sharp end of social services and he disagrees with the hon. Member for Brightside. In a recent letter, Mr. Townsend said:
  "Having failed to alter the national political map, Blunkett … goes home and kicks the cat; in this case local councillors and directors of social services. Mature reflection on Blunkett's part would have led to the correct conclusion that he is the one who loses general elections, not us. Most of us directors … get on with the job—"[Interruption.]
  Mr. Martin Redmond rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Redmond.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I sat down because I could not get any quiet, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are all aware that Opposition Members make a great deal of noise because they do not want my hon. Friends to hear what I am saying. I was hoping for your assistance to ensure that. I could complete the words of Mr. David Townsend. It would be discourteous to interrupt his remarks and I should like to get to the end of them. Mr. Townsend says:
  "Most of us directors … get on with the job, increasing the range of services year on year … and leave the more self-exciting 'grand political claims' to those like Blunkett who recline on the green leather benches for a living."
  While the hon. Member for Brightside is reclining on the leather Benches, he should reflect on the fact that spending on the NHS is at record levels. It has grown by 57 per cent. in real terms since 1979. We are treating more patients than ever before. Nurses and doctors are better paid than ever. They have seen a substantial real increase in their incomes since 1979. We have cut junior doctors' hours substantially and there are more reductions to come. The range and quality of services the NHS now offers has never been greater. Waiting times are tumbling and long waits are set to fall further.
  The hon. Member for Brightside referred to my work many years ago for the Child Poverty Action Group. Memories of that work have stayed with me over the years. The hon. Member for Brightside mentioned prescription charges. It is a source of pride to the Government that, whereas a charge was claimed on one item in three when Labour were in government, a charge is now claimed on only one item in five.
  It is an achievement for the Conservative party that more babies now survive the earliest months of their lives than at any time since records began. We have seen life expectancy grow by two to three years over the past decade. In the past decade, perinatal mortality has fallen across all regions and in all social classes. It has fallen substantially in London. The figures in London—[Interruption.] As I made clear earlier, many of the changes have been brought about because of the introduction of the GP contract, which the Labour party rejected and voted against. It is as a result of that change that we have seen the dramatic increases—which are still not high enough—in many of our inner-city areas in terms of immunisation and cancer screening figures. For the past two years—for the first time ever—no child has died from measles or from whooping cough.
  In "The Health of the Nation" we have established a health strategy that the World Health Organisation has described as a model for others to follow. Those are achievements of which we are proud. It is only those whose sole concern is politicising the health service who wish to deny those achievements. It is only those who are interested in politicising the health service who whine about underfunding rather than trying to get to grips with the complex issues. It is only those who are interested in politicising the health service who exploit individuals' misfortunes rather than examining the arguments. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Brightside and his hon. Friends have shown how out of touch their party is with the modern NHS.
  The health reforms were not designed to produce a quick fix or to gain temporary political advantage: they

  909
  have equipped the NHS to serve the people of this country for the next half century even better than it has done in the present half century. The NHS is going through a time of change and a time of great opportunity. It may be easier for hon. Members to duck change, as the hon. Member for Brightside has done, and to indulge in sloganising, but that would betray the people of this country. We have begun the work and we shall finish it.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Martin Redmond: The Secretary of State has been speaking a load of drivel for more than an hour. Will she not go out into the world of reality where the facts speak for themselves? The facts are at variance with what she has said from the Dispatch Box today. There is a hidden agenda and a two-tier health service. The evidence for saying that exists, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has given it.
  The chairmen of the trusts—[Interruption.] If the Secretary of State would listen instead of opening her big gob, she might learn something. That is the trouble with Conservative Members. They are for ever opening their gobs. If they would listen—
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Redmond: I will not give way. Shut up: the Minister has had well over an hour.
  We have had correspondence with the Department about the appointment of chairmen of trusts. Mr. Peter Horsburg was appointed as a chairman but was refused to be acknowledged by the Secretary of State. There was a misunderstanding about the facts surrounding that event. However, there are rewards for political obedience among officers in the health service. When trusts are created, the directors receive wage increases of 100 or 150 per cent. It galls me that the Secretary of State and Trent regional health authority, in my area, appoint political stooges—as the chairman of the health care trust in Doncaster has said. They are paid salaries approaching £20,000. Non-executive directors receive £5,000 each as well as free lunches, subsistence and travel.
  Few, if any, of the chairmen and non-executive directors even approach the time commitment that they should make in return for the political gift which they have been given. I challenge the Secretary of State to order the Audit Commission to investigate the time that directors put in for the monetary reward that they receive from the health service. The Tories have always attacked local councillors for working seven days a week for the pittance that they receive. The Government should examine the position of trust directors.
  Regretfully, the Government have proposed effectively to reduce the pay of those who keep the NHS alive. They have limited their pay increases to between 1 and 1.5 per cent. Perhaps the Government will reduce the ill-gotten gains of trust directors to the pay of nurses since 1989.
  The Secretary of State talks about the health service. She should go into a hospital for 24 hours, seven days a week for a few weeks. Then she would see whether the health service was growing as a result of all the money that
  910
  the Government are putting into trusts. I do not believe that the NHS is growing. Millions of pounds have been put into the NHS to create the trusts.
  The Secretary of State is now telling trusts to slow down. Does she not realise, as she laughs, that to tell trusts to slow down treatment could at worst result in patients dying? She is not interested in the deaths among NHS patients caused by her policies. At the least, the quality of life of patients is affected.
  It is no good saying that patients can obtain treatment if their case is an emergency. That depends on the clinical judgment of the GP. The Secretary of State referred to patients' rights. They are nothing but a con trick. Patients have no right to a first out-patients appointment. That fact, together with the placing of patients on review, falsifies the in-patient waiting lists. I wish that the Secretary of State would get the figures right. Millions of patients who are not on any list are waiting to see a consultant. The lists have been reduced simply by removing patients from them.
  The Conservative Government shout from the roofs about value for money. I am pleased that the Secretary of State does not live in my household. The reforms have cost money in increased administration costs. Far from reducing the bureaucracy, the reforms have added to it. Doncaster health authority had administration costs of approximately 4 per cent. Celia Wilson, the former chairman, was a Conservative, but she was committed to the health service and to the people of this country. That is a commitment which the Government do not have. [Interruption.] I will not give way to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes). If he will shut up and listen, he may learn something from Opposition Members.
  Celia Wilson, the chairman, Tony Dale, who was in charge of administration, and David Eves, the treasurer, did a marvellous job of ensuring that the health authority produced value for money. Doncaster now has four chairmen whereas previously it had one. It has 24 non-executive directors at an annual cost of more than £200,000. It has three chief executives, three directors of nursing, three directors of finance and four directors of medicine, all at vastly increased salaries. There is massive duplication of management. The bureaucracy of Conservatives in government is crazy. If the Secretary of State wants to make improvements, she should reduce the bureaucracy.
  I admire the working doctors, nurses and support staff for their complete commitment in return for little reward. They have to live with the greed of the people who seek to exploit them. I am extremely grateful to the doctors, surgeons and nurses of Doncaster Royal infirmary without whose skills I would not be here today. I am also grateful for the research done at Weston Park hospital in Sheffield. Marvellous work is going on there under Professor Hancock and his team. I am also grateful to my GP, who used his clinical judgment to put me into the accident and emergency department. It was his decision, not that of a consultant. That onus should not be placed on GPs.
  When one is on a ward for 24 hours, one can see the nurses and junior doctors working under pressure. The Secretary of State should spend a little time on a ward at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning and see what the nurses have to do.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman asked me to spend a little time at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning on a ward. That is exactly what I have been doing.
  Mr. Redmond: I am not sure whether it was as a patient or as a visitor. If she spent time on a ward day and night, she would know. If she opened her eyes, she would perhaps learn a little. Regretfully she does not appear to have done so.
  An early-day motion has been tabled requesting a public inquiry into the maternity wing at Doncaster Royal infirmary. It is important that a public inquiry should take place. The internal inquiry was purely and simply a statistical game. It compares Doncaster with Sweden and western Australia. Instead of looking at figures, it should investigate practices because that would be to the benefit of nurses and the people of Doncaster. I hope that the Secretary of State or the Minister will say whether a public inquiry is to take place. The policy of GP fund holders does not appear to be welcome, but apparently it is the only policy under which money can be obtained from the Department. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will abolish the trusts and let us get back to a true national health service.
  5.59 pm
  Dame Jill Knight: It is a mystery to me why the Labour party constantly contrives to turn a success into a failure, an achievement into a disaster and a cure into a calamity. About £100 million a day is spent on the health service, more patients are being treated with better operations and better drugs—
  Mr. Bob Cryer: It says here, "Issued by Conservative central office".
  Dame Jill Knight: I wrote my own speech, as I always do.
  There is also better equipment, and, even more important than all that, there are now cures for diseases which would have killed patients only a short time ago. Waiting lists are down and the pay of doctors and nurses is up. I could go on listing the improvements, but to listen to Labour Members one would think that all was doom, gloom and despondency. We fundamentally disagree with Labour's carping and belly-aching and we are proud of the record of the health service under this Government.
  In my well-known way of spreading light, sweetness and agreement, let me turn to a matter on which all hon. Members can agree. All the experts in the health service deserve our admiration and every help which we can give to them and they should not have to face dangers which we have the power to remove. Consider the scenario of a patient needing a transplant of some vital organ—perhaps a lung, heart or liver—being prepared for the operation. All sorts of tests are carried out. Blood cells are measured, haemoglobin and blood gases are checked and the functioning of his organs is carefully assessed by electro-cardiogram. Every test that doctors deem necessary for the safety of the patient is meticulously embarked upon.
  However, the one test that is essential for the safey and peace of mind of the medical team is left out—the test as to whether the patient has AIDS. Doctors can check for hepatitis and syphilis, but they cannot check for AIDS
  912
  unless two conditions are fulfilled. The first is that the patient must agree to the test, and the second is that counselling has to be available for the patient.
  I am told that in a recent case a young surgeon's razor-sharp scalpel slipped and cut his hand in the middle of an operation. No one knew whether the patient had AIDS, but when he came round and was fit to talk he was asked whether the doctors could conduct tests to make sure that he was all right. He said that they could not. That young surgeon will not know for many long and agonising months whether he has contracted AIDS. He will not be able to get on with his professional or private life because he can neither operate nor sleep with his wife. We should not put doctors in that position.
  Let us look at the case of a person who is brought unconscious into an operating theatre following an accident, an attack or seizure or perhaps an overdose. I am assured that, although he is unconscious, he may vomit blood and that instant care has to be made available to him. However, no AIDS tests can be carried out because he cannot be asked whether he agrees. I do not want to harass AIDS victims or hurt their feelings or multiply their agony, but I certainly want to protect nurses, doctors, surgeons and laboratory staff and all others who may put their own lives at risk by caring for someone who has AIDS.
  As I have said, doctors are allowed to test for venereal diseases such as syphilis and the patient does not usually know that the test has been carried out. I am told that if the patient does not have the disease there is no problem, but if he has he is advised about the best medical care that he can be given. Surely we should follow that rule for AIDS. Why not extend the practice? It is not right to sacrifice the life, health and peace of mind of medical staff and their ability to continue to operate, nurse or test because of fear of hurting the feelings of people who, although tragic, undoubtedly pose a serious threat to the lives of others.
  I have a second request on another matter to make in my short speech. I am trying to be constructive in asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take two actions that could be of immense help in two different fields. The second concerns a thoroughly responsible and respectable couple in my constituency who were asked by a social worker in March 1988 to take in a six-day-old Sikh girl who had been abandoned by her mother. They did so. They came to love the child and, although they had a boy and a girl of their own, they eventually asked Birmingham social services department whether they could adopt the little girl. Incredibly, the council not only flatly refused but spent a large sum of ratepayers' or poll tax payers' money, or whatever we want to call it—I am told that it amounted to tens of thousands of pounds—on court action to try to get the child away from her loving home, the only home that she knew and the one in which she wanted to stay. A social worker told those caring and excellent parents that white people were not good enough to bring up black children.
  Can we imagine the fuss, the headlines and the furore that would result if a black couple were told that they were not good enough to look after white children? And quite right too; I would similarly decry such an appalling statement. No one except the couple and a friend who tried to help them knew about that because for three years Birmingham city council gagged the couple with art injunction. They were not allowed to speak to anyone. I

  913
  am their MP, but they did not dare to write to me or anyone else about what had happened. They were afraid that, if they broke the injunction, they would not be allowed to adopt the little girl.
  It seems that not only the Race Relations Act 1976 but freedom of speech was flouted. At one stage the couple were told that a black adoptive family had been found for the little girl, but they discovered that it was not a Sikh but a Muslim family and the mother could speak no English, although the little girl had been brought up in a home in which English was the natural language. The proposal to send the child to the Muslim family was called off after the parents protested. A social worker visiting the family forbade the little child to call her parents—the only parents she knew—dad and mum.
  The child was then secretly introduced to another Asian family who agreed to take her as a foster child. All this when Joanne had lived for years with the family and loved them dearly, as they loved her. Then, when the couple were given 48 hours' notice that Joanne would be taken from them, they took court action. It was three years before the High Court, in November last year, ruled in their favour and they can adopt the child. There is no excuse for all this, especially for telling a loving couple that they are not good enough to adopt a child because of the colour of their skin.
  I make the direct appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look into both these totally different sets of circumstances and stop social workers from behaving in that way in one set of circumstances and to help surgeons and medical staff in the other circumstances.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, may I remind hon. Members that Madam Speaker has ruled that we should now start on 10–minute speeches.
  6.10 pm
  Ms. Liz Lynne: We, too, regret the growing crisis in the NHS. The national health service, which is approaching its 50th anniversary, has served several generations very well. Whenever possible, it has cured us. At other times, it has at least healed us. Few would disagree that it has almost always cared for us. Against this background, it is tempting wholeheartedly to follow the Labour party argument. There can be little dispute that the system is underfunded and that the internal market is creating two tiers of care.
  However, if we are to alleviate the crisis in the NHS, we cannot just go back to the status quo before the reforms. Before the general election, I was opposed to GP fund holding and to hospital trusts and still am, but we have to accept that they are there and that there will be even more before the next election. We have to face that reality and try to find a solution. The Government are not going to change their minds.
  Although I do not embrace this Government's philosophy of change for change's sake, I do at least accept that some change is needed, but that change should have taken into account the needs of the patients and the fact that there was not enough money to meet everyone's needs and that more money should have been found for the health service. I know that some more money has been put in, but that is not enough to meet those needs.
  914
  The internal market has not been a great success in most instances. The market can be very cruel when applied to the vulnerable: the sick child who cannot be admitted to hospital until after 1 April will not understand that his GP is not a fund holder; nor do the caring health service staff appreciate having to close hospital wards when they know that there are people who need treatment. The Secretary of State responds by telling hospital staff to pace themselves; in other words, "don't cure people too fast". This is at a time when the Government's own target, a maximum of two years on the waiting list, has not yet been achieved in all areas. They have to acknowledge that fact.
  The internal market is also creating problems in a number of trusts. My local Rochdale trust has increased its patient activity, reduced its waiting lists and cut costs considerably, but having done that, it will not be awarded any further contracts by the health authority because of lack of funds. This is not because the health authority does not want to spend the money. It simply does not have enough.
  Dr. Liam Fox: Perhaps the Liberal spokesman will tell us how much extra money the Liberal party believes we have to put in to achieve the situation that she wants? Exactly how much?
  Ms. Lynne: I am grateful to the hon. Member: as we said before the general election, another £2 billion over the course of a Government. That was stated very clearly in our manifesto commitments.
  The hospital at Rochdale is now forced to close wards. Many hospitals may in future, because of this trend, have to throw people out on the dole. GP fund holding has also served only to promote a two-tier system.
  It is naive in the extreme for the Government to expect an even result when it has installed two budgetary structures, a more generous one for fund holders and a rather more stringent one for health authorities. At least they cannot say we did not warn them about the problems they were creating. All our calls for wider consultation on the internal market generally were ignored. That will be cold comfort for the thousands turned away from hospitals and told to come back after 1 April. It will be cold comfort to, for instance, the two children in Rochdale who have been in traction for some time and were just settling into their ward but will now be forced to move to another hospital.
  The question is how we can reverse the crisis in the health service. A two-tier system with care for some is not quite the way to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Beveridge's proposals. The way forward would have been through pilot projects, consultation, listening to both the users of the service and to those who make the very difficult decisions in it every day. But the Government did not do that. Even though they did not do it to start with, the least they can do is to conduct a full survey of the reforms, and, more important, to make the results public. We have a right to know the extent of the problem and why they did not consult fully to start with. We have a right to know how they propose to get out of this mess.
  I believe that a new idea of locality fund holding represents a positive way out of the present mess. I am not going to dictate the solution, but I want to talk to health professionals and see whether it is the appropriate solution. As I have already said, hospitals up and down the country are running out of money and closing wards while

  915
  some GP fund holders have excess cash. Locality fund holding could be a way round the problem. I hope that the Government will take this on board. Under locality fund holding, GPs in a particular area would band together and become fund holders, between themselves, thus avoiding the two-tier system that is being created at present. Community care services could also come under the locality fund-holding umbrella in order to stop people falling through the net between health authority and social services provision.
  I have deliberately not spelt out a definitive policy on locality fund holding, because, unlike the other two parties, I believe in genuine consultation before policies are fully formed and I do not want to limit the responses I receive.
  Another area on which the Government appear to have failed is Tomlinson. That also is due to lack of consultation. Why did they not ask the people who know, the professionals and users of the service? If they had, they would have been told that they could not think about closing hospitals before the primary and community health service was up and running. They would have been told that we need a single London health authority. They would have been told that the figures used by Tomlinson simply do not add up. Why did they not ask? Why did they not listen even though they did not ask?
  The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I was wondering whether the hon. Lady thought that when she and her colleagues came to see me to give me the benefit of their views, as part of the London consultation, I was not listening or taking account of what they were saying.
  Ms. Lynne: Yes. My colleagues and I were grateful for that. I feel that the Minister was listening, but he should have consulted more widely previously and should have consulted the health professionals earlier. I am talking about consultation, not with us, but with the people within the health service and with its users. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been round to all the hospitals, but I do not think that he has really been listening. I do not think the Government are going to consult this time. I do not think that they have learnt the lessons, because I do not think that they are listening properly.
  Are they going to listen to the dentists and their patients? They have already forced many dentists out of the NHS. Dental health is already at risk. Now the Government want to take away free dental treatment from pregnant women. How much further do they want to go?
  Dr. Mawhinney rose—
  Ms. Lynne: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene again, I will gladly give way.
  Dr. Mawhinney: Which Minister said that?
  Ms. Lynne: It was in all the reports, including the report that came out recently. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor the Secretary of State has come to the House to make a statement on that report. Perhaps the right hon. Lady would like to do so; then we can debate the report. I know that the Opposition spokesmen have asked for this, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman can give a commitment to it today.
  Dr. Mawhinney: But the hon. Lady wants us to consult.
  Ms. Lynne: I should like the Secretary of State to come to the House and make a statement on dentists. Now, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Sadly, not this afternoon; the 10 minutes are up.
  6.20 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: Once again I have listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with admiration. It is not just the grasp of her subject that is impressive, but the clarity of her vision and her determination to do what is right. Conservatives should not let the mantle of compassion be taken from them. We need to put paid to the myth that management is outside the welfare arena. To manage well is to ensure fairness and the best possible service.
  The debate on the health service has certainly come a very long way in the last 15 years. Up to the early 1980s, the service's success tended to be measured by how big a budget could be wangled from the centre and how quickly it could be spent. Huge blanket sums were consumed without guidelines, and seemingly with few controls. The game was to spend, to look good and not to worry about the consequences for others either within the service or outside it. Peter was robbed to pay Paul and shroud waving—a new expression, I think, in the Chamber—was the main feature of the yearly expenditure round.
  Less than 20 years ago, the health service did not even know how many doctors it employed, let alone how much a certain course of treatment would cost. Morale was low, and the service was to suffer under the last Labour administration its biggest capital cut ever. The situation was critical, and those of us who believe in the principles enshrined in the NHS knew that there had to be a radical change if a comprehensive free service was to survive into the 1980s and 1990s.
  The first step was to restore confidence and to reverse those cuts. There is no disputing that the health service has benefited from massively increased funds under the Conservatives. The health service now has the second largest budget in Government expenditure. At £37 billion, it is second only to social security—and I believe that few here doubt that that is as it should be.
  The provision of money alone was not enough to reverse the games that were played before, and the Government deserve credit for moving the debate on. They are only too aware now that it is not how much is spent that matters, but how it is spent. By insisting on and providing the tools for better management, by improving the management structure and by introducing financial disciplines, the Government have given the NHS its own lifeline.
  It is less than two years since the biggest ever reforms of the national health service were introduced. The second year has not yet been completed. GPs—only those who could and wanted to—were given the ability to handle their own budgets in certain areas, and some hospitals became self-governing trusts. There is, and has been, no duress to become a trust. Application for trust status is entirely voluntary and open to any unit which satisfies the criteria. Less than two years on, 95 per cent. of hospitals and community health service provision have either moved to trust status or expressed an interest in doing so. Moreover, nearly 550 GPs have become fund holders, and

  917
  there is a likelihood that a further 700 will join them. That will mean that one quarter of the population will be served by fund holders.
  By any standards, that is an enthusiastic response to the reforms in the service—encouraged, no doubt, by the early signs of success. In a recent survey, more than 70 per cent. of GP fund-holding practices reported falling waiting times and improving efficiency. In their first year of operation, trusts treated 8 per cent. more patients than in their last year as directly managed hospitals.
  In my own constituency, the East Hertfordshire NHS trust has boosted out-patient attendances by 3 per cent. from last year, and in-patient cases have risen by 4·2 per cent. Also, waiting times are dropping. The East and North Hertfordshire district health authority is on target to achieve by 1993 the region's standard of no one waiting more than 18 months. The expectation is that waiting times will be dropped to 15 months in the coming year.
  I maintain that contracting has improved service delivery and will continue to do so. GPs handling their own affairs can understand the cost implications more easily and arrange their priorities according to their needs. Trusts can plan ahead freely without interference from the regional health authorities and the Peter robbing Paul mentality. Services can be delivered as promised and strategic plans made for the future with confidence. They know at the beginning of each financial year how much elective—that is, non-urgent—work they will be required to do, so they can plan staffing and other facilities accordingly. Better information also enables trusts to make accurate estimates of the amount of emergency and urgent work that they are likely to do and to plan their budgets accordingly.
  Inevitably, some of the shroud-waving mentality has survived and is finding its voice on the Opposition Benches today.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Roe: We have a 10-minute time limit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and there is a great deal that I want to say. I shall give way when I have finished my speech.
  No reasonable person would expect radical change to be introduced without some teething problems. Equally, no reasonable person could expect to return to the old mentality which was so ruinous to the provision of services. It is unfair to other parts of the health service to raid their budgets to get some hospitals out of financial difficulties. It is also unfair to take a snapshot view of what is happening in the health service before the year is out. Doing so distorts the picture. The fact that there has apparently been over-performance on elective surgical contracts reflects the situation that more elective work is done in the first six months of the financial year—that is, in the summer—because more beds are required for emergency medical admissions in the winter months. Surely it could also be claimed that this is sensible planning —to plan the elective work when it can be done and leave the hospitals free to cope with the demands that winter brings.
  To counter some of the very negative stories that we have heard from the hon. Members for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond)
  918
  and for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne), I should inform the House that the East Hertfordshire NHS trust is working to contract and has no plans for bed closures. The elective and emergency services will be maintained to year end, and financially the trust will be broadly in balance. Its strategic plans have been published and over the next five years its programme of development includes completion of a 30-bed day care unit at the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Garden City, construction of a purpose-built orthopaedic unit in the grounds of that hospital, and construction of a 60-bed unit for continuing care of the elderly on a site in Hoddesdon in my constituency. There are also a further six projects. The result of such developments will be that services will be more convenient and supplied more quickly and efficiently and to a higher standard.
  I urge the Government to continue with their reforms. Recently, the Health Select Committee published its interim report on NHS trusts. One of its concerns was that there should be a strategic overview of the management of trusts. Within this question lies the future role of the regional health authorities. I believe that as the reforms take a firmer hold on the future provision of the services the present role of the regions will change. Their role will therefore have to be redefined as we continue to improve the standards and provision of patient care.
  Mr. McCartney: Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to comment on the statement of one of her local GPs, Dr. Laurence Buckman, that patients in his area have already died because of serious bed shortages—and one of his patients died in an ambulance because of a row as to who should pay for his treatment. That is not the Labour party but one of the hon. Lady's local GPs.
  Mrs. Roe: That local GP has certainly not written to me on the matter. He has not drawn it to my attention for me to bring it to the attention of the local authorities.
  6.30 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I shall not be congratulating the Secretary of State on her speech. Indeed, when she resumed her seat I thought, "Thank goodness we have got to the end of that self-righteous rant."
  This month's edition of GP News, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), contains a report under the headline:
  "Human toll mounts as reforms fail."
  It goes on to say:
  "Patients have already died waiting for beds."
  In that article Dr. Buckman, a member of the General Medical Services Committee, whom the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) claims has not written to her, reveals in tragic detail the case of a severely asthmatic girl who nearly died when Barnet general hospital sent her away because no beds were available.
  What I say may be dismissed as shroud waving by some Conservative Members. They would not dismiss things so lightly if members of their own families were affected. What would the Secretary of State say if her mother experienced the suffering of a patient cited by Dr. Buckman—an elderly person with a leaking aortic aneurism who died in the ambulance while a row ensued as to who would pay for the treatment? Conservative

  919
  Members would not want tragedies of that sort to affect their families. Labour Members do not want them to affect anybody at all—that is why we demanded today's debate.
  It is time the Conservatives admitted, before more tragedies occur, that the internal market has been an unmitigated disaster for health services in Britain. Dr. Buckman's examples highlight the human cost of the greatest crisis in the hospital service since the NHS was formed.
  I do not want to talk simply about headline tragedies. I am anxious to bring attention to bear in the debate on what is happening to the NHS throughout the country. The Secretary of State referred to Calderdale. Halifax is one of the two towns comprising that district. There has been a massive bed closure programme in Halifax. It has been going on for the past 13 years and it has led to many serious problems. Management there will hasten to deny it, but I know from talking to members of staff and patients, and from visits to hospitals, that serious problems exist in Calderdale. The Royal Halifax infirmary recently had no beds available for a two-week period. I understand that panic sets in regularly among managers and consultants who are desperate for beds. I also understand that they regularly discharge patients early.
  That brings one to the dreadful business of bedding out, which has not been referred to in the debate so far. Bedding out is the norm in most hospitals nowadays. Does the Secretary of State know what bedding out is all about? A woman who had been pregnant recently wrote to me saying that although she was in danger of losing her baby —she finally lost it—placed in the next bed to her was a psycho-geriatric patient. That happened on the gynaecological ward as she was going through the trauma of losing her baby, and it was distressing for both patients and for staff and relatives.
  The Secretary of State might feel differently if she had been moved from an acute medical ward to a surgical ward to make way for new admissions. Such transfers happen on a regular basis. Had she experienced it, she might understand just what a rotten practice bedding out is. Elderly people are regularly suffering dreadfully as they are admitted to casualty and have two or three moves as they are bedded out on to different wards to make way for other patients.
  It is widely known in Halifax that psycho-geriatric patients are often admitted to ordinary wards for the elderly because there are not enough specialist beds to cope with patients of that type. That, too, puts great stress on staff. Noisy, disturbed and perhaps doubly incontinent patients require special care. Would the Secretary of State describe such a situation as levelling up or levelling down? I assure her that that sort of thing did not happen when I worked in the service in the 1970s.
  For years, we in Halifax have not had any coronary care beds for males. Four beds are coming on stream and should have opened on 1 January. I believe that their opening has been delayed due to lack of cash, though the Tory-appointed administrators will no doubt say that the delay has occurred for other reasons. It is high time that those beds came on stream.
  Because of the shortage of beds, a practice known as mixing is taking place. I was recently visiting a friend in a ward for elderly females and noticed that there was one elderly male on the ward. I believe that he died during the following 24 hours. I did not regard it as respectable, dignified or comfortable for people of that age to have to
  920
  be on a mixed ward. I have spoken to many patients in that position and it is clear that they are not happy in that situation. I ask Conservative Members to ask themselves whether, if they were feeling low, they would like to be on a mixed ward. I would not. That is happening as a result of the Government's bed closure programme, and the Tories are proud of it.
  The response of the Secretary of State to the types of situation that I have described has been frankly insulting. She tells my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) that he is scaremongering. The criticisms of the British Medical Association are dismissed, the BMA being told that it has said nothing apart from complaining about the NHS being underfunded. The right hon. Lady may say that my hon. Friends and I do not know how the system works, but I accuse her of not understanding what is happening in the NHS. Her highly paid political friends who are now running the service are issuing harsh penalties against anybody who dares to blow the whistle.
  We have been made aware of how serious a threat that is to the freedom of staff to speak out. Doctors and nurses are under great pressure not to express their views, as their evidence when trusts were looked into made clear. The Government have devised a special plan for dealing with what one might call the deviant doctor. It is called a rolling contract or a fixed term contract. Tory business managers are casualising the work of doctors. Indeed, they have the ultimate weapon over doctors. As Mr. Chawner of the joint consultative committee with the BMA said:
  "A doctor is bound to think … his job is coming to an end … unless he complies with some set objective which may not have been set by him or his peers. In fact, at times I have to say I think it may be set for political reasons in that it would be useful to cut a waiting list. That a doctor should be subject to that sort of influence is quite undesirable from the patient's point of view. Doctors should always decide on the basis of an individual patient, in front of him, and not according to whether he is going to please the manager or anyone else."
  I would go further than Mr. Chawner. I would call them not rolling or fixed contracts but blackmailing or gagging contracts. Clearly, the present contracts have been well thought out.
  Labour Members have time and again said that underfunding is the problem with the NHS. We warned that the Government's guidelines on equal access would be openly flouted. Fast-track patients from GP fund holdings are being canvassed openly and placed at the head of the queue for purely financial reasons. The Secretary of State's excuses on that have been disgraceful.
  Because of the 10–minute limit, I do not have time to quote from a letter dated 24 December from the managers of the Bradford trust. They were clearly canvassing GP fund holders in respect of consultants holding waiting lists. That must represent a two-tier system and it should be exposed, as should the waiting list cheating that goes on. Cheating is taking place on a massive scale. The report of the Select Committee and the evidence about trusts makes the position clear. Doctors said that the two-year waiting list was fatally flawed, that people with acute clinical conditions were sometimes unable to get treatment and that they often faced a life and death situation. The Royal College of Nursing says that nurse redundancies are occurring throughout the country, including 300 at Horton psychiatric hospital.
  That is happening at a time when political nepotism is the norm. What qualifications does Alan Titterington have

  921
  to make him a suitable chair for the West Yorkshire ambulance trust? His businesss background is fibre-optics in the music industry—his political background is the chair of a local Conservative association. Nor should we overlook Lord Hayhoe, who yesterday deliberately canvassed for the chair of St. Thomas's and Guy's.
  There is only one place for the Tomlinson report, and that is the dustbin. It is disgraceful. I hope that Londoners can get back the feeling of the blitz, recognise who the enemy is, defeat the Government and damn the report.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Jerry Hayes: First, may I make a declaration of an interest? I advise the Western Providence Association, which is a non-profit-making organisation.
  I listened most carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) whom I have known for years. We served together on the Select Committee. It was interesting to hear that she totally disagrees with her Front Bench on the Tomlinson report.
  We have heard on many occasions from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) that he believes that the status quo is no longer an option. I wish that the hon. Gentleman were in his place. Bring back the hon. Member for Livingstone (Mr. Cook); all is forgiven. I may not have agreed with him, but at least he understood and mastered his brief. Here we have a shadow Secretary of State who has hands on, but absolutely no grip whatsoever.
  I understand why Opposition Members feel rather twitchy about the motion. It is not so much a motion as a stream of consciousness in the image of Dave Spart. They talk about the growing crisis in the health service, the commercialisation of the health service, concern at the total fragmentation of care due to underfunding, the impact of internal market trusts and GP fund holders. It goes on and on. Worst of all, it contradicts Opposition Front-Bench policy—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen and then they would learn.
  Not so long ago we heard the hon. Member for Brightside at the Blackpool conference going on about
  "the Tories' own Frankenstein's monster"
  and saying that he was committed to getting rid of the trusts. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) said pretty well the same thing. On 21 August 1992 she told The Independent that trusts enjoyed "no public support". She told BBC television that she was committed to getting rid of them.
  Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Absolutely.
  Mr. Hayes: Let that be on the record.
  When I picked up my copy of Hospital Doctor which I recommend to the hon. Lady, I turned to the back page. This is not The Daily Telegraph or the Tory press, it is Hospital Doctor. It says:
  "Labour abandons vow to end trusts".
  It goes on:
  "Labour has officially reversed its general election pledge to abolish trust hospitals. Announcing the decision, Labour health spokesman David Blunkett said, 'you can't turn the clock back'."
  I hope that the hon. Lady totally agrees with the new policy.
  Ms. Primarolo: I am happy to say now, to avoid speculation until the end of the debate, that Labour party policy was confirmed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) this afternoon. We do not accept trusts, GP fund holders or the internal market. The hon. Gentleman has heard that twice now and I hope that he is now clear.
  Mr. Hayes: I hope that the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Brightside will be calling for an immediate apology from Hospital Doctor for publishing such a terrible travesty, accusing them of making a U-turn.
  Opposition Members attack GP fund holders. In The Times on 14 January 1993 the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman said that the system would be scrapped. But another medical publication, not the Tory press but BMA News Review in January 1993, published an interview with the hon. Member for Brightside saying:
  "he is aware, however, that all GPs have benefited from increased flexibility and influence in purchasing decisions".We watch this space for another dramatic U-turn.
  The wonderful Dave Spart motion also attacks underfunding. On 26 September 1992 The Times reported:
  "On funding, Mr. Blunkett made it clear that Labour was no longer tied to the general election commitment to restore underfunding within the NHS since 1979."
  Perhaps there should be another apology. I imagine that the hon. Lady would totally refute that as well.
  The Dave Spart motion goes even further, condemning the internal market. The hon. Member for Brightside was reported in The Times on 14 January 1993 as saying that Labour should not have any hang-ups about the market. I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman has no hang-ups, which is more than many hon. Members, but perhaps he will demand an apology from The Times as in his motion he has condemned the internal market, as have his hon. Friends.
  The hon. Member for Halifax made a wonderful attack on Tomlinson. We know full well what the hon. Member for Brightside said about Tomlinson. The Guardian, which is not exactly the Tory press, said on 24 October 1992:
  "If Labour was in office it would be proceeding in exactly the same way."
  But what did the hon. Gentleman say about Tomlinson?
  "The status quo is no longer an option."
  He went even further in a Labour party press release on 15 October:
  "The evidence is now overwhelming that there is a need for the reorganisation and relocation of resources in London."
  That was another dramatic U-turn; it is absolutely remarkable.
  We have heard something about the BMA backing rationing and saying that we have the worst crisis for 30 years. It is written on the front page of Hospital Doctor. However, in the same column the National Association of Health Authorities dismissed the BMA's criticism and allegations. Its director, Phillip Hunt, said:
  "I am not disputing that there are problems, but we have to set them against the impressive results that we are achieving on waiting lists."
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House should appreciate that.
  I have no interest in Hospital Doctor, but the first two pages cover eight little stories. One is headed, "Praise for Combined Drug Cash"; another reports neo-natal services in Wales being given an extra £4.5 million boost; another reports nearly £2 million being made available to treat babies with severe combined immuno deficiency-related

  923
  disorders and another deals with the United Kingdom's first small intestinal transplant at Addenbrooke. That is all good news.
  I am not trying to say that everything is rosy in the national health service; of course it is not. I now refer again to The Times and I think that the Opposition may agree with this:
  "Imminent demise has been the prognosis on the Health Service almost since its inception, but in recent years complaints that it is falling apart from lack of money have become louder … Doctors complain that the service is chronically under-financed, that their incomes have not kept pace with inflation and that the 1974 reorganisation led to chaos in hospital services."
  That article was in The Times in 1978. Nothing whatsoever is new.
  Ms. Primarolo: Except that the money was spent.
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Lady said that the money was spent and I expect that she is about to make an incredibly crass point about bureaucracy. Let me give her some help. For every £1 spent on bureaucracy, £47 is spent on doctors and nurses—
  Ms. Primarolo: So?
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Lady says "So?" but it is incredibly important. We have increased financing of the health service in real terms by 57 per cent. and £100 million a day is being spent on the national health service.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) made an interesting speech. Although she did not tell us what the Liberal Democrats would do, she said that they would make a commitment to an extra £2 billion. She made that commitment at the general election, but that was the precise amount that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State got for the health service in the last financial round.
  6.49 pm
  Ms. Jean Corston: This debate is well named. There is a crisis in the health service and it is necessary to go back to the founding principles to identify it. One of my most treasured possessions is a leaflet sent out to the population in 1948 by the Central Office of Information entitled "The New National Health Service."
  It said:
  "Your new National Health Service begins on 5th July. What is it? How do you get it?
  It will provide you with all medical, dental, and nursing care. Everyone—rich or poor, man, woman or child—can use it or any part of it. There are no charges, except for a few special items. There are no insurance qualifications. But it is not a 'charity'. You are all paying for it, mainly as taxpayers, and it will relieve your money worries in time of illness."
  Those were the founding principles of the NHS, but the Government's policy is a retreat from them. They spent £1.7 billion to change the service—and I emphasise the word "service"—into a market.
  Like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), I make no apology for using anecdotes. Unlike the Secretary of State, I understand that health care is about personal experience rather than statistics, and anecdotes are all that can relate personal experience. I shall explain the consequences of the Government's policy on Bristol by using letters written to me by constituents. I consider that to be a reasonable way of dealing with the matter.
  There is now a 19–month wait for an orthopaedic out-patient appointment at Frenchay hospital. I discussed
  924
  that with trust officers, who confirmed that it was true and said that it was the norm. They said that it was due to underfunding. Are they whingers? Are they shroud wavers?
  A woman constituent wrote to me saying that her condition caused her such pain and distress that she is afraid that she will have to give up work. She cannot even get an out-patient appointment at a clinic in the directorate of surgery at the Bristol Royal infirmary. She cannot get on to the waiting lists that we are told are being reduced. Another example is of a frantic woman waiting half a Saturday afternoon for her collapsed husband to be taken to hospital by ambulance because the bed bureau could not find a bed.
  At the ambulance service, which is now a trust, the aim of the management is to cover 95 per cent. of shifts. Ambulance crews say that the cover should be 100 per cent.; that is their commitment. However, to provide that cover they have to work through their meal breaks and rest periods. Meanwhile, to make money the trust has produced a corporate brochure advertising servicing and maintenance of vehicles; sales of pagers, portable radios and telephones; and first aid and driver training courses. The logical conclusion for patients of all that is that money talks.
  Another constituent who needed a physiotherapy assessment after a serious accident telephoned the Bristol Royal infirmary to ask when he would get that appointment. He was told—he says somewhat irritably —that it would be at least a month. When he mentioned that membership of BUPA was a condition of his employment and asked whether that made any difference, he was told to come at 2.30 pm that day. That is what is happening. If the Secretary of State were to wander around our hospitals incognito and talk to staff and patients, she would see that for herself, rather than being shielded by officials and protected by a massive departmental public relations machine.
  The United States private health care system has admirers in the Conservative party, but one third of the population has no cover, one third has inadequate cover and one third has some overprovision. It is no accident that President Clinton won the election when he promised a proper health care system; the market has been shown to be wasteful and inefficient. One 200–bed hospital in Massachusetts employs 220 staff to send out bills to various insurance companies. I have spoken to consultants working in our hospitals who are overwhelmed by the paperwork in the new market system. Is the American experience to be our inheritance? The price of each General Motors car in the USA includes $1,050 for the cost of its employees' private health care. The company is now thinking of relocating to Canada where there is a health care system.
  The Government are always telling us that we cannot have the social chapter, wages councils or a decent minimum wage because of what they claim to be the burden on employers. Will they tell us what is the current cost to commerce and industry of providing health care insurance for employees? To cap it all, I understand that BUPA is in contact with the Dental Practice Board to consider the feasibility of a national private dental insurance scheme.
  I met members of the Avon dental committee yesterday. They described a system that is fast breaking down. The Department of Health concept of the "average"

  925
  dentist bears no reality to the true position in Avon; neither does the assumption that a dentist's pre-tax income after expenses is £35,805. Dentists in Bristol would need to increase their gross income by at least £20,000 a year to guarantee that level of income.
  Many of my constituents in Hengrove are being told that their dentist can no longer continue to provide NHS treatment and they are being invited to join a scheme called Denplan at a cost of £9.75 per month. To add the insult of bureaucratic red tape to the injury of a withering service, patients are now subject to automatic monthly deregistration from a dentist's register. Adults who have not contacted their dentists for two years—for children it is one year—are taken off the list by the Dental Practice Board. They then have to shop around for NHS treatment.
  Dr. Mawhinney indicated dissent.
  Ms. Corston: It is no use the Minister shaking his head —that is the experience of dentists who spoke to me yesterday. The Minister should try telling them that that is not the case.
  To safeguard their patients' position, dentists now send out reminders telling patients to make an appointment so that they do not risk deregistration. However, the dentists have to bear the added costs of the administration, printing and postage. Most dentists in Avon are keeping open their current lists, but they are not adding patients. The Medical Sickness Society will no longer cover dental practitioners beyond the age of 55 because of its experience of claims resulting from the stress of trying to work harder to keep up. I was told of a dental technician who worked from 2 am to 6 pm to make a living.
  The Bloomfield report will not lead to initiatives until 1993–94. Avon dentists told me yesterday that that would be too late. They asked me to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to paragraph 2.6 on page 3 of the report, which states:
  "I have been asked to identify options"—
  and the word "options" is emphasised—
  "for change rather than a single recommended course. I welcomed this opportunity to examine alternative possibilities. The sums made available for the remuneration of General Dental Practitioners are not simply for the purpose of paying dentists but for the wider purpose of securing dental health. Much will depend upon the direction in which Government—no doubt after full discussion with the relevant interests—wishes NHS dentistry to go."
  The dentists ask, "Which way do the Government want NHS dentistry to go?" They say that it is fast going down the drain.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Roger Sims: I have some sympathy with the Opposition today because when I was first elected to the House in 1974 I spent my first few years on the Opposition Benches. From time to time, Opposition Supply days are available and the Opposition have to find a subject for debate. It has to be one on which they can try to prove that the Government are not doing a good job and they could do better. That is the Opposition's position today. After an interval of two years, they have settled upon the NHS. I suppose the feeling was that the health service is always a good subject for the purposes of finding something somewhere that has gone wrong. But the Opposition may well be having second thoughts about
  926
  their wisdom in choosing this topic for debate, having been so effectively dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a very robust speech. In my view, she won game, set and match, as she did at Question Time today.
  Inevitably the cry is for more money—hardly a new or original slogan. But we all know that more money than ever is being spent on the national health service, and we heard from my right hon. Friend today of a further £2 billion. The argument is not simply about how much money is spent but also about how it is spent. That is the important issue that we are discussing today.
  The other theme that has been coming through revolves around the in-word "crisis". How very original. When has the national health service not been in crisis? I made a point of looking up the definition of "crisis". Presumably the Opposition are using it in the sense of an emergency or a time of distress—as they allege. But a crisis, by definition, is also a crucial or decisive moment or a turning-point. That is where the national health service is. We all remember the 1980s, when although more and more resources were being devoted to the health service, there were still lengthening waiting lists and variations in the quality and efficiency of service up and down the country. This led to the Prime Minister's instigation of the review that resulted in the White Paper from which flowed the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. I have vivid memories of serving on the Standing Committee that dealt with that Bill.
  A review of health services is hardly unique to this country. Such exercises are taking place in countries all over the world. It is well that, following the general election, there was a change in the health affairs personnel on the Opposition Front Bench. If the dire predictions of the hon. Members for Livingstone (Mr. Cook) and for Peckham (Ms. Harman) were quoted to their faces, they would at least blush, if not hang their heads in shame.
  The truth is that the reforms are working and that the beneficiaries are the patients. I am not saying that the reforms are working smoothly. There are bound to be problems in a new climate and with a new way of working. Hospitals must learn that when they know the contracted work for elective activity the work load must be phased. They must involve the clinicians in the management process, and the clinicians must be willing to he so involved. The situation is not easy. There are bound to be teething problems, but what is intended can be done and, indeed, is being done up and down the country. Only here and there have problems arisen. Everybody can learn from the experience of the early days of these reforms, just as we are learning from the experience of the role of the GP fund holders, who can themselves negotiate contracts. There are bound to be circumstances in which health authorities have exhausted their budgets and where hospitals have capacity that the fund holders can use. Why not, if priorities and emergencies are not overridden? Consultants are now going to surgeries to do work on the spot for fund holders—a new concept for surgeons, but surely a good one. This too is working for the benefit of patients.
  Some problems have certainly arisen with regard to extra-contractual referrals. Perhaps that too was inevitable, as this was unknown territory. Again we are learning from experience, and health authorities may need

  927
  to earmark a larger proportion of their budgets for extra contractual referrals. But the fact is that the reforms are working.
  As soon as the White Paper proposals came out, it was obvious that they would have a particular effect on London. I recall discussing this matter with a previous Secretary of State—not the last one but the one before that, I think. Up to now general practitioners in outer London and the home counties have tended to refer cases to their friends in the inner London hospitals. Now, because of costs, they refer far more on a local basis. It would have been easy to let matters take their course, to have a gradual falling-off of activity in the London hospitals, some of which would eventually have withered on the vine. But this would have been messy, it would not have been in the interests of patients, and it would have been costly.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that she grasped this nettle by asking Professor Tomlinson to look at the matter and make recommendations. Clearly there must be managed change. I admire the way in which the Tomlinson report is now being considered in detail, and I admire especially the diligent manner in which my hon. Friend the Minister for Health is visiting every hospital and—contrary to the impression given by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne)—listening to representations about the proposals in the report.
  It is interesting to note the similarities between the Tomlinson report and the King's Fund report and to note the number of hospitals—such as Guy's and St. Thomas's, Brompton and Marsden—which, by discussing possible ways forward, were anticipating Tomlinson before he even started his work. I eagerly await my right hon. Friend's decision, but should like to make two comments.
  First, we must not lose sight of the fact that Tomlinson is not only about the number of hospital beds—at present there are four acute beds per 1,000 people in London, as against 2.5 nationally—but also about primary and community care in inner London, which is well below the national average and, clearly, under-resourced. Secondly, Tomlinson looked at medical need but, on his own admission, did not quantify costs, on the rather curious ground that it would be too difficult to do so. I do not need to tell my right hon. Friend or the House that costs cannot be ignored, that they are an essential element of any political decision. We have to consider not only the loss of capital investment that the closure of hospitals entails but also the cost of effecting some of the moves that are proposed.
  It is obviously important that some of the centres of excellence in London be retained. But, whereas some are simply teams of highly qualified people—and it is immaterial where they work from—others involve specially constructed units and complex equipment. For example, one needs only to visit the cardiac unit at Brompton hospital to see that its removal to purpose-built premises at Charing Cross hospital might be possible but would be enormously expensive. Then there is the unique asthma/allergy centre that is under construction at Guy's. Incidentally, that centre was financed largely by funds raised voluntarily.
  There are two other matters that I wish to raise briefly. First, I pay tribute to the work of the voluntary hospices, which perform such a valuable role in relieving the national health service by providing high-quality care to people nearing the end of their days. From modest
  928
  beginnings—pioneered by Dame Cicely Saunders—they have become a national movement. I welcome the fact that the Department gives them some support, but more would certainly be welcome.
  Secondly, my right hon. Friend will not be surprised if I mention the question of nurse prescribing. In view of my personal involvement, I was naturally deeply disappointed at the decision—one of the autumn statement measures —to defer implementation. But, more to the point, it was a very deep disappointment to the thousands of nurses who were looking forward to such a step—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I wish to speak about the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital. Last Wednesday a candlelit procession moved from Bart's to St. Paul's cathedral. This was followed by a service as part of the campaign to save Bart's. Sixteen hundred people prayed to God that Bart's would survive. Afterwards the Dean of St. Paul's said to me, "If Bart's does survive, perhaps we should have a thanksgiving service." I pointed out to him that, because of the personal determination of the Secretary of State to close it, Bart's might not survive. We may have to rely on the Prime Minister's political antennae which tell him that there will be an enormous eruption if the hospital is closed.
  People are puzzled at the attitude of the Secretary of State. They ask why she seems determined to do what the Black Death, Henry VIII and Hitler's bombers could not do. They ask why she desires to destroy St. Bartholomew's hospital. The answer is simple. It lies in the fact that she wants to get rid of the impediment which has blocked her political career—the fact that she has less political clout than the proverbial feather falling on a blancmange. She wants to be able to say that she took on the finest doctors in Britain and beat them. She wants to be able to say that she closed down the best hospital in the world, and it shows how strong she it. Closing down the best hospital in the world, however, is a sign not of strength but of weakness.
  The House will be interested to know that shortly before Christmas, St. Bartholomew's hospital received a telephone call from one of the best-known journalists in the country who said that he had dined with the Secretary of State and that she had told him she was going to close Bart's. We have recorded a number of occasions, mainly Conservative functions, when she has told people that she will close Bart's. Bearing in kind that one is not supposed to prejudge a consultation, this is a contempt of Parliament and an insult to democracy.
  To show that I am even-handed, I should like to say of the Minister for Health, with whom I have had many talks since the consultation began, that I have found him to be courteous, charming and propriety itself. When the decision to keep Bart's open is finally made, I imagine that the Secretary of State will resign and that he will take her job. Congratulations, doctor.
  There is something special about a hospital that can persuade one of our greatest cathedrals to hold a service for it. There is something special about a hospital that has persuaded no fewer than 750,000 Londoners, an enormous number, to sign petitions in its favour. Looking back over the past 50 years, I cannot remember an occasion when one single, small institution facing political survival has

  929
  had such support. I dare say that no institution this century facing political survival on its own has had the same amount of political support.
  There is something special about a hospital that has support from every part of the globe. I have here a publication which contains 53 letters from all parts of the world to the Prime Minister. We also know that the Prime Minister has received a large number of letters of which St. Bartholomew's hospital does not have a copy. In addition to that, Professor Leslie Rees, the dean of the medical school, has received 406 letters from 46 countries round the world. They are from doctors and specialists, all of whom are pre-eminent in their field. So, in total, 500 top doctors and medical scientists around the globe have pleaded for St. Bartholomew's hospital to stay open.
  I will give a few brief quotations. Herbert Pardes, dean of the faculty of medicine of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, writes to the Prime Minister:
  "The adverse effects of closing St. Bartholomew's Hospital will be felt not only in the United Kingdom, but the medical community throughout the world. What's more, it may raise justifiable doubts about the future viability of the British biomedical research establishment which is already under attack by recent extensive budget cuts."
  Joe Leigh Simpson, faculty professor at the University of Tennessee, Memphis, writes about the proposed closure of Bart's:
  "I hope this is mere rumor as I personally have ongoing experience with two groups of valued collaborators—Professor Nicholas Wald (Epidemiology) and Professors Gedis Grudzinskas and Timothy Chard (Reproductive Endocrinology/Biology). I can personally attest that both these groups are not merely national (U.K. treasures) but rather worldwide resources."
  Professor Jorn Nerup from the Steno Diabetes Center in Denmark writes to our Prime Minister:
  "Seen from abroad, closing this excellent institution and dispersing its facilities and specialists to other locations will be a major loss for British as well as for international medical science."
  Lastly, Professor Jenkin from the Toronto-Bayview Regional Cancer Centre writes to our Prime Minister:
  "I have recently heard, to my distress, that there is an official proposal to close and disperse St. Bartholomew's Hospital. I cannot understand the thinking that must have gone into such a decision … [it] is quite unbelievable and surely unprecedented."
  The Secretary of State, in attempting to take on the whole of the world's medical establishment, is surely behaving like some female version of Doctor Strangelove.
  I have spoken in an Adjournment debate, but I want to make two further brief points. Tomlinson measures bed efficiency by the number of beds that a hospital uses to treat 1,000 patients. He uses this analysis to say that there is a great deal of scope for efficiency improvements in London as a whole, and that this factor, rather than changes in patient flows, will be crucial in determining loss of beds. Yet, amazingly, in his analysis of individual hospitals' vulnerability, Tomlinson includes potential loss of patient flows, but makes absolutely no reference to performance on efficiency.
  The North East Thames regional health authority submitted figures to the Tomlinson inquiry in July. The figures were not published, but I have them here. On bed efficiency, they show that Bart's is more efficient than the Royal London, the Royal Free, University College
  930
  Hospital/Middlesex and the Whittington/Royal Northern. Further figures show that, taking the combined effect of efficiency improvements and loss of distant patient referrals, Bart's is less vulnerable to bed loss than any other inner London provider in the North East Thames region—that is, less vulnerable than the Royal London, which it is proposed to keep open, the Royal Free, UCH/Middlesex and the Whittington/Royal Northern.
  The region also submitted to Tomlinson an analysis of day cases as a measure of efficiency and progressive clinical practice. It shows that Bart's fared better than the Royal London, the Royal Free, UCH/Middlesex and the Whittington/Royal Northern.
  There is, therefore, a gigantic inconsistency in the Tomlinson report. Tomlinson says that efficiency is the key to bed loss in London. He says that the survival of many hospitals will depend on it. Yet he recommends the closure of the hospital in north-east London with the best record of efficiency.
  My last point concerns the financial deficit of Bart's. Tomlinson wrote that the unit was in severe recurrent financial difficulties. The Minister of Health, quite rightly, has bullied and cajoled Bart's into bringing its deficit down. In June this year, its total projected deficit was £11.45 million, made up of £6.74 million recurring deficit and £4.71 million non-recurring deficit. As a result of the extraordinary efforts of the new chief executive, Professor Besser, two days ago the total deficit had come down from £11.45 million to £5.5 million, made up of £2.45 million recurring deficit and OA million non-recurring deficit. That is an extraordinary example of bringing finances under control. The news that I have for the House, however, will excite the Minister and make him ecstatic, because early this morning I was lying—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to cut the hon. Member's peroration short. Mr. James Cran.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. James Cran: This is one of those occasions that generates a great deal more heat than light. I am bound to say that, on the basis of the evidence before me, most of the light in today's debate has been shed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in what was a superb speech.
  I say that against the background of the Opposition's motion which is peppered with exaggerations—"growing crisis", "total fragmentation", "destruction of NHS dentistry". That is simply not reflected in my constituency in east Yorkshire. From correspondence with my constituents, I know that they take the view that the internal market is beneficial to their interests and is delivering, as the Americans would say, the bacon to the people of east Yorkshire.
  I freely admit—it is only prudent to do so—that general practitioners were unhappy in the run-up to becoming fund holders. They distributed leaflets to my constituents describing the dire consequences of fund holding. I would not say all of them, but many are now beginning to see the benefits to which they have signed up.
  The same applies to the staff in the trusts in my constituency. Before the event, staff could not relate to this thing called the national health service because it was too

  931
  big. They had few means of communicating with anyone. Now the NHS has been broken down into units to which they can relate.
  I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) say in an intervention in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he had unsuccessfully requested statistics relating to the health service in Yorkshire. I have found it exceedingly easy to obtain statistics on health provision in Yorkshire. All I had to do was to ask for them, and I got them.
  I could spend much time outlining those beneficial statistics, but I shall not do so because I do not have the time. Suffice it to say that statistics resulting from a survey of health users in the Yorkshire region, which was published in November last year by the National Association of Health Authorities, show a satisfaction rate of 89 to 90 per cent. Such a level of satisfaction would not be achieved if the Opposition's motion, to which I am having to address myself, was the case. It simply would not be so.
  The Opposition could and perhaps should say that the level of satisfaction should be higher. If so, I would agree. That would be a reasonable statement to make. But, on the basis of a 90 per cent. satisfaction rate, it is not reasonable to say that the NHS in my neck of the woods is in crisis.

  My constituency has a first-class general hospital, the Castle Hill hospital, built mainly out of own resources. I receive few complaints from my constituents about health care and health delivery at that hospital. Out-patient cover there has increased by about 54 per cent.
  Opposition Members have spent much time talking about long waiting lists, but open heart surgery in my constituency has one of the shortest waiting lists in the country. The same is true of cardiology. Patients are attracted from all around the country to my constituency and the Castle Hill hospital.
  There is clear evidence that people prefer day care and Castle Hill hospital and my authority are responding to that. I repeat that my constituents are not complaining in the way that Opposition Members are. In addition, the radiological unit at Castle Hill hospital is acquiring a new digital X-ray machine and a whole body scanner.
  I could go on and on outlining—[Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members would really like me to go on, and if I had the time I would. I shall simply say that the evidence does not seem to show a service in retreat.
  However, naturally, all is not completely well. It would be silly for me to say that everything is well. Of course, it is not. My constituents' access to orthopaedic surgery is not as it should be. One of my constituents had to wait 96 weeks for an appointment with the relevant consultant. That is simply not good enough, as we all know. However, I can report that my health authority and the hospital trusts are moving like greased lightning to reduce that waiting list. If it does not reduce to the level to which I think that it should, I shall make vigorous representations to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health and my health authority. But I am confident that improvement is on the way.
  I have no worries that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not respond in the way that I would wish to the Bloomfield report on dentistry in the NHS. I simply want to register the fact that my constituents wish to be able to obtain dental care within the NHS. They do not want, as is reported to me to be the case in other parts of the country, only private dental care to be available.
  932
  That is not acceptable to my constituents. It is in that light that I would expect my right hon. Friend to respond to the Bloomfield report.
  The Department of Health has looked in some detail at no fault compensation. In one case at the Beverley Westwood hospital, not involving one of my constituents, a child was starved of oxygen at birth with the result that she sustained severe mental injury. Eight years later the health authority has decided upon a settlement of £l million. The delay is just not good enough. All hon. Members will appreciate that the family in question has gone through eight years of sheer hell. I hope that it is not beyond the wit of man to devise a compensation system whereby such families would not have such an agonising wait and I await the comments of the Secretary of State.
  In summary, the NHS in my constituency is in good order. We deeply resent people, particularly politicians, running down the NHS. Thus, Opposition Members who would like to see how the NHS should be run should come to my constituency. I should be delighted to welcome them and show them around.
  7.27 pm
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: I listened carefully to the Secretary of State and some of what she said surprised me greatly. She expressed great respect and admiration for workers in the NHS, but went on to denounce members of the National Union of Public Employees and other trade unions. Apparently, she respects only those NHS workers who are not members of a trade union.
  The right hon. Lady talked about the hot line, or the information line, that she is opening today. That will not be much use to the gentleman in my constituency who wrote to me recently to say that his urological operation had been cancelled three times and to ask whether I could find out when he was likely to have it. In reply to my inquiry, the Royal London hospital trust said that the district health authority was low on funds and could afford only emergency and urgent operations and my constituent would be considered in April in the new financial year.
  The Secretary of State said that people often do not know to what services they are entitled. In the old days, my constituents knew very well how to get their services. They used to go to their GP, wait a few weeeks and get an appointment with a consultant who would then put them on his list and they would have an operation within a fairly short time. Now they do not know how to obtain the services that they need, because those services are not there. Such services are not free; people have paid national insurance contributions throughout their working lives to receive them. Some of those people have hardly used the national health service in the past, but, when they are older and need an operation, they find that the service is no longer there for them.
  I am sure that the Royal London hospital has not given up all elective surgery; but for whom is it performing that surgery? Is it performing surgery for people who live outside London and whose GPs are budget holders? That is very likely.
  An old friend of mine, whom I have not seen for years, telephoned me today: he said that he had had four heart attacks, and was waiting for a bypass operation. He went to Kings College hospital in south London, and was told that he would have to wait for at least 15 months. He said

  933
  to me, rather naively, "Strangely enough, the only three people who were admitted came from quite far away: one of them lived in Ramsgate. I could not understand it. All of us local people were sent home. Perhaps they were emergency cases." I thought, "Perhaps their GPs were budget holders, or their district health authorities had not run out of funds."
  The system is becoming totally unfair. As many hon. Members have pointed out, it is turning into a two-tier system. This callous, inefficient, doctrinaire, bungling Government are destroying the benefits of a service that people have enjoyed for four decades.
  The Royal London hospital trust—the very organisation that wrote to tell me how sorry it was that my constituent's operation had been cancelled three times; that the trust understood how awful that must be, but he still could not have the operation—is in favour of the Tomlinson report. It is closing one of its two accident and emergency departments in February, but says that it can deal with some of the specialty work currently handled by Bart's, along with paediatric work currently handled by the Queen Elizabeth children's hospital: a merger is proposed between that hospital and the Homerton hospital. The trust also says that it can take on the work of the London chest hospital and sell its site. It can do all that—it is into empire building—but it cannot operate on a man whose operation has already been cancelled three times.
  I recently visited the Queen Elizabeth children's hospital and the London chest hospital, and met the general managers of both hospitals. The London chest hospital is in a rather salubrious, unusually green part of the borough of Tower Hamlets, near Victoria park. It has a wonderful reputation: many people have written to me saying how awful it would be if it closed and how it saved their lives, or their mothers' lives. If it becomes part of the Royal London hospital—separated from the Brompton chest hospital—the building will be sold in the medium term: that is the plan. Patients with severe respiratory problems will be treated in the Whitechapel area, in the midst of filth and dust, rather than in the green area that contains the London chest hospital, with all its marvellous facilities. That will not benefit the people of London, no matter how the Secretary of State twists the truth and tries to pull the wool over our eyes. It will damage their chances of good treatment, and will prevent lives from being saved and improved.
  Although Tomlinson treats it as a general hospital, the Queen Elizabeth children's hospital is more than that. It is a specialist hospital. If it is merged with Homerton, Great Ormond Street hospital will be affected very badly. I was told by officials at Queens that, without the Queen Elizabeth children's hospital, Great Ormond Street would be unable to provide the full range of paediatric care for which it is universally renowned. The research in pathology, radiology and anaesthetics which, for babies and children, represents a very special sphere of practice is done at the Queen Elizabeth children's hospital. If the Tomlinson proposals are implemented, the Great Ormond Street hospital will have to compete in the market, and is unlikely to be able to do so successfully: a comparatively
  934
  small volume of the population uses its services, and the highly specialised procedures for small children are expensive.
  The Carshalton and Westminster children's hospitals are closing, so that London will be the only capital city without a specialist children's hospital. Hospitals in Toronto, Boston and Melbourne, for instance, all work on the system used by the Queen Elizabeth and Great Ormond Street hospitals. We should view the matter in context: 30 per cent. of babies in London attend an accident and emergency department in the first six months of their lives, and 15 per cent. are kept in—mostly with respiratory and gastroenterinal problems. The child population in Tower Hamlets, on the borders of which the Queen Elizabeth hospital is situated, will grow by up to 19 per cent. in the next few years, and the area has twice the average number of premature births. These recommendations can only lead to the death of babies and children through lack of facilities. In these circumstances, do hon. Members think it is worthwhile to implement a doctrinaire policy about market forces in order to save money? I certainly do not; nor do my constituents, and nor would any right-minded person.
  The Tomlinson proposals will affect Londoners severely. We want better primary health care in Tower Hamlets; there are many single-person practices there, and, although the position has improved, it could improve further. We want better care in the community—and we want the funding for it: in the past, care in the community has meant increased burdens on carers of both sexes, but especially women, and, often, on the whole family. "Care in the Community" has meant no real care, but the imposition of more burdens on people who are already doing more than their fair share—picking up the pieces of the welfare state that the Government are destroying. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, 13,000 Londoners are on waiting lists. The Americans are currently demanding, and moving towards, better health care provision; meanwhile, our Government are moving us towards the bad arrangements that have existed in that country hitherto.
  A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned dentistry. The Government have offered early retirement to all dentists over the age of 55. My dentist has taken it; he would have been stupid not to. But it is a way of encouraging large numbers of dentists to leave the health service. The other day, my husband had a small filling and his teeth cleaned: it cost £12.60. He was told, "This is the last time; at the end of January, the dentist will retire and do only private practice. He will not work in the health service any more." That dentist had spent 20 years in the health service. I said, "What will the same cost privately?" I was told, "Between £45 and £50."
  I remember the days before the health service. I remember when many people in my constituency—not necessarily old people; some were not much more than 20 —had no teeth. Their teeth had been pulled out, they could not afford false teeth, their gums had hardened and they had had to eat sops. I recall clearly their gummy faces. Do we want a repetition of that? I fear that, with prices such as this, many people will be unable to afford dental treatment. Meanwhile, competition to get on to the list of a national health service dentist is becoming increasingly fierce.
  Opposition Members are proud of the health service. Labour created it, and is justly proud of its creation.

  935
  Londoners are proud of their hospitals, and do not want them to close. I have had an enormous postbag about Bart's, although it is in an adjacent constituency. We want to modernise and improve the health service, but on the basis of the fundamental principles—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Ms. Gordon: May I finish my sentence?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: No; I am sorry.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Gerald Malone: I am sorry to have to disagree with one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), but I feel safe in doing so because he is not in the Chamber. He suggested that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was not nearly so welcome as his predecessor. I profoundly disagree: I believe that in this debate we can put in context some of the remarks made by Opposition Members before the general election, and some of their predictions about the health service which would result from the re-election of a Conservative Government. One of my hon. Friends mentioned that earlier, but chose not to return to the assertions made then. It may be worth detaining the House for long enough to quote some of those predictions, so that we can see whether they would be endorsed yet again by Opposition Members.
  We were told by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that we were moving quickly towards a system in which patients would die in casualty rooms while the accountant was finding out who would pay for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) said that she had never heard of waving the shroud before: I commend that totally unsupported assertion as just one example of what was happening on the Opposition Benches during the last Parliament. We also heard from the Labour party that the Government were planning to embark on the final stage of selling off those hospitals that they had prepared for privatisation, that we were proposing to return health care to the free market of the 1930s and that we were creating trusts which would not be part of the NHS. That was one of the five great scare stories, which ran for some months without any foundation, none of which came to pass and none of which will come to pass.
  I welcome the transition of the hon. Member for Livingston to another post and the arrival of the hon. Member for Brightside, from whom we heard not scare stories but nothing at all. We certainly heard little to support the contention in the Opposition motion that the health service is in crisis, and we heard nothing about the second part of the motion, which calls for reform. What reform? I doubt that we shall hear more detail from the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) because the truth of the matter, whether she or other Opposition Members like it or not, is that Labour has conceded that our reforms will remain broadly in place—and quite right, too.
  I wish to deal with the free market in health, which has not been mentioned so far. It is not a free market at all. Opposition Members suggest that the unseen, hidden hand of the market is directing reforms in patient care. That is sheer balderdash. There is a seen hand in the internal marketplace which has been created by national health service trusts—the seen hand of primary care. We must not
  936
  forget that what underpins the reforms is the fact that, for the first time in the health service, provision will be dictated by primary carers. It is not the unseen hand of accountants that will dictate what happens, but the seen hand of need as determined by general practitioners who will be able to place contracts and have them fulfilled.
  Many eloquent speeches have been made on the Tomlinson report by Opposition Members who have constituency interests, I too, have a constituency interest, but it is somewhat different. It lies at the heart of what Tomlinson is trying to do—to reallocate resources within the health service to areas of population expansion and away from areas of population decline. That is what drives the report. Wessex region has, historically, received one of the lowest allocations of resources in the country, principally because a tremendous amount of resources have been siphoned off to nearby London. I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that Wessex's 1.5 per cent. increase in real terms for 1993–94 is extremely welcome, taking Wessex's budget to over £1 billion for the first time, but still leaving it as one of the lowest areas of expenditure per head of population. However, Wessex has experienced the highest growth in population of any area in the south in the past 10 or 15 years. I welcome the Tomlinson report because it will mean that resources follow population in a more sensible pattern than hitherto, which will be to the long-term good of health care not only in the Wessex region but throughout the country.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a tremendous speech in opening the debate. She and other health Ministers have made remarkable efforts to visit all the hospitals affected by and mentioned in the Tomlinson report and to listen to what is said. I hope that she will decide that some of the decisions about hospitals will be determined by those in the primary care sector, who by the contracts that they provide will show what the health service pattern should be in London. I hope that that will determine the process.
  An application made last year for the Winchester integrated health care trust was rejected because it was deemed not to be in the interests of the Government's policy for it to be an integrated trust. The application has been resubmitted with some changes, and I commend it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is important that Winchester should be carried along in the fourth tranche of health care trusts. Some changes have been made since the previous application was submitted. Some fear was expressed that the extent of current clinical and management integration in the health service in Winchester would not enable a self-standing trust to operate. I have taken considerable care to speak to all those who provide the service. Management changes have been effected and are being implemented. I believe that it will be well worth while giving the application close consideration again. I do not want to go through all the details in this short debate, but I shall write to my hon. Friend the Minister soon to back up the arguments advanced by those who provide health care in my constituency.
  I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to those who provide health care in our constituencies. We owe them a tremendous debt. They do a tremendous job, but they do a better job under the reforms that the Government have put in place than they were able to do before. A record number of patients have been treated in Winchester this year. Like many other hospitals, we are

  937
  now experiencing problems with pressure, but they do not disguise the fact that 28,000 patients have been treated. That was the target, but it has been exceeded by 400 already and there is still some time to go. It is a bit rich to suggest that such success, where budgets are being used by enthusiastic medical personnel and where more patients are being treated than before, is not an improvement on the previous situation.
  The debate has exposed clearly the paucity of Labour policies for the health service. They criticised the health service in the run-up to the last election and exaggerated its position, saying things which were not going to happen and, what is worse, which they knew were not going to happen and formed no part of the Government's policy. We have now seen a collapse into inactivity. Labour Members do not know what their policy is. They have fumbled and mumbled about what they would do, but they will not come out—I shall be interested to see whether we hear more about this in the winding up speeches—with a detailed policy about why we are wrong and what they would do about it.
  7.47 pm
  Dr. Joe Hendron: The World Health Organisation has defined health as
  "a state of complete physical and mental well-being and not merely the absence of disease."
  Health economists inevitably place themselves in an uneasy position if the economy being promoted by them undermines that well-being, which should be central to their endeavour. In short, what has gone wrong with the national health service?
  Rationalisation really means centralisation, whereby the central, powerful and big are allowed to colonise the weak, small and peripheral. In other words, central institutions are dictating people's need, rather than responding to needs of the people. We have the technology to put men on the moon, yet there is much debate about whether women can have their babies in the local hospital.
  Since the Westminster election of 1987, the Conservative Government have embarked on a reorganisation of the health service that owes more to the ideology of the marketplace than to real concern for the health and well-being of people. Northern Ireland has adopted a copy of those proposals, regardless of the different circumstances of small size, high levels of deprivation and the fact that regional specialist services are provided in a single location.
  The Government's changes are not intended to reform the national health service as a public service but to deform it into a commercial business. Hospitals are being forced to compete against each other for business rather than to co-operate with each other for the benefit of the patient. The national health service is not and should not be treated as a marketplace. There is no proper democratic accountability.
  The Royal group of hospitals in Belfast, which includes the Royal Victoria, the Royal Maternity and the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, and which is in the heart of my constituency, is among the finest in Western Europe. It is not only in the front line of medicine but has been in the front line of civil unrest and conflict in Northern Ireland for more than 20 years. It serves the people of Belfast and, through its regional services, the
  938
  people of Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to the nurses, doctors and other professionals who, with the nonprofessional staff, have given so much to the health and welfare of the people.
  It takes much more than manpower to run a health service. Under the so-called rationalisation of services, many peripheral hospitals in Northern Ireland have been closed and there has been a serious reduction in the number of beds in the larger ones, including the Royal group of which I spoke.
  The incidence of coronary artery disease in Northern Ireland is one of the highest in the world. Through its research, the Northern Ireland Chest, Heart and Stroke Association has shown that 1,200 bypass operations are needed each year, but only half that number was being carried out because of a lack of staff and resources. However, I accept that the chief medical officer in Northern Ireland is doing something about that at present.
  The Royal group of hospitals has applied for trust status and will become self-governing on 1 April. While I wish the chief executive and his staff well, I believe that the road ahead is fraught with great difficulties. Only in the past few days we have been informed that the Eastern health board had a secret meeting last week. It is to hold a public meeting on, I think, Thursday and will put forward proposals that will decimate those great hospitals. Even those seeking trust status have been taken by surprise.
  Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I read last week's British Medical Journal which said that many hospitals around Britain are working at less than full capacity because health authorities do not have enough money to buy their services. Apparently, some of those hospitals will have to scale down admissions and operations unless they can obtain more funds from the health authorities and fund-holding general practices that buy their services.
  The Government have ignored the wishes and needs of the people. Perhaps they will listen to the British Medical Association which said that the breakdown of many hospital services, which will lead to a two-tier provision to patients in many parts of the country, is wholly unacceptable. The current cash-limited funding is inadequate to deliver fully comprehensive patient care. Also like other hon. Members, I read the letter that the Consultants Specialist Committee recently published which speaks of the difficulties of most of the hospitals in Great Britain.
  In the Government's strategy for community care, it is right to place great emphasis on keeping the elderly, the mentally and physically handicapped and the chronically sick in the community if at all possible. However, proper resources and care for the carers are extremely important. There are an estimated 210,000 carers in Northern Ireland according to the Carers National Association and without them current Government policy would be a nonsense. They are unpaid and largely uncomplaining. Much greater emphasis must be put on respite care which can be of such tremendous benefit to the carer.
  Earlier, reference was made to the young man who went into the lion's den. One of the greatest problems in primary health care is with the young psychotic or schizophrenic who refuses treatment. I know that the Secretary of State for Health expressed her concern at the time and I shall certainly wait with great interest for any realistic proposals to resolve that burning issue.

  939
  Insufficient attention has been paid to the implications for health of social inequalities, including unemployment and poor housing, which were identified in the 1980 Black report, "Inequalities in Health", and in "The Health Divide" published in 1987.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I share the burden that the hon. Gentleman is bringing before the House. Does he agree that where there is a need for cardiac surgery in Northern Ireland, there could also be room for co-operation? The City hospital had the theatre space and nursing staff, if only surgeons had been prepared to use them instead of saying that there was not sufficient surgery space in the Royal Victoria, as a result of which many people are still waiting for surgery.
  Dr. Hendron: The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) makes a point, but I understand that it would be difficult to have the extremely expensive technology for cardiac surgery in two hospitals that are literally only a mile apart. However, I understand that there are plans to increase the number of operations in the Royal Victoria.
  The health service in Northern Ireland is in a state of chaos. Senior executives are attempting to defend the indefensible while people in need of urgent care are being neglected or ignored. The Government have unashamedly helped to secure the acquiescence of a significant number of senior staff by enhancing their terms of employment.
  The national health service is in a state of crisis, and I seriously believe that the Government should take heed of that message which is ringing out across the land.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Michael Trend: From listening to the Opposition, one would think that a £37 billion national health service was the end of the world, instead of the envy of the world which indeed it is. We have witnessed the political football marked "underfunding" being kicked about wildly and heard the national health service being talked down. Overall, I believe that the national health service is in good shape and improving all the time, but there are aspects still to be considered. That is the work of the Select Committee on Health, of which I have the honour to be a member.
  One particular issue which recently came before the Select Committee was tobacco advertising, which I shall deal with in the context of the prevention policies mentioned in the Government's amendment and of the unjustified criticism of the Government by the Opposition spokesman. The Select Committee considered tobacco advertising and took evidence from a number of witnesses. There was general agreement on most of the analysis which resulted from our inquiry—that it was a laudable aim that smoking should be reduced, and that the means to achieve that should be considered. There was a great deal of agreement, but there was also an important dissenting voice on the final recommendations in our report last week which, in a magnificent week for Select Committee reports, was slightly overlooked by the press.
  Of the eight members voting, three did not agree with a total ban. As background to what I shall say later, I should like to explain the two main reasons why I and two others did not agree with such a ban. First, in the context of the European dimension, we were being asked to subscribe to a European directive which we did not think
  940
  was an appropriate vehicle. We did not think that it was necessary for the completion of the single market. It was not a matter of competence for trade but a matter of health —and health is not and should not be a matter for majority voting.
  There was also much bogus talk about what happens in the rest of Europe. Is it not odd that all countries with nationalised tobacco industries support a ban? Some may say that that is to discourage imports. Is it not odd that the vast majority of those countries which grow tobacco and support a ban receive more than £1 billion in European Community subsidies? Is not our record on curbing smoking second only to that of the Netherlands where, as here, there is no statutory ban? Yet there are countries in Europe where tobacco consumption is still rising, and the highest rises in consumption coincide with the lowest prices.
  The second reason why we objected to the final recommendations of the Select Committee report was the important matter of commercial freedom of speech. Tobacco is a legal product. A ban on its advertisement would be a serious step in a free country. Commercial freedom of speech is part of freedom of speech itself. I can think of no other example of the makers and vendors of a legal product not being allowed to advertise that product, but I can think of many areas to which some people might want to extend an advertising ban if the proposed tobacco advertising ban set a precedent. There could be a knock-on effect in many areas, such as alcohol, some fatty foods, fast cars, fireworks, gambling and guns.
  There may be an argument for banning tobacco, but I should like to see someone brave enough to put that argument forward in this context. Unless tobacco is made illegal, commercial freedom of speech should not be sacrificed in terms of banning tobacco advertising. A statutory ban on the advertisement would turn a hard case into bad law. If we need to consider the whole idea of restricting commercial freedom of speech, we should do so openly and honestly. We should not do it in this way. We should start with the basics and establish new ground rules from which to judge particular cases. One generation's unique evil will soon be overtaken by another's. If we changed the general rule on commercial freedom of speech, bans would be extended.
  I support the Government's present position —a basket of measures which have been notably successful. Effective prevention, as mentioned in our amendment, has been the heart of our policy. The Government have done much in terms of price. The price of cigarettes has gone up by 43 per cent. in real terms in the past 12 years. It is calculated that each 10 per cent. increase in price leads to a 3 per cent. to 6 per cent. fall in consumption. It is a serious mechanism.
  The Government have insisted that warnings are put on tobacco packets. The tobacco industry is often accused of being a friend of our party, yet it has taken the Government to court over what it regards as the over-zealous size of the warnings that it is required to put on packets. Some people have said that the only way to spot a cigarette advertisement nowadays is by the large Government health warning on it.
  The Government have made much progress in education, through the health education authority and through the inclusion of aspects of smoking in the national curriculum. The GP contracts include a remit for health promotion clinics which deal with smoking. There is also

  941
  the general determination of the Government and especially of the present Secretary of State as shown in the White Paper, "The Health of the Nation". There is no doubt that the Government intend to bear down strongly on smoking.
  Social pressure is even stronger. In the past 10 or 15 years, people have made their own decision in companies, in factories and elsewhere. In restaurants and in trains, smoking has become socially more unacceptable as the years have gone by. The climate of opinion has been a strong mechanism. Against that background, I support the Government's package of measures. I should like to see the continuation of the voluntary agreement— indeed, I should like to see it strengthened, especially for children and young people.
  1 am suspicious of conceding a false point to the European Community over the directive, especially when I consider the bogus practices which I have described. I have said that I am suspicious of making new case law for commercial freedom of speech without first looking long and hard at the deeper implications of such a move. I am also suspicious of the idea that there is a quick fix to be had by banning tobacco advertising. Although I do not deny the obvious link in general terms between the advertising and consumption of all products, I did not find any convincing evidence in the recent Smee report that a ban now would lead to a major drop in the smoking of cigarettes in the United Kingdom. His own evidence was decidedly ambiguous on that point.
  I am against the quick-fix school of politics in general. Those who advocate quick-fix policies seem to be permanently fixed on the Opposition Benches. They use the NHS as a political football, but, as the past four general elections have shown, all that they have done by kicking the ball around in their characteristically volatile and hare-brained manner is to score an impressive series of own goals. To continue the football metaphor, that is why Labour Members are sitting on the Opposition terraces looking as sick as parrots.
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: The one benefit of the recent economic chaos from the Conservative party's point of view is that it has masked the health chaos developing in the wake of the NHS reforms. The two problems are connected because, just as an ideological obsession with the market has damaged the economy, so an ideological obsession with the market will destroy the national health service unless action is taken to check it.
  We in Scotland are protected at the moment from the worst excesses of the market. There are only two GP fund holders and no trusts yet in Edinburgh, but it is with alarm and dismay that we have looked on as events have unfolded in England. We hear from the British Medical Association that we face the worst crisis for 30 years. We see hospitals under red and yellow alerts, patients turned away and admitted only when they become emergencies and an all-round preference being given to GP fund holders as a two-tier system develops.
  We also read about plans to axe hospitals in London when waiting lists there clearly show that the problem is
  942
  not that there are too many beds for the patients, but that there is simply not enough money to cover the necessary treatments.
  The Government know that the market system, with its purchaser-provider split, is the most effective method by which to cash-limit hospital services. While cynically claiming that choice has been increased, as the Secretary of State said today, the Government know full well that the reverse is true.
  The most extreme manifestation of the market system on the provider side is the trusts, which are now about to be imposed on Lothian region and on Scotland as a whole. The phoney consultation for the West Lothian trust has just been completed, and the phoney consultations for all the hospitals in Edinburgh are about to begin.
  The dates for all the opt-outs were pencilled in in a document in the Scottish Office at the time of the general election and no serious consideration has been given to the alternative, which is directly managed units. Even the Select Committee on Health, with its Conservative majority, suggested that the Government should proceed with caution with trusts. The Committee referred to problems of accountability, of strategic planning and of conditions for staff, yet within two years Scotland will be covered with trusts in the way that England is at present. That is undemocratic from several points of view, not least because the vast majority of people in Scotland are totally opposed to the imposition of opt-out hospitals. It is also irrelevant to the real problems of the health service in Scotland and will make them far worse.
  The real problems in Scotland, as in England, are to do with underfunding, with lack of health service democracy and with the social conditions in which people live. The Government may ignore the connection between poor health and poverty, but Dr. Helen Zealley, the director of public health for Lothian health board, recently asked the health board to take seriously the greater rates of death and of illness among people living in deprived areas of Lothian. The figure for such people was 29 per cent., and many of them live in my constituency. It is scandalous that that link was not highlighted in the recent White Paper "The Health of the Nation".
  The effects of underfunding in Lothian can be seen in waiting lists, accident and emergency services, continuing care of the elderly and community care. More than 25 per cent. of people wait more than one year for general surgery in Lothian. There is no way of reducing that list without spending more money.
  Accident and emergency services in Edinburgh were centralised in the Royal infirmary following the cash crisis in 1990. I and three of my hon. Friends visited that hospital on Friday and saw the consequences of that centralisation of services. We were told that 80 per cent. of beds were tied up in emergency admissions. Of course, that is one reason why it is difficult to reduce the waiting lists. We were told that there were not enough beds in the coronary care unit but that every 999 heart attack call had to go to that hospital because it was the only one in Edinburgh with an accident and emergency department. We were also told, as I knew full well, that people from all over Edinburgh had to go to that hospital with even the most minor injuries. That has been the result of the centralisation.
  Care of the elderly is another issue which is being hotly debated in Edinburgh. Following the English example, Lothian health board proposes to cut the number of NHS

  943
  continuing care beds from 1,800 to 500. That means that 1,300 beds will be privatised. The reason is simply that the hoard does not have a sufficiently large capital allocation to build the necessary new buildings. That means that we cannot have the continuing care hospital in my constituency of Leith for which many people have been planning in the past few years.
  Another cause of anxiety to which my attention was drawn at a recent surgery is the drugs which the Government will allow on prescription. A newspaper article was brought to me which said that many drugs would no longer be available on prescription. When I sent it to the Secretary of State, she did not deny that that was the case. Examples of such drugs were the contraceptives Femodene and Minulet. They are more expensive than others and may be taken out of the list for that reason, even though they have no side effects and may help to protect against breast cancer.
  The Government claim that they are putting a great deal of money into the health service in Scotland. However, detailed analysis of the figures shows that the outturn health expenditure this year for Scotland is £3.64 billion. The planned health expenditure for next year is £3.75 billion. That is an increase of slightly more than 3 per cent.
  Mr. George Kynoch: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that health expenditure in Scotland is some 50 per cent. higher in real terms than when his party was in office? Does he accept that a record number of patients are being treated in Scotland and that there has been a great deal of major hospital development in Scotland since his party was last in office? We now have more hospital beds and more doctors and nurses. Far from being in crisis, the health service in Scotland is faring well under the Conservative Government.
  Mr. Chisholm: I cannot reply to all of those points, but the number of nurses has declined recently. I ask the hon. Gentleman to use all his influence to ensure that his Government approve a new hospital for Edinburgh. The proposal has been with the Treasury for a long time and many people in Edinburgh want an answer soon.
  The 3 per cent. increase in health expenditure in Scotland covers normal inflation, but everyone knows that health service inflation runs at 2 per cent. beyond that. That is not covered. Everyone knows that an extra 1 per cent. is needed to cover the needs of the increasing elderly population. That is not covered. Everyone knows that at least an extra 0.5 per cent. is needed to cover developments in medical technology. That is not covered either. So the much-trumpeted deal on health expenditure for Scotland is not acceptable and is not enough.
  The example of the accident and emergency services which I gave a moment ago also raises the important issue of health service democracy. When the Public Accounts Committee recently investigated accident and emergency services in Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) asked the chief executive of the national health service in Scotland whether local people had been consulted about removing the accident and emergency service from the Western General hospital. The chief executive was reluctant to answer for the simple reason that no consultation had been carried out.
  944
  In my constituency people from Granton, Pilton and Muirhouse opposed vigorously and vociferously the closure of the accident and emergency department. Yet their views were ignored.
  The rhetoric on trusts is all about taking account of local needs and paying attention to local people. But the reality is the opposite. Reference has been made in the debate today to new appointees to the health boards. There is no democracy about that. The political affiliations of new appointees have been referred to by several hon. Members. I would point out that few women and few representatives of the ethnic minorities sit on the new trust boards. The proportion is even lower than in the House. That shows how bad the position is.
  The new agenda for the national health service must involve emphasising the connection between poverty and poor health. It must involve developing health service democracy and replacing the market. That is not going back but going forward. The Conservative party lives in the past with its market obsessions. It has taken 14 years for many people to see the Conservative party's failures in economic policy, but its health policies are imploding after only two years. It is time for another U-turn. Let the Government start by saving all the hospitals in London and not proceeding with any more trusts in either Scotland or England.
  8.16 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: It is a shame that the debate, which could have been an opportunity for rational and mature discussion about the future of the national health service, has been turned into something of a circus by the Opposition. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) made a supposedly keynote but ultimately sournote opening speech. He made personal attacks on the Secretary of State. I am sure that she is flattered that the Opposition feel that they have to attack her personally on so many occasions.
  The hon. Member for Brightside failed to grasp the main issues. Startlingly enough, he did not come up with a single suggestion about how to move ahead in the national health service. Instead, he carped on about this and that problem and threw up individual cases, as we have heard Opposition Members do in every debate in the House since the election. Not one constructive idea has been given. For a party that believed that it would form a Government last April, it is amazing that, after all this time, it cannot come up with one constructive idea about the way forward.
  However, Conservative Members like to listen. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne), the Liberal spokesman, is not in her place. Conservative Members like to consult. We do not take lightly the views of any who work in the NHS, not least the British Medical Association. Therefore, we must take the BMA chairman seriously when he says:
  "The low morale in all areas of the service is largely due to the poor state of so many of our hospitals, lack of equipment to improve and, in some cases, save the lives of patients, shortage of staff, and the proper rewards to which all health workers are entitled."
  I am sure that Opposition Members support those words. Unfortunately, that was the BMA chairman in 1978, when the Labour party was in government.
  That was the year when I went to medical school. My first experience of the national health service was of a

  945
  service falling round our ears—that was when we could get into the hospitals, when they were not being blockaded by the unions and when the health workers were not on some sort of strike.
  My first experience of the national health service was of staff having to push patients into the wards because porters were on strike, supported, needless to say, by the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees, which have gone all white and caring in recent years.
  Of course, 1978 was one of Labour's years of record. The hon. Member for Brightside talked about Labour records. One of the records of which I am sure that the Labour party does not want to be reminded is that it is the only party to have cut spending on the NHS; 1978 was the only year in the history of the NHS in which spending was cut. The Opposition cannot get away from that, but I do not intend to dwell on their record in office compared with ours, as it is becoming statistically insignificant.
  We must look at the health service in 1993 and its problems and compare it with my early experience. In the first six months of this financial year we treated 200,000 more patients than last year. National health spending has reached £100 million per day and capital spending has gone up by 76 per cent. from when I entered the medical profession. Those are all achievements.
  We are looking at ways to make the service more efficient and to bring doctors and others with medical expertise into management. That is one of the great benefits of trust hospitals.
  We have heard much from the Opposition about how encumbered we are by management, but those in management at all levels in the NHS constitute only 2 per cent. of its work force. Total spending on management in the NHS is only 3 per cent. of total health service spending, and that makes the NHS one of the most efficient health services—if not the most efficient—in the world. Compare that with the United States where current management expenditure is 19.5 per cent. of total health care funding. That shows the efficiency of our NHS.
  There are 17,000 more doctors in the NHS than there were when I went to medical school in 1978. General practitioners' lists are 18 per cent. lower than when we came to office in 1979. Preventive medicine is now at the heart of medical policy making and that was unheard of, even unthinkable, in 1978–79. Those are all major achievements and the House would be held in higher esteem if, from time to time, the Opposition accepted such achievements. Problems may still exist and may always be there for us to tackle, but for the Opposition to pretend that everything in the health service is rotten makes a mockery of rational debate.
  The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), who is not in her place, said that the Labour party created the NHS and that it was proud of its creation. When were the Opposition last proud of the NHS? Was it when they left office, which they occupied from 1974 to 1979, when the NHS was falling apart? At no time that I can remember since 1979 have the Opposition said that they are proud of the NHS. When advances are made, why can they not say that they agree with the Government, congratulate them and then move on to rational debate? The answer is that
  946
  they simply cannot bear Conservative success. Even when it is staring them in the face, they refuse to accept that what we have done has benefited the health service.
  Over the past few years, we have been subjected to all sorts of predictions about what would happen under the Conservative reforms. Listening to some Opposition Members, one would think that the health service was absolutely perfect before we instituted our reforms. We introduced those reforms simply because the NHS was such an inefficient system and was failing to deliver what we regarded as modern standards of health care. Standards have improved as a result of the reforms, not least of which is the GP contract.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) shakes her head. The Opposition told us that we would never reach our targets for immunisation or cervical smears. We surpassed them, and that is another major achievement. In view of those rising levels of immunisation it beats me why for once the Opposition cannot say, "You have done well."
  The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) said that there was no support among GPs for the concept of fund holding. How is it that already we have 3,000 GP fund holders and by April there will be 5,000. When the Secretary of State relaxes some of the conditions governing GP fund holders, as she told us she will, there will be even more. I welcome the fact that GP fund holders will be able to come in with a list of 7,000. Many Opposition Members and Liberal Democrat Members—when they decide to come to the House—are keen to speak about consultation and pilot schemes. We said that we would limit GP fund holding to those with a practice size of 9,000 and later said that we might extend it. Did we get credit for that pilot scheme? No, we did not, but it has been an undoubted success and now we shall extend it because that is the prudent way to go forward and it has always been the Government's policy.
  The magazine Doctor, hardly a mouthpiece of the right, this month conducted a survey of GP fund holders. The survey showed that over 70 per cent. reported cuts in waiting times and improved efficiency for their patients. Over 60 per cent. reported improved services for follow-up appointments, over 50 per cent. reported improved dealings with consultants and were providing extra services such as chiropody. Over 40 per cent. reported better pathology services and improvements in the prescribing service and almost 40 per cent. of practices now have consultants visiting their practices. Those are all good for patients. We must get away from the idea that the health service is for those who provide it. We run it for those who use it, and that is one of the biggest differences between the Conservative party and the Labour party. It is one of the reasons why we are in government. [Interruption.] I shall give way to any Opposition Member who wishes to intervene.
  We are concerned philosophically to move in the health service in a direction that allows decisions to be made closer to the patient. That is why it is correct to concentrate more power in the hands of general practitioners. There has always been rationing of one form or another in the provision of health services. There was hidden rationing for a long time and it worked in the following way. If I wanted to refer a patient for consultation I ticked one of four boxes at the top of the letter. The boxes are labelled "emergency", "urgent", "soon" or "routine". That was how GPs always rationed

  947
  care in the health service, but in many cases it was not explicit. However, GP fund holders can decide which groups of their patients can be seen more quickly than others, and surely GPs are better placed than bureaucrats in health boards to decide whether a group of patients in a specialty should take precedence over another group. That is why we must continue to extend the fund-holding practices.
  Not all services are covered by GP fund holders. The Opposition seem to think that GP fund holders are keen to involve themselves in coronary care and every other acute service. They cover "cold" services for which GPs can make a rational decision—one that does not involve acute patients. The Opposition say that a two-tier system is being created. If they believe that GP fund holders can offer a better service to patients than GPs who are not fund holders, surely the logic of the argument is to extend the fund-holding scheme to more and more GPs. However, the Opposition are intent on destroying our improvements and returning to the lowest common denominator, which is the base line for all their policies.
  Of course, there will be problems during the transition. We are some way from knowing how GP fund holders use their contracts and how they will pan out. It is not entirely unexpected to encounter problems nine months into the financial year. No matter how we decide to use the funding, problems will remain throughout the decade. Medical science is advancing at a far greater pace than we can ever fund by public money. The gap between what can be provided by medicine and what we can afford to purchase will increase. Within whatever finite budget is in place there will have to be choices between acute and chronic care, between centralised hospitals and community hospitals, an issue raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm).
  There is a conflict of interest in my constituency about whether funding should go to Bath or to one of my local hospitals in Paulton. It is a matter of trying to decide at the lowest possible level to respond to what local people want. We must take a fresh look at the advantages of community hospitals as opposed to centralised care. There will be a limit to the level of increase in funding that can be internally generated by efficiency. Sooner or later, we shall have to make explicit judgments about the rationing of health care.
  I asked in a previous debate whether it was acceptable, when there is a shortage of money in certain sectors, to pay for tattoo removal and so on. We shall have to look explicitly at whether we make these things freely available on the NHS. We have to use the personnel who work in the NHS in the most efficient way, and that is especially true of general practitioners. They are at the forefront of all the advances that we are making. As GP fund holding is extended, they will be asked to make more and more specific rational decisions, but their time must be used appropriately and, while many benefits have come from fund holding, not least the ones I have mentioned about cancer screening and immunisation, we must make sure that GPs are not overburdened with regulation.
  It is prudent now, a couple of years into GP fund holding, for the Government to look at which areas are being productive and which may be unnecessarily overregulated. As we have asked for unnecessary regulation to be swept away in other areas of government, the Department of Health should also look at whether it is using GPs' time most efficiently.
  948
  We also have to look at whether we must have the regional tier because, while we are waiting for the internal market and its working to become clearer, as it will over time, there is still some need to keep the regional tier but there will come a point in the not-too-distant future when the regional tier will become over-bureaucratic and interfering and we may no longer require it. I hope that the Government will seriously look ahead to that time.
  I want to make a final point, about the mental health changes, following the comments made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron). I also feel strongly about this subject. It is dangerous to try to oblige any one fashionable medical idea across an entire spectrum and that is what has happened with mental health.
  I do not believe that it makes any more sense to say that all the mentally ill should be institutionalised than it does to say that they should all be in the community. There has to be a balance, and I very much welcome the commitment by the Secretary of State a few weeks ago when she said that the Government would be reviewing all those guidelines. Surely we must have a balance in that system so that those who can integrate will be integrated and those who require institutional care can get that institutional care.
  I hope that we shall turn back a little of the medical fashion which is putting everybody into the community which, as one can see on the streets of any city, is proving to be something of a mistake, especially for patients suffering from schizophrenia.
  The Government have been brave in recent years in carrying forward their proposals. They have always done so against the wishes of the Opposition, who cannot tolerate anything that smacks of change and movement away from bureaucracy, and often in the face of criticism from the medical profession.
  It has taken seven years for the Labour party to change their mind about council housing policy; five years for them to change their mind about British Telecom. I wonder how long it will take them to change their mind about NHS trusts and fund-holding practices.
  I am sure that the real world will catch up with them in this, as in all the other policies which they have foolishly turned their faces against. I hope that it will be sooner rather than later, but for the electorate it will not make any difference because the Opposition will not get the chance to put their policies into practice.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. Alan Milburn: The hon. Gentleman's belief that everything in the NHS garden is lovely is not a view shared by NHS professionals or NHS patients. He will know that the BMA recently condemned the breakdown of many hospital services leading to a two-tier provision of service. The BMA has also condemned underfunding and flaws in the reforms and has called for radical reforms of the Government's changes immediately.
  They know, and we in the Opposition know, that two years into the market all the impact that we predicted would occur with the introduction of the market into the NHS is now coming to fruition. The chickens are coming home to roost. Hon. Members on both sides know in their heart of hearts that the Government have created a system in which hospital services in many parts of the country lie idle for three months of the year because there is not

  949
  sufficient money. It is unfortunate that NHS patients refuse to become ill for just nine months of the year. They become ill for 12 months and many are having to wait longer and longer for treatment.
  The lack of resources for clinical care contrasts markedly with the booming resources that seem to be made available for bureaucracy within the NHS. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and some of his colleagues have spoken of the relatively small ratio of bureaucrats to clinical staff in our national health service. That was something to be proud of. I speak in the past tense because the figures from the Department of Health, as the Minister knows full well, point in a startling new direction.
  Mr. Malone: So that we can get something positive from the Opposition, with what structure would the hon. Gentleman replace the management structure?
  Mr. Milburn: I will deal first with the point that I was attempting to highlight and come to that later. We have more and more red tape in the NHS. Arguably, it is strangling the service. We have had a boom in bureaucracy in the past few years. The figures that I have received from Ministers indicate that during the period when the market was introduced into the NHS, between 1989 and 1991, the number of managers tripled while the number of nurses and midwives available on our hospital wards and in our communities fell by some 8,500. That has to be coupled with the enormous growth in administration generally. We now have 9 per cent. more clerical staff and more administrative staff as a result of the Frankenstein that the Government have created. Once one has the market, one has the purchasers and providers, opted-out units, more accountants, more financial directors and more of the institutions of the market.
  In my region in the north, during that three-year period we saw a 500 per cent. increase in the number of managers. I would happily have lived with that, and many of my hon. Friends would happily have lived with that, if it had been complemented by a 500 per cent. increase in the number of nurses and midwives, but it was not—it was accompanied by a real decline in their number. There are fewer nurses on our wards. Many nurses are losing their jobs altogether and almost 5,000 health workers were made redundant between 1989 and 1992 because of the closure of their hospital units. Those are not my figures. They are not NUPE's figures. They are not the BMA's figures. They are the figures of Ministers from the Department of Health. They know in their heart of hearts exactly what is happening. Job losses were up by 50 per cent. in the first year of the market. It will not surprise my hon. Friends to learn that the biggest wave of redundancies took place in NHS trusts because there the ethics of the market are running amok. We are seeing more redundancies and sackings and fewer nurses and midwives at the sharp end of health care.
  I go back to the introduction of the market and the Government's White Paper promising all these changes. I vividly remember as a humble parliamentary candidate that we were promised a leaner and fitter national health service. We were promised that it would be more efficient and less bureaucratised and that there would be a freeing of resources to enable the health service to treat patients at
  950
  the sharp end. But it is not leaner: it is fatter—fatter with bureaucracy. It is bureaucracy gone mad. I understand that the Secretary of State enjoys being well briefed and therefore might want extra staff to monitor the effects of her policies, but do we need thousands of extra bureaucrats, accountants and administrators at the expense of qualified nurses? That is what we have got. That is a national scandal because it has done precisely nothing to improve patient care in this country.
  I will allude briefly to some of the problems in my own area. Darlington's NHS is suffering a three-fold crisis because of underfunding, continuous administrative upheaval and the emergence of a two-tier health service. Darlington health authority is being denied any growth funding until 1995, despite having a greater than average elderly population. The local hospital is in dire financial crisis. In the current financial year, it is rumoured to be facing a £2 million deficit, and that is having a real impact on patient services. Hon. Members have spoken about looking after, listening to and ensuring that the concerns of NHS staff are taken fully on board, but in Darlington there is a vacancy freeze on new NHS staff.
  In the past six years the hospital's cost improvement programme has taken £3.25 million away from hospital services. As a result, we have seen acute medical and surgery wards closed, children's wards being merged and, finally, desperate underfunding of our accident and emergency provision. The accident and emergency department treats some 10,000 patients every year. In the event of a major crisis on the east coast mainline railway, at Teesside airport, just two miles from Darlington, or on the AIM, just one mile from Darlington, that accident and emergency department would have to deal with a catastrophe without having any specialist accident and emergency consultant because the hospital cannot afford to appont one in this financial year. That is courting disaster and gambling with local people's lives.
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: Before my hon. Friend leaves the point about the lack of jobs for nurses, he may be interested to know that a student nurse recently described to me graphically how, as an official part of the course in the final year, students are being lectured on how to find opportunities to work overseas when they qualify.
  Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that we face a major brain drain from the health service precisely because opportunities are lacking for qualified nursing staff.
  Money can always be found for managers, of course. I understand that Darlington health authority is about to appoint a new project manager to lead the opt-out of acute services, on a salary of up to £53,000 per annum. That appointment is quite unnecessary. It is a direct product of the interference from Whitehall in local decision making about the future make-up of local health services in Darlington.
  Dr. Liam Fox rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I have given way on a number of occasions and I should like to begin to wind up my remarks.
  One of the final issues that I want to address is the decision which has just been taken today about the future make-up of health services in my constituency. We are sick and tired of governmental interference with our local

  951
  health service. Just today, the regional health authority agreed a merger between Darlington and South West Durham health authorities, in the teeth of opposition from patients, staff, the two community health councils, the four Members of Parliament, the local authorities and local people. It is claimed that the Government are prepared to listen, but where is the listening there? They have not listened; they have ridden roughshod over the wishes of local people in my town. There will be no choice for patients as a result of that merger, because increasingly patients will have to travel for treatment to Bishop Auckland and out of the town altogether.
  Some patients, of course, will not need to travel at all. They can take advantage, if they are lucky, of the top tier of health care in a two-tier service. Fund-holding GPs in my constituency have the benefit of referring patients directly to fast-track treatment. They do not do so through the NHS; they refer patients directly to the local private hospital. Hon. Members have attempted to mock some of the statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) prior to the general election. He warned about creeping privatisation. That is not creeping privatisation; it is full steam ahead privatisation. Hon. Members should be ashamed that we have seen the development of a two-tier health service in this country.
  I do not blame the GPs or the patients; they are playing by market rules, but the market means winners as well as losers and I am afraid that the NHS has become a national lottery. Lucky patients hit the jackpot, but this is not the sort of NHS that the British people want. They want an NHS which is free at the point of use, guaranteeing equal access to expert medical help when it is needed. That is the sort of NHS that we had in 1948 and the sort of NHS that we had in 1979. Unfortunately, it is not the sort of NHS that we have today.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate because the motion put forward by the Labour party reveals that it fails to understand the basic objective of the Government's health reforms and how they work for the benefit of patients. Hon. Members talk about commercialisation of the health service and fragmentation of health care, but what the Labour party calls commercialisation and fragmentation is freedom for the providers of health care to serve the best interests of patients for whom they have responsibility.
  A piece of doggerel that was circulating in the NHS many years ago summarises the purpose of the Government's health service reforms. It was said of doctors:
  "Masters of their patients when servants of the state,
  Servants of their patients when masters of their fate."
  It is the purpose of the Government's health reforms to make GPs and self-governing hospitals masters of their fate, no longer tied up in elaborate bureaucracy, and in doing so to ensure that they can properly serve the interests of their patients.
  I will look first at primary care and the role of GPs now that they have the opportunity to be budget holders. Here I draw on my experience of serving for several years as a member of a family practitioner committee. Although many advocates of the old-style NHS have said that one of its strengths was the so-called gatekeeper function carried
  952
  out by GPs, in practice the division of responsibility between primary and secondary care was one of the great weaknesses of the old NHS. It was a weakness that went back to Bevan's original design. On the one hand, GPs had the freedom to refer wherever they wished; on the other hand, they had no power to send resources to the places to which they were referring patients. The allocation of resources was determined by the Department of Health —determined, as Nye Bevan famously observed, by a department where, if a bedpan was dropped in any hospital in the NHS, the sound could be heard in Whitehall. That was no way to run the NHS.
  If GPs are to be given proper freedom to refer, that freedom must be backed by the power to send the money to the places to which they are referring. That, of course, is the crucial significance of the option for GPs to become budget holders. It is an innovation which resolves one of the contradictions in the old-style Nye Bevan NHS. It not only solves the problem of that tension with which the NHS had wrestled for a long time, but also goes with the grain of technological development. The old-style view of the NHS as a service which required larger and larger hospitals, with more and more functions centralised in enormous hospitals, is not what the patients want, it is not what communities want, and it is no longer what medical technology requires. The power of miniaturisation and medical advance makes it possible for many treatments to be carried out in the GP's surgery or in the local clinic. Only 10 years ago, such procedures would have been thought to require hospital treatment. GPs are now properly reimbursed for minor ops—lumps and bumps. In future they will be able to carry out in their surgeries pathology tests with the use of small sensors, enabling patients to have immediate results. In the past, patients would have had to go to hospital, lie on a bed, have a blood test, return home, and be called to see the GP or hospital a week later for the result. Many enormous simplifications will be made possible by technology.
  The old style NHS stood in the way of such advance. It had no interest in services becoming available at the primary care level because there was no financial system by which the pattern of funding the NHS could keep up with the pattern of technological change. Freedom to spend the money that they are allocated in the way they know to be in the best interest of their patients will result in GPs saying, "I need not send my patients to the big district general hospital 10 miles away for some tests; I can invest in the technology which will enable me to do those tests in my surgery."
  The strengthening of the GP has been one of the great success stories of recent reforms, going beyond the wildest hopes of Ministers when they originally planned those reforms. In the old days, the contempt with which many hospitals and district health authorities treated GPs had to be seen to be believed. I recall the way in which the local district health authorities, as they saw the review of the NHS coming into effect, for the first time realised that if they really wanted to make sure that money was properly allocated, they had to conduct research into what GPs thought about the current pattern and quality of hospital services. They were horrified when, for example, they came across GPs who could say, "We are not satisfied with the quality of treatment from this or that hospital or department."
  When writing contracts and deciding the services that they wanted to buy on behalf of patients, DHAs for the

  953
  first time seriously consulted GPs to find out what they wanted. They now know that if they ignore GPs' views, many more GPs will become budget holders. The threat of becoming a budget holder has improved the quality of care for GPs who are not budget holders as much as it has improved the quality of care for those who are. That is why the reference in the Opposition motion to a two-tier health service goes against the reality of developments in recent years.
  Dr. Liam Fox: Does my hon. Friend agree that what is important in cases of referral is not where patients go—whether to a private sector or a NHS hospital—but how quickly they are treated? The Labour party is tied to dogma, whatever Opposition Members say about Conservatives being dogmatic on the issue.
  Mr. Willetts: I agree with my hon. Friend. He reveals the cynicism with which Labour Members speak of privatisation. They use it in the sense of people having to pay for their health care. That is not, and never has been, Conservative party policy and what we are discussing is not in any way privatisation in that sense.
  Completely different is the concept of a patient enjoying health care free at the point of use—that care perhaps being delivered most expeditiously by a private hospital with which a DHA has a contract so as to reduce its waiting list. That is not privatisation, but delivering publicly financed health care free at the point of use in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. Only blinkered ideology could lead anyone to oppose such an approach to health care. The patient gains by getting the best possible health care without having to pay for that care at the point of use.
  I move from primary to secondary care—the hospital service. An irony of the hostility of Labour Members to self-governing hospitals is that they oppose a measure which was modelled in many ways on a feature of Nye Bevan's health service which deserved approbation. When he was establishing his health boards, he deliberately decided, after consulting the leading representatives of the hospitals, that the leading teaching hospitals, with their medical schools, should not be brought under the direct control of medical boards. The old teaching hospitals were to remain self-governing.
  Bevan envisaged that they would be self-governing, and so they remained until—the irony of what occurred will not escape my hon. Friends—Lord Joseph's reforms of the health service in 1970 to 1974, which brought those teaching hospitals under the direct control of health authorities. It was not a fundamental feature of the post-war NHS, but a relatively recent development. Indeed, in Guy's hospital there is a notice on the wall with a rather melancholy inscription saying that the board of governors met there for their final meeting, in the 250th year of their existence, in February 1974.
  An idea behind the reforms which has proved enormously popular is now to give every NHS hospital the opportunity to enjoy self-governing status, the sort of freedom which Nye Bevan envisaged should be enjoyed by our great teaching hospitals. It is in no sense a dismantling of the NHS, but an attempt to ensure that all hospitals can enjoy the freedom which teaching hospitals had up to 1974. It is ironic that Labour Members should be
  954
  committed to a stout defence of an over-bureaucratic, over-managed structure of the NHS introduced in the 1970 to 1974 period. There is no reason why that should be regarded as a fundamental feature of the NHS. As we see with several waves of applications for trust status, doctors, nurses and managers at those hospitals greatly relish the opportunity to employ staff more flexibly so as to serve patients in the ways that they know best.
  Much has been said by Labour Members about the management of the NHS. If one wanted an indication of the inability of the Labour party to take seriously concepts such as efficiency, effectiveness and high quality care, it is their manifest opposition to anything regarded as management in the NHS. They do not like the idea of managers or accountancy or the efficient use of money. The NHS is one of the largest organisations in western Europe. The idea that it can survive simply by the endeavours of doctors and nurses, crucial though they are, without a professional cadre of people committed to the efficient use of resources, the proper control of money and the proper management of large and expensive hospitals is at best naive and at worst shows an extraordinary disregard for what is in the real interests of patients. I hope that we shall hear no more attacks on the essential work that managers do in the NHS. We do not say that the only staff doing a real job in ICI are chemists or that the only people doing a worthwhile job in Shell are those who work on oil rigs. We accept that large, complicated organisations have management functions which need to be carried out by experts.
  Mr. John Gunnell: The hon. Gentleman has philosophically explained his case for fund holders and has made a similar case for trust hospitals. Now he is moving on to management. He has left out the purchasing authority. He obviously envisages an increase in the number of fund holders and presumably he wishes all GPs to become fund holders. What role does that leave for the purchasing authority? Or is the purchasing function to be entirely in the hands of individuals?
  Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important question. The reply is twofold. First, the Government have always made it clear that becoming a GP fund holder is a voluntary option. Nobody is being dragooned into becoming a fund holder. I welcome the enormous number of GPs who have already exercised that option and I expect that many more will do so in future, but it is not compulsory.
  Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has already pointed out, the GP budget does not cover all services that the NHS provides. It covers the services which are frequently used at relatively low cost, but it was not thought feasible or sensible to include expensive and relatively rare treatments because they are randomly distributed. A relatively small number of cases would risk overturning a GP's ability properly to plan his budget, so such treatments remain financed through DHAs as purchasers. We may hope that some of the services currently bought by district health authorities will in future be bought by GP budget holders, but I expect that there will always be a wide range of services to be purchased by DHAs and not by GP budget holders.
  I return to the point about management with which I was concluding, and to the record and the figures that we

  955
  heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health today in a speech that I thought was so effective and persuasive.
  Mr. Trend: It was brilliant.
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend describes it as a brilliant speech—[Interruption.] Opposition Front—Bench Members say that they were deeply impressed. I am pleased to have such confirmation of its quality. That speech included figures on the record number of patients treated and the record activity in the new style NHS which have been achieved by a combination of high-grade management and the freedom at last for people working in hospitals and for GP budget holders to act without the crippling control of the state. I therefore strongly oppose the Opposition motion.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Richard Burden: The Opposition, and indeed the country, are getting quite used to the bland assurances of Conservative Members that there is no crisis in the NHS.
  The picture of fund-holding GPs, hospitals and health authorities all competing in perfect harmony and patients armed with their own personal copies of the patients charter waiting only a short time for treatment is about as believeable as the adverts for private health care which show healthy people sitting up in hospital and smiling, being treated by nurses who never look tired while the patients never look sick. I cannot comment on whether that is an accurate picture of a private hospital because, unlike some Conservative Members, I do not use them. However, I do know that that is not a picture of care in the national health service in my region, the west midlands. In that region, the Government's health reforms are creating a kind of Trotter's Independent Traders, without the same social conscience but with the same financial acumen.
  Qa Business Services, the computer division of the regional health authority, was sold off and went bust within 18 months. Millions of pounds have been spent on a value-for-money exercise that saves no money. We see HealthTrac, a new all-singing, all-dancing supply system that has to be investigated by the Audit Commission. That is what is happening under the new-look national health service.
  It would not be so bad if the effects were simply financial. But it is not simply money; it affects real people such as those who worked for Qa Business Services—pensioners who stand to lose two thirds of their pension entitlement because of that mismanagement.
  In my area of south Birmingham a merger was forced through against the wishes of local people and community health councils. It resulted in a deficit of about £25 million. That is leading to the closure of hospitals. It has already led to the loss of beds, and it means that the Royal Orthopaedic hospital in my constituency is to close, as is the accident hospital which has one of the best burns unit in the country. Services are also to be transferred from the general hospital in the city centre. Consultants opposed it and the local community opposed it. Consultants have warned of the danger of cross-infection—but because the market dictates, the policy must be pushed through.
  Even before that happens, the Royal Orthopaedic hospital has to offer bargain basement prices to get contracts from other health authorities, but it cannot get
  956
  them because those authorities do not have the money. A constituent of mine has been told that he must wait 92 weeks even to see a consultant. He needs the services of that hospital. The services exist, but he cannot use them because the market dictates that he cannot do so.
  Another constituent of mine, a young boy aged nine called Thomas Leavy, has cerebral palsy. The health authority has told him that, because it does not have the resources as a result of the financial crisis caused by the health reforms, he cannot get adequate physiotherapy treatment and he must wait six months just to see somebody about the possibility of occupational therapy.
  That is the reality of the Government's health reforms. It has been summed up much more eloquently than I could put it by a Birmingham consultant, who wrote to general practitioners in the north Birmingham and Bromsgrove areas—copying the letter to the Secretary of State, among others saying that it was not possible to place patients from their authority in his hospital. He said:
  "My medical colleagues and I believe that this is a totally unsatisfactory state of affairs. The NHS reforms are not working. Money is not following the patients. The choice of patients and General Practitioners is being restricted not preserved as promised. We are into the realms of a two-tier health service depending on who has got the money and where patients live."
  Those are not my words, nor the words of the Labour party, nor even the words of NUPE—which Conservative Members like to quote—but the words of a consultant. That is the reality of the health service as it operates today.
  Everything happens behind closed doors; secrecy surrounds the health authority. I and other Birmingham Members have tried to get answers time and again. We have asked the Secretary of State, Ministers and the regional health authority to provide us with the reports of the investigations into the financial crisis facing the South Birmingham authority. We have asked for copies of audit reports on the financial scandals in the West Midlandls authority.
  Time and again, the Government insist that they listen and consult, but they have fobbed us off. Time and again, the Secretary of State has refused to meet Members of Parliament from the south Birmingham area to discuss the plans to close hospitals such as the Royal Orthopaedic. Of course, they say that it is a matter for management. We know what management means in the west midlands—financial scandals. It has meant Sir James Ackers running the flagship of the authority's internal reforms. We called for his resignation for months and months. Finally, after ignoring those requests, the Secretary of State was forced to accept his resignation a month or so ago, under circumstances not yet revealed.
  There is now new management in the authority—Sir Donald Wilson, formerly of the Merseyside authority, which is itself the subject of calls for a public inquiry. He has been foisted on us. We are told that there is a new regime with a new open-door policy. That sounds great, but still all the hon. Members who have been asking for those reports have not been given them. That new management has not said that it will save one hospital or one hospital bed.
  The new management is not much change on the old. When we discovered that, we asked the Secretary of State to direct the new management to ensure that the reports were made available to us, the local democratically elected representatives. Although she said in the debate today that she was in favour of all information being made available,

  957
  her hon. Friend the Minister for Health replied to our requests, "No, it is a matter for management whether those reports are released."
  A stop must be put to the situation in which the health service is run as if it were some kind of glorified supermarket. When we say that privatisation is creeping into the NHS, we are not exaggerating. We shall have in the health service what has happened in a number of other industries. First, the financial structure is changed and financial shackles are applied. Then there is the pretence that there is some kind of decentralised decision-making, whereas the only thing that is being decentralised is responsibility. When that system breaks down, Ministers say, "Wouldn't it be much easier if you went independent, if you freed yourselves from the shackles of Government control?"—the Government that put the shackles on in the first place. That is what Conservative Members intend for the national health service, although they do not have the guts to say so, and it is what Opposition Members will oppose and oppose and continue to oppose because we support and defend the health service that we created.
  Conservative Members have asked us what our alternative is. Let me make three points for a start. First, the market mechanism, which is alien to the concept of health care and proper health planning, should be abandoned. Secondly, the health service should be given the funding that it needs. No amount of jiggery-pokery, with purchasers, providers and contracts, can make good the underfunding. Thirdly—and equally important—people who believe in the national health service, who use it and who live locally should be put in to run the service in a way that does not suggest that it is some kind of glorified supermarket.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I should like to put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) for giving me five minutes of her time.
  I want to put on the record too—so that it will not be possible for anyone to claim otherwise—the fact that, as a Member of Parliament, I am sponsored by NUPE. I am not ashamed of that connection; indeed, I am rather proud of it. Members of my union and, indeed, of the unions with which we are about to merge do very valuable work in the health service and are dedicated to the principle of a health service free at the point of use. They will remain dedicated to that principle, as has been demonstrated by their many years of service.
  I wonder how those people are expected to continue their dedication when they are told that their pay rise in April will be limited to 1.5 per cent. despite the fact that the rate of inflation is far higher than that. Conservative Members may find this extremely amusing, but they are quite concerned about the future of their own jobs—especially the London Members, to whom I wish to address my comments tonight.
  The Government's treatment of the health service in London is nothing short of appalling. We have seen 5,100 beds lost since 1982; during the same period there has been an increase of 18 per cent. in demand for hospital places; and regional health authority decisions have been imposed on London health districts, with no democracy whatsoever
  958
  in the decision-making process. With the growth and merging of health authorities, we now have bigger, more impersonal and less accountable bodies in London and a continual drift of resources out of London and into the home counties.
  I do not intend to be dragged into a false argument about the needs of inner London as opposed to those of Essex, Hertfordshire, Surrey and Kent. What we require is recognition by the Government of the needs in inner city areas. In London there are 60,000 people living in temporary housing accommodation, a considerable number sleeping on the streets, 1 million people living in poverty, above-average levels of deprivation and a high incidence of suicide, AIDS and many related diseases and illnesses. If the Secretary of State were to look at statistics produced by any family health service authority in inner London, she would recognise the degree of deprivation.
  But what did the Government offer? The Tomlinson inquiry. It is proposed that a considerable number of hospitals, including Bart's, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) spoke so eloquently, should be closed, with the loss of a very large number of beds. It is claimed that, somehow, this will solve the problem of a London waiting list of 130,000 people. The implication is that the problem will be solved by transferring resources from the hospital sector to the primary care sector. That is not the alternative for which we are looking. What we want is recognition of the fact that the people of London need and deserve a proper health service. That means increased resources for the primary sector, increased resources for general practitioners, and better general practitioner services. But that will not be achieved if much of the general practitioners' time is taken up as a result of premature discharges from hospitals and inadequate hospital services in the first place. The Secretary of State and the Government must recognise that Tomlinson has got it fundamentally wrong. What Tomlinson is talking about is mass closures, with loss of beds, in order to solve the problem of underfunding of primary care in the first place when what we require is a recognition of those needs.
  There is at last an inquiry into the activities of the London ambulance service, after years of providing an inadequate service because of an incompetent management and a particularly incompetent board. What we need at the same time is the recognition that the health needs of London will be met not by things like the Tomlinson inquiry but only by an increase of resources as a whole to the people of London. It is not right that people living in inner London suffer a higher level of infant mortality, a shorter life expectancy and a higher level of notifiable diseases than those living in the rest of the country. These problems must be addressed by an adequate provision of resources by Government to meet the need.
  9.15 pm
  Ms. Dawn Primarolo rose—
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Ms. Primarolo: Perhaps I should sit down now and quit while I am ahead, with the support from my hon. Friends.
  The debate has been about the realities of the national health service and the experience of people using and working in the service. My hon. Friends who have taken part in the debate have adequately described that

  959
  experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) pointed out the political nature of the appointments, the placemen who are put on to trusts and rewarded generously while poor pay continues in the national health service and there is a pay freeze of 1.5 per cent.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) spoke about the human cost of the national health service reforms, the bed closure programme and the desperate situation in her constituency because of bed shortages.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms. Corston), speaking about her constituency in particular, concentrated on what the national health service was created to do and what it does now in our communities. She spoke particularly from the personal experience of her constituents waiting 19 months not to be treated but merely to receive an appointment to see a consultant. She also mentioned the problems with dental services in Bristol, the ambulance cover, which is only 90 per cent., and the two-tier system whereby the patients of general practitioner fund holders are treated in advance of those on the waiting list.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) was cut off in his prime. He had enthusiastically defended Bart's hospital, and I am sure that the Minister on his frequent visits to Bart's will likewise defend that excellent institution, but my hon. Friend was cut off before he could tell us that Bart's has now eradicated its deficit. It is, I hope, about to tell the rest of the London hospitals how it managed it, and then the closure programme proposed by Tomlinson can be abandoned as irrelevant.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) spoke about the importance of access to care on the basis of need, the cornerstone of the national health service, and went on to describe why the basic facts and data used in the Tomlinson report were incorrect.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) spoke about the experience in Scotland and drew comparisons with England; he rightly said that the British Medical Association describes the crisis now being experienced in the national health service as the worst for 30 years. That is nothing for hon. Members on either side of the House to be proud of, and it is something which we should address.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) spoke with great authority and accuracy, cutting through the assertions made by Conservative Members about our now having a leaner, more efficient national health service in which the bureaucracy has been reduced. Using Department of Health figures, he put paid accurately to that misrepresentation. As he pointed out, there has been no freeing of resources for patient care.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) talked eloquently about Trotter's independent trading company, as he called it, in the west midlands, and the secrecy that persists about the misuse of money in the NHS. He pointed out that one of his constituents had a 92–week wait to see a consultant. That is disgraceful.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) pointed out further shortfalls in the Tomlinson proposals. Most important, he showed that at no point had there been any assessment of London's health needs or any assessment of the tremendous problems that London faces, as do many of our other inner cities.
  960
  The Secretary of State told us that she had launched a new health help line to which she had made the first phone call—presumably to try to find out what is going on in the service. However, she failed to tell us that the help line closes at 5 o'clock. We have tried several times to get through, in the hope of obtaining some of the information that we cannot obtain from the Government, only to be held in a queue or requested to leave a recorded message which would be dealt with in due course. I hope that we do not have to wait until April when the new contracts start.
  The Secretary of State said that a health service should be based on principles, but she went on to qualify that, saying as long as those principles stick to the budget. That is the politics of the balance sheet, not clinical priority.
  The Secretary of State announced that £2 million would be given to pump prime pacesetter projects. I wondered whether that had anything to do with heart surgery; then I realised that it did not. She said that the object was to reduce waiting list times by setting new benchmarks. Perhaps she will explain to the House how pacing treatment, spreading it over a longer time, will lead to a reduction in the waiting lists. Presumably people will have to wait longer before they are reached.
  The Secretary of State then announced something that she has already told us about.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The sort of schemes to be funded are those at Walsall and Horsham which ensure that people can have their cataracts treated more swiftly and that people coming forward for breast cancer checks will be seen within 48 hours—innovative schemes, different ways of doing things, which others across the health service can emulate.
  Ms. Primarolo: It is a shame that the Secretary of State could not have told us that in her speech and that she did not make it clear that the scheme was not about pacing treatment but about access.
  The Secretary of State also announced for the second time the £2 billion to be used for capital projects within the NHS. She went on to say that that was to be provided by the sale of land and property. First, that is not new money, because it was in the autumn statement and, secondly, it is money which is funded by closure programmes, and the right hon. Lady cannot be sure that it will be available.
  The Secretary of State referred to the huge investment that has been undertaken by the Government, and derided Opposition Members for the performance of past Labour Governments. She went on to talk about primary care. In 1981, the Acheson report identified the fact that 15 per cent. of GP premises in London were below the national average in that respect. Extensive and good proposals were made for the expansion of primary care. Hardly any of those were implemented, but linked to that was a bed closure programme. That, no doubt, sounds familiar to my hon. Friends.
  A total of 5,000 beds were closed to pay for the increased primary care, but, by 1992, when we received the Tomlinson report, we found that the situation in London had deteriorated rather than improving: now 46 per cent. of GP premises are below the national standard. That decline in primary care has been presided over by a Government who claimed that they were providing more money.
  Mr. Willetts: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Primarolo: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that Conservative Members have spoken at length, and that I have given up some of my time to ensure that my hon. Friends could speak and to allow time for the Minister. Every time hon. Members interrupt me, thus reducing my time, I shorten the Minister's time. Does the hon. Gentleman want to incur the Minister's wrath?
  I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to repudiate paragraph 12.25 of the Bloomfield report on dentistry, which states:
  "In considering priorities for exemption from payment, there must be doubts about the category of pregnant women/nursing mothers."
  Will the Minister state categorically that there will be no reduction in that exemption? Will he also refer to the new blacklist that is to be introduced, and give the House a categorical undertaking that no contraceptives will be removed from the list?
  The Government told us that the national health service stumbled from crisis to crisis, and that we needed to accept the implementation of their reforms; the crises would then disappear.
  Mr. Miller: We have heard a good deal about choice from Conservative Members. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the board of the Countess of Chester hospital, in the Mersey region? There are four Conservative activists on the board—including Lord Wade of Chorlton—a failed Tory party treasurer and cheese maker. Would my hon. Friend care to contrast them with my constituent, a YTS trainee who suffers from a life-threatening disease and who—because of the "choice" offered by the Government—cannot get free prescriptions on the national health service?
  Ms. Primarolo: My hon. Friend has summed up what is happening in the national health service. There are jobs for the boys; jobs in return for past work; jobs as a reward. But there are no prescriptions for those who need them.
  The market, we were told, would eradicate the crisis. We would have a lean, finely tuned, responsive national health service. Let me give the House an example by describing a day in Bristol's health service. Bristol has three large teaching hospitals and a number of other hospitals.
  This is what happened on 7 January. All through the night, Manor Park hospital had no female beds available. Before 8 am, the Bristol Royal infirmary and the Frenchay hospital had no coronary care beds available. The Southmead had one. The Frenchay refused to take patients from outside its catchment area. The BRI started at 9 am with no medical beds, and, by 2 pm, was completely closed; it had no beds. By 12 o'clock, the Southmead had no available beds, and Western General was closed to all admissions. Shortly after lunch, the Bristol general hospital had no beds. By 8 pm, the Frenchay, the BRI and the Southmead all had no medical beds available. Some time after 9 pm, the Southmead decided to accept medical admissions, but only from within the Southmead area.
  The crisis in the NHS has been documented by everyone except the Government and their Department of Health. It has been demonstrated that patients wait in casualty for hours on end, and hospitals go on and off red and yellow alert.
  Job losses among health workers rose by more than 50 per cent. in the first year of the Government's market-style
  962
  changes to the NHS. Junior doctors are reportedly working more than the legal number of hours, despite the Government's pledge that the NHS would meet its first major deadline. Hospitals run out of beds and emergency admissions are not allowed as the money dries up. The BMA says that hospitals are facing financial collapse because of the ravages of the internal market. The mechanism that the Government told us would save the health service is destroying it.
  We are seeing queue jumping; patients are refused treatment; people's working conditions deteriorate further; yet the Government do nothing except peer at the world through the rose-tinted glasses of Richmond house. An editorial in the Doctor, in absolute desperation, advised doctors to
  "Bend Virginia's ear with proof of the crisis. The Secretary of State's underlings do not tell her the extent of the bad news."
  What can doctors do to persuade her that the present crisis is the most catastrophic but can be avoided?
  One day the Secretary of State is full of praise for those who work in the national health service and is proud of their professionalism and commitment—rightly so—but the next she shifts the blame for the chaos on inept managers, greedy consultants or whingeing GPs. She should make up her mind about who is to blame, what is going wrong and how it should be put right. It is her fault and her Government's fault. Her reforms have demonstrated the persistent underfunding of the national health service: the very thing that the Government wished to disguise has been exposed by their own reforms.
  The Secretary of State tells us that pacing work in hospitals is important. Hospital resources stay underused for three or four months of the year. How do doctors pace themselves when they are faced with seriously ill patients? I shall give an example of how they pace themselves from the intensive care unit admission policy of Gloucester health authority. This is what the reforms mean:
  "Any surgical patients who are expected to require post operative intensive care will be deferred or transferred to another hospital pre operatively … In addition the following … patients will not be admitted. Patients with acute … chronic lung disease … Patients with chronic poor quality of life"—
  goodness knows what that means—
  "Patients 70 years or over with: Acute Renal failure … Respiratory failure due to pneumonia".
  That is what pacing is. Those are the priorities of the budget sheet.
  Waiting lists, perversely, allow people to be treated not according to clinical need but on the period of time and political priorities of the Government. People are called finished consultative episodes instead of people. Refurbishment means closure: in the Secretary of State's national health service, any word can be used. Prevention is distorted. Breast cancer services are a clear example. There are 1,400 victims in the United Kingdom every year —the highest number of deaths in Europe. We have the fewest cancer specialists in Europe, yet the Secretary of State tells us that prevention is better than addressing the need for such facilities. Prevention is a good strategy, but 4 million women in this country, 2 million of whom live in London, have not had a cervical smear in the past five and a half years. It is about time that that was addressed. Patients' choice has been eradicated; patients cannot choose their hospitals. Money does not follow them—they follow the money.

  963
  In Bristol we are about to have catchment areas for hospitals—if one does not live in the catchment area, one cannot go to the hospital. It is interesting that we are not allowed to have catchment areas in education, but we are allowed them in health. Frenchay health authority is already proposing to administer such a scheme. We are in the ridiculous position where the hospital in TruroTreliske—faces financial difficulty because tourism has dropped in the west country as a result of the Government's failure with the economy. That shows the state of the national health service under the Government's reforms.
  We have tried today to show the perverse incentives that the Government have introduced into the national health service. The reforms have not worked, but are making the situation worse. It is about time that the crises were dealt with. I urge my hon. Friends to support our motion, as I know they will. If the Government continue to preside over this crisis, they will carry the shame in years to come.
  9.35 pm
  The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): In view of the self-proclaimed importance that the Opposition attach to the health service, some of us have wondered why they have not called such a debate for so long into this Parliament. Now we understand: they have not had such a debate because they had nothing to say. Indeed, some of us are driven to conclude that today's debate has more to do with the standing of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) in the shadow Cabinet than with the health service. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman had the flu, and I hope that he will soon be feeling better. I shall not go into his speech in great detail. However, he talked about records of which Labour and Labour Governments were proud.
  I need to remind the hon. Gentleman, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), that he forgot to mention the record of a real cut in NHS spending under the previous Labour Government. He also forgot another record which will have great relevance against his hon. Friends' rhetoric during the debate: in four of the five years of the previous Labour Government, nurses' pay was cut in real terms. I hope that the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) will take careful note of that point.
  Another of the hon. Gentleman's points that interested me involved accountability. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with that in political terms, but I am genuinely surprised that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) have taken such a jaundiced view of the Government's attempts to empower patients by giving them as much information as they possibly can to enable them, in turn, to have informed conversations with their general practitioners, the better to get the type of care in the location and in the time frame most suitable for them.
  Not only is the help line being launched today but regional health authorities have had a number of similar schemes available for some time. Indeed, some have been publishing waiting list times in local newspapers. I believe that The Citizen in Peterborough was the first in the country to do so, and I applaud it. We believe that patients
  964
  should have as much information as possible because, after all, the service is designed to benefit them and to deal with their needs.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, South invited me to comment on the Bloomfield report and on selective lists. When the Government said that they would listen to the views of people in the NHS, of dentists and patients before reaching a conclusion on the report, they meant what they said. On the whole, the hon. Lady is encouraging us to consult and listen and to try to find common ground, so she will not take it amiss if I do not accept her generous invitation but stick to the consistency which, as she is learning to appreciate, is shown by the Government.
  I sum up the speeches of Opposition Front-Bench Members as follows: nothing should change in our thinking in a world that is changing. To paraphrase more neatly, they seemed to say, "Stop the world, I want to get off."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) raised two important points. First, she asked about AIDS testing. I can confirm that the arrangements that she set out are those contained in the General Medical Council guidance. I listened carefully to her speech, and I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reflect on it.
  Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston spoke about an adoption story. I am sure that I am not alone in the House in being shocked by the details she gave. We have a strong commitment to and a strong appreciation of the work of social workers, but we draw definite lines beyond which they should not go. From what my hon. Friend has said, it seems that she knows of a case in which those lines were transgressed. If she would be kind enough to let me have the details of the case, I will ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), who has responsibility for these matters, to investigate the case in depth.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Mawhinney: No, because I should like to make a little progress.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) encouraged us to consult. She was, if she will forgive me for saying so, rather churlish about the efforts that the Government are making legitimately, sensibly and sensitively to do exactly what she wants us to do. I am pleased that she was gracious enough to recognise that, when she and her colleagues came to see me, I was genuinely consulting and genuinely listening. I assure her that I took note of the points they made.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) made an important point. She said that management cannot be taken out of the context of care, and she was right. Some peddle the false argument that we have to choose between care, and the efficient and effective use of resources. That is a spurious dichotomy. As we use resources efficiently and effectively, we enable more patients to be treated. There is nothing from which to resile in wanting to see the £100 million a day we spend on the health service used to best effect.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) raised a number of questions about London to which I shall return in a few moments. He also expressed his

  965
  concern and regret about our decision on nurse prescribing. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been one of the strongest advocates in the House of nurse prescribing. The genesis of the policy, to which we are still committed and about which we are still enthusiastic, owes much to his advocacy.
  We are concerned to ensure that nurse prescribing is launched in an environment that is as conducive as possible to its success. We are not at all certain that the present climate, in which there is to be an extended discussion about the drugs bill and about prescribing generally, is the best in which to move forward that policy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst paid an appropriate tribute to the hospice movement and to its work. I am sure that that is a matter for appreciation across the House. There is nothing partisan in our appreciation of the work done by hospices. I am pleased to announce to the House a £43 million extra payment to charitable hospices through health authorities in the coming year to help them to provide support for voluntary hospices. The Department will provide £32·3 million for voluntary hospices. A further £5 million is to be given to health authorities to help them to pay for hospice care for terminally ill people as part of the community care changes, and £5·6 million is to give voluntary hospices access to drugs supplied by health authorities. That means that the total Government funding to voluntary hospices since 1991 is £l05·3 million.
  Mr. Blunkett: As we are not having an evening of churlishness, I should like to put it on record that the Opposition welcome that statement and wholeheartedly give their backing to the allocation of those resources to hospices, which do such good work.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate the generosity of his statement and of his gesture in making it.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) for the assiduous way in which he has represented his constituents' views on the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital. Indeed, outside my family, I have probably written more letters to him than to anyone else in the whole world in the whole of my life.
  The hon. Gentleman is in danger of going down in this debate as a tease because he raised my expectations to fever pitch and was cut off in his prime. So exceptionally —I hope that you will not feel that I am transgressing your 10–minute rule, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman to let him have his expectation.
  Mr. Sedgemore: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. I received a telephone call from Professor Besser, the chief executive of Bart's, this morning. He said that Bart's should be making an announcement in the next few days that it can finance the whole of its non-recurring deficit and that its recurring deficit should so be slashed that it will be close to having a balanced budget.
  Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will understand, given the discussions that we have had in the past few months, if I hang on to my ecstasy for a little longer until I see the small print.
  966
  While the hon. Gentleman was personally generous, I deplored the attack that he launched on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It was without justification or foundation. I hope that he will find it possible to withdraw it on a suitable occasion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) was entirely right to draw attention to the importance of day care surgery and the effect that it is having on the ability of the NHS to treat patients.
  I intended to dissect the Opposition motion this evening, but my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) did it for me and probably did it better than I could. He pointed out that for every claim in a newspaper there was a counter-claim in another newspaper and that mutually exclusive statements were made elsewhere. He said that, while the Opposition Front-Bench team had been busy, it did not have an idea what it had been busy about.
  Only a fraction of hospitals are affected by the crisis that Opposition Members have unsuccessfully tried to sell to the House this evening. We spend £100 million a day on the NHS. It has treated 600,000 more patients on average every year since the reforms were introduced. The number of people who wait between one and two years is down by more than 50 per cent. since the reforms were introduced. According to a recent survey in Doctor magazine, 70 per cent. of GP fund holders recorded reduced waits and improvements in efficiency.
  The NHS trusts treated 8·2 per cent. more patients in the first year of operation, compared with 7·2 per cent. for the directly managed units. In other words, no matter how we approach the reforms—whether it is trusts, GP fund holders, quality, waiting lists or convenience to patients —they are delivering better services for patients.
  Mr. David Trimble: Not only the Opposition Front-Bench team is in two minds. As the Minister knows, in Northern Ireland the boards of both the local health authorities and the hospital trusts are composed of Government appointees. He may also be aware that a trust will come into operation in my constituency in a couple of months. However, the health board is rushing through a review which threatens to close two hospitals, thus pre-empting what the trust might do. We have good reason to believe that the trust will keep at least one and perhaps both hospitals open. Is not that an example of bad co-ordination and management?
  Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman's constituents are fortunate if they are to have a trust in a couple of months because they can look forward to better patient care and more treatments. I was in the Province for six and a quarter years and it may have appeared to the hon. Gentleman that I was a permanent fixture. However I was not, and he will have to raise those issues with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend will be aware that the London gender clinic is in my constituency and that its activity has caused great concern. Will he ensure that it operates within the law and look at any lacuna by which it may have breached the law?
  Dr. Mawhinney: As my hon. Friend may be aware, the British Medical Association has expressed some views

  967
  about the clinic and the HEFEA committee has published a paper on the issue. We are looking carefully at the matter.
  The characteristic feature of the debate is that, while we have been speaking about patient treatment and care and numbers of patients, the Opposition have spoken about beds and buildings. I suppose that that represents the division on thinking between us. For more than 40 years the health service was provider driven. As a result of the reforms, it should become purchaser driven, with the needs of the patient at the centre.
  I accept without embarrassment or difficulty that a service that has been running for more than 40 years on provider lines and has to start running on purchaser lines will find that that line is not unlikely to be as strong as the previous one. There are obvious reasons for that and it takes time to build expertise. It would be absurd to suggest that there is not a single case among the 45 million people whose lives are touched by the NHS in any one year in which the system has not worked to maximum advantage. We are debating 1 million employees, 45 million patients and an organisation with a budget in England of £30 billion.
  However, I am perfectly prepared to defend the reforms, to laud the advantages that they are bringing to patients, to confirm the strengthening of the purchasing line year by year and to recognise that the contracting process needs to be properly managed. It is more likely to be properly managed if hospitals, doctors and consultants are included at an early stage in management discussions. It is likely to be even better managed if GPs who are not fund holders enter into early discussions with purchasers, with the district health authorities, so that when those authorities are putting contracts to providers they will do so in a way that satisfies the GPs in the area.
  We have heard much about GPs. It is quite wrong to assume that GPs who are not fund holders are unable to influence the standard of care that is available to their patients. I should like to see more influence exercised by GPs on the district health authorities as they prepare contracts for hospitals. I hope that those with management responsibilities in the trusts will recognise that their ability to deliver consistent health care throughout the year will be improved if doctors are involved in the process from the beginning.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) made an excellent speech, as one would expect because he clearly understands the importance of the freedoms—[interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. I should be obliged if hon. Members on both front Benches below the Gangway ceased their conversations so that I might hear the Minister.
  Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend clearly understands the importance of the freedoms that we have given to GPs and the importance that we attach to their fundamental role. If the service is to be as sensitive as possible to the needs of the patient, the GP must be involved in the system as much as possible.
  My hon. Friend was right. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. We are not coercing, forcing or cajoling GPs to become fund holders. The debate on trusts is over. By April 1994, something like 95 per cent. of all the provider units in the country will be trusts, and if the Opposition
  968
  ever come up with a policy they will not be able to put it into effect if that policy in any way involves dismantling trusts. Of course they will not get into office, so it is a bit of a hypothetical point.
  At the heart of the reforms is the role of the GP and of the GP fund holder, and GP fund holders are increasing in number precisely because they recognise that they can provide more, better and more sensitive services to their patients.
  It is worth reminding Opposition Members that we have made it easier for patients to move from their GPs if they are dissatisfied. What is happening to GP fund holders? Their lists are not going down but up. To talk about a two-tier system is totally to misunderstand the heart of the Government's reforms. It is not a two-tier system but a shared purchasing system. I am very clear, particularly given the record of Opposition Members in this debate, that we shall have to keep on saying that to them regularly month by month for a long time until finally the penny drops. The penny will need to drop because GP fund holders are at the heart of the reforms and will drive forward the improvements we are all committed to making.
  Turning to the question of London, I wish to pay tribute to Sir Bernard Tomlinson, a distinguished academic and public servant who has produced an excellent report. He does not deserve some of the personal abuse which has been heaped on him over the past three months. It is important to understand that the Tomlinson report, which remains, until my right hon. Friend makes her decisions, advice to Government, is not about whether one closes a hospital here or merges a couple of hospitals there but rather about the re-configuring of health care in London. The fact is that change is taking place and even the hon. Member for Brightside once recognised that London's status quo could not be maintained. He has wobbled a bit and waffled a bit since, but he did at least recognise that.
  Part of the change is reflected in increased standards of health care provision in hospitals outside London so that those who used to send their patients to London no longer have to do so, because the patients do not want to travel if they do not have to and they can get treatment at home.
  We have been consulting. I have been listening to representatives of the users, of the providers and of the purchasers as well as to the politicians, and I recognise the importance of primary care. Tomlinson does and so do we. In addressing primary and community care, we recognise that we have to address the problems of bed blocking in hospitals. All of my conversations have been confidential. but I will give the House one piece of information from a medium sized teaching hospital in London, which told me that on every day of the year between 60 and 100 of its beds are blocked by people who are clinically discharged but cannot go home because of inadequacies in primary care. We recognise the importance of addressing that issue.
  It is easy to sum up this debate. There is a crisis. It is a crisis in the Labour party; and those who do not believe it should have been watching the face of the Leader of the Opposition when the hon. Member for Brightside was speaking. The Labour party policy on the NHS was rejected by the public in April. Now there is not even a policy, not a whiff of a policy. The Opposition have elevated the whinge to an art form.
  Labour Members have a concern for individuals, as do all of us. The difference between us is that we are

  969
  developing systems that ensure that more patients are treated to higher standards and with more regard to their wishes than ever before. GP fund holding is at the heart of those reforms.
  The public's appreciation of the NHS is far greater than the Opposition's. Its appreciation of what we have done to improve the NHS is far greater than the Opposition's. Our commitment to the NHS is clearly far greater than the Opposition's. For those reasons, our vote tonight will be far greater than the Opposition's.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
  The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 316.

  Division No. 125]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cousins, Jim

  Ainger, Nick

  Cox, Tom

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cryer, Bob

  Allen, Graham

  Cummings, John

  Alton, David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ashton, Joe

  Darling, Alistair

  Austin-Walker, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Battle, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bayley, Hugh

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

  Beckett, Margaret

  Denham, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Dewar, Donald

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Dixon, Don

  Bell, Stuart

  Dobson, Frank

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Dowd, Jim

  Benton, Joe

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Betts, Clive

  Eastham, Ken

  Blair, Tony

  Enright, Derek

  Blunkett, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Boateng, Paul

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Boyes, Roland

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bradley, Keith

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Flynn, Paul

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Byers, Stephen

  Foulkes, George

  Caborn, Richard

  Fraser, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Garrett, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  George, Bruce

  Cann, Jamie

  Gerrard, Neil

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clapham, Michael

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clelland, David

  Gould, Bryan

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Graham, Thomas

  Coffey, Ann

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cohen, Harry

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Connarty, Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Gunnell, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hain, Peter

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hall, Mike

  970

  Hanson, David

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Mudie, George

  Harvey, Nick

  Mullin, Chris

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Murphy, Paul

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Heppell, John

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hoey, Kate

  Olner, William

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Parry, Robert

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Patchett, Terry

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hutton, John

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Ingram, Adam

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Prescott, John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jamieson, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Janner, Greville

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Redmond, Martin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Keen, Alan

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Rogers, Allan

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Rooney, Terry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Leighton, Ron

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Salmond, Alex

  Lewis, Terry

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Short, Clare

  Loyden, Eddie

  Simpson, Alan

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAllion, John

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  McCartney, Ian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McCrea, Rev William

  Soley, Clive

  Macdonald, Calum

  Spearing, Nigel

  McFall, John

  Spellar, John

  McKelvey, William

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McLeish, Henry

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McMaster, Gordon

  Stevenson, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stott, Roger

  McWilliam, John

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Madden, Max

  Straw, Jack

  Mahon, Alice

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Marek, Dr John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Trimble, David

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Turner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Tyler, Paul

  Maxton, John

  Vaz, Keith

  Meacher, Michael

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Meale, Alan

  Wallace, James

  Michael, Alun

  Walley, Joan

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Milburn, Alan

  Watson, Mike

  Miller, Andrew

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Morley, Elliot

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Wilson, Brian

  971

  Winnick, David

  Wise, Audrey

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Mr. Eric Illsley.

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Day, Stephen

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Alexander, Richard

  Devlin, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Dicks, Terry

  Amess, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Ancram, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dover, Den

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Ashby, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Eggar, Tim

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Elletson, Harold

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bates, Michael

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evennett, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Faber, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  Booth, Hartley

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Boswell, Tim

  Forth, Eric

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bowis, John

  Freeman, Roger

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  French, Douglas

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fry, Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Gale, Roger

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gallie, Phil

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Garnier, Edward

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  Burns, Simon

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Butcher, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Butler, Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butterfill, John

  Gorst, John

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Cash, William

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hague, William

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clappison, James

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Harris, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Colvin, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Congdon, David

  Hawksley, Warren

  Conway, Derek

  Hayes, Jerry

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Heald, Oliver

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hendry, Charles

  Couchman, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  972

  Horam, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

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

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Redwood, John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Richards, Rod

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Riddick, Graham

  Jack, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jessel, Toby

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Key, Robert

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sackville, Tom

  Knapman, Roger

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knox, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shersby, Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sims, Roger

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Legg, Barry

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Leigh, Edward

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lidington, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lord, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sproat, Iain

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maclean, David

  Steen, Anthony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Madel, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sumberg, David

  Malone, Gerald

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mans, Keith

  Sykes, John

  Marlow, Tony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thomason, Roy

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mills, Iain

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Tracey, Richard

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tredinnick, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trend, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trotter, Neville

  Nelson, Anthony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Walden, George

  Norris, Steve

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Waller, Gary

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Ward, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Page, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Watts, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wells, Bowen

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Whitney, Ray

  Pawsey, James

  Whittingdale, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Widdecombe, Ann

  973

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Wood, Timothy

  Wilkinson, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Willetts, David

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wilshire, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Wolfson, Mark

  Mr. David Lightbown.

  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.
  Madam Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its reforms to the National Health Service which have led to record numbers of patients being treated, the elimination of two year waiting lists in the regions, a substantial reduction in long waiting times generally and significant improvements in the quality of care; looks forward to more general practitioner fundholders and National Health Service trusts and the futher improvements they will bring; and believes that in the modern health service the focus should be on patients and prevention and not on politicisation, which remains the dominant concern of Her Majesty's Opposition.

  SCA Aylesford Ltd
  10.14 pm
  The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I beg to move,
  That this House authorises the Secretary of State to pay, or undertake to pay, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, in respect of the installation of new and the refurbishment of existing machinery to manufacture newsprint from recycled fibre at Aylesford, Kent by SCA Aylesford Ltd, sums exceeding £ l0,000,000 but not exceeding £20,000,000.
  As the House knows, last March my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State announced our intention to provide a grant of not more than £20 million to SCA Aylesford Ltd towards the cost of an investment in a project to manufacture newsprint from recycled fibre at Aylesford, near Maidstone in Kent. The project is estimated to cost no less than £260 million.
  We propose to provide the financial support through the Department's assistance-for-exceptional-projects facility. That is funded under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, under which the approval of the House is required before assistance of more than £10 million can be granted to any single project.
  The purpose of the AEP facility is to assist a small number of investment projects and research and development projects that are likely to yield exceptional national benefits. Applicants must also show that the project is commercially viable and that, despite its exceptional merits, assistance is necessary to enable the project to go ahead as planned. Assistance is provided on a selective basis, usually as a grant. The amount is negotiated as the minimum necessary for the project to go ahead and is subject to a maximum of 25 per cent. of eligible costs. In SCA's case, the exceptional national benefits are environmental and the project has the strong support of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  SCA currently operates a single newsprint machine at Aylesford, which manufactures 80,000 tonnes of newsprint annually from 100 per cent. recycled fibre. Indeed, it is the only company in Europe presently manufacturing newsprint wholly from that source of raw material.
  The project is to install an additional machine, together with the associated de-inking, water treatment and other facilities required to manufacture a further 250,000 tonnes of newsprint a year wholly from recycled fibre. The existing 80,000-tonne machine will also be refurbished to improve the quality of its output and increase it by 26,000 tonnes a year.
  In all, the plant will consume some 430,000 tonnes of waste paper a year, much of it from household waste. The developments will enable the feedstock to consist of 80 per cent. post-consumer waste—that is, old newspapers and magazines—and only 20 per cent. pre-consumer waste. That would reverse the proportions used by the present machine.
  The project will thus make a major contribution to our target for recycling 25 per cent. of domestic waste by the end of the century. To help to meet that target, British newspaper publishers have also agreed that they will use 40 per cent. of recycled fibre in their publications by the year 2000. A new accessible source of wastepaper-based newsprint is vital if publishers are to fulfil the undertaking from United Kingdom sources.

  975

  In due course, the project will create an additional 100 permanent jobs. It would be uneconomic simply to refurbish the current machine unless the new machine is installed. The project will therefore also safeguard almost 300 existing jobs at the Aylesford site. Construction work will give rise at a peak to about 1,000 additional temporary jobs.
  A detailed assessment of the project has been carried out by my Department in conjunction with the Department of the Environment. That has established that all the criteria of the AEP facility have been satisfied and that an offer of £20 million would be justified. The independent Industrial Development Advisory Board, which advises the Department on the provision of selective financial assistance, has also recommended that support of £20 million should be offered.
  We have also notified the European Commission of our intention to assist SCA Aylesford. It has recently informed us that it considers that the project is of demonstrable environmental interest to the European Community, that the aid is necessary for the project to take place, and that the level of aid is sufficiently modest to make it unlikely that it will distort trading conditions between member states.
  I should like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), who first brought this environmentally significant project to the Government's attention in 1991, and whose support has been invaluable. We have greatly valued his continuing and energetic support, particularly during our discussions with the European Commission.
  I believe that SCA's project will make a valuable contribution to the infrastructure for recycling household waste in this country. In asking the House to approve the proposed assistance, I therefore particularly commend the project's potential for recycling waste material and for raising awareness of the commercial benefits of recycling.
  As I have said, this scheme was devised for very exceptional cases. That is why the criteria are deliberately very tightly drawn and difficult to satisfy. Of the many inquiries received by my Department during the five years the scheme has been in existence, only 55 projects justified further consideration. We accepted fewer than 10 for a time-consuming full appraisal process. Of these, only two have succeeded in meeting the criteria and have been offered grant.
  I have therefore concluded that we should suspend this scheme for the present. The extreme difficulty of qualifying for grant means delay and uncertainty for companies. This complicates the often difficult decisions that they have to make on potentially eligible projects. The lengthy grant approval process involves an investment of resources by both the company and my Department.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Would the Minister take time to explain this matter in the context of the motion before the House? My understanding was that we should be discussing simply a grant to SCA Aylesford, but the Minister has announced the suspension of the scheme, shutting the stable door after the horse—the grant to SCA Aylesford—has bolted. Is it not a matter requiring a separate statement if the Minister thinks that there should be no more grants of this type? Surely, out of courtesy, he should make a separate announcement.
  Mr. Sainsbury: My feeling was that the House would like to be told of the suspension of the scheme at the time of the announcement of this grant as the two matters are very closely related. Obviously this is a very substantial grant.
  Mr. Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sainsbury: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to give an explanation that should meet his point.
  As I have already pointed out, in the case of most applicants, this investment does not produce a return by way of grant. In addition, the scheme requires that Government funds be earmarked for possible successful applicants. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that. Often these funds have not been spent, as there have not been any successful applicants. It is clear that the funds might more effectively have been used for other schemes. That is inefficiency that we cannot afford, particularly with the very heavy current pressure on public expenditure, of which the House is aware.
  Relaxing the criteria and making more grant offers is not a practical possibility, as we—like Opposition Members, I hope—attach great importance to the existence of a level playing field in Europe. The Commission has required member states to phase out general investment support schemes outside assisted areas. We strongly support its efforts to limit such schemes as they can so easily distort competition. We should not want to detract from the Commission's efforts, and thus undermine the achievement of the objective of a level playing field throughout the Community, by operating our scheme less rigorously than at present. I should, however, emphasise most strongly that regional assistance will continue to be available in the assisted areas.
  In those circumstances, and in the light of the substantial grant that I am asking the House to approve and of the demand on funds that that represents, I intend to suspend the operation of the assistance-for-exceptional-projects facility with effect from the end of February for the next financial year. No further applications will therefore be accepted from the end of February, and the scheme will be suspended until April 1994.
  I stress that I shall keep the position under review and make a further announcement in due course. Applications which have already been received, or which are received by the end of February and which are adequately prepared and sufficiently developed to enable appraisal to go forward, will be fully considered against the criteria of the scheme. I can confirm that we shall consider against those criteria the application currently being pursued by North British Newsprint in respect of the Gartcosh project.
  I repeat my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing for bringing SCA Aylesford's project to the attention of the Government. I emphasise the exceptional environmental advantage of the project that we are considering today and I ask the House to agree the motion.
  10.24 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: I had thought that we would have a broadly consensual debate on the application for money and the agreement by Government to make money available to SCA, but I must say that the Minister's announcement at the end of his speech was, in

  977
  my view, a discourtesy to the House. It is, Madam Speaker, as you fully realise, a very tight motion which relates to the Industrial Development Act 1982, to section 8 of that Act and to a particular project. For the Minister to come to the House and announce the suspension of the scheme in this way is discourteous. It should have been announced in a different way. There should have been a statement in prime time to give other hon. Members the opportunity of asking questions of the Minister.
  The Government did not even have the courtesy or the courage to put this on the Order Paper. It is a substantial change in policy dictated by one of two reasons. Either it has been dictated by financial concerns, which is a further indication that the Government are in difficulty with their trade and industry budget—perhaps the Minister will confirm that—or it has been dictated to the Government by the European Commission. The Minister talked about a level playing field. Perhaps he could make it clear to us whether this is a result of the intervention of the European Commission. If so, the House has a right to know.
  The Minister's statement is cursory and unreasonable, having regard to hon. Members' right to know about important statements of this sort. I am sure that, as a courtesy to yourself, Madam Speaker, and to the House it would have made some sense if the Government had put down a motion related not just to SCA but to the broader issue. I realise, Madam Speaker, that in many respects I am out of order in making these general comments, but I think that it is appropriate in the circumstances when the Minister has taken the opportunity to make a wider statement.
  Madam Speaker: May I make the point that the Minister of State has opened it up, and the hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order, once the Minister has done so.
  Mr. Fatchett: I realise that, Madam Speaker. I meant that it may have been discourteous to you and the House for the Minister to make the statement in this way.
  The statement raises a number of points which also relate to the more general issues. Why this particular scheme? The criteria are set out in the Government's documentation under the Industrial Development Act 1982—the annual report for the year ending 31 March 1992. We welcome this scheme. We believe that it has environmental advantages. We are also delighted to hear that the Department of the Environment agrees with the Department of Trade and Industry on this project. It may be almost unique at the moment for the Secretary of State for the Environment to agree with the President of the Board of Trade, so the SCA scheme has brought together two members of a warring Cabinet and it may reflect further credit on the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley). He must have healing tendencies.
  The Minister said that the scheme may need to be looked at because of the number of projects that have been approved, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said, it is not because of the lack of projects. It is interesting to look through the number of applications received in the year to 31 March 1992. All but two of the 44 applications were turned down. All the way across the country, project after project was turned down because, according to the Department of Trade and
  978
  Industry, it did not meet the requirements set out. Two projects for Wales gained approval and expenditure of £4·2 million.
  Mr. Sainsbury: One project.
  Mr. Fatchett: I only read the documents that the Department of Trade and Industry pushes out. It is difficult to conclude other than that two projects received offers. Perhaps the Minister is suggesting that only one of those offers was taken up.
  Mr. Sainsbury: It may be a little confusing. Perhaps I can help. Two separate companies were involved, each receiving a grant in respect of the same project. Therefore, it was effectively one project.
  Mr. Fatchett: We seem to have resolved that small matter. Two companies, one project, 44 applications, only two approved.
  The Minister says that it would be unreasonable to change the criteria, so the scheme is stopped altogether. If various companies have expressed an interest in relation to 44 projects, would it not also have been sensible, instead of announcing the suspension of the scheme without consultation, for the Government to have consulted so that people could comment on the nature of the scheme, its success, whether the criteria need to be changed or whether schemes could fall within the criteria? But the Government do not even bother to consider consultation on that basis.
  The Minister has given reasons for this particular scheme. He also commented on the Gartcosh scheme, which has many similarities to the SCA scheme. Will the Gartcosh scheme now gain Government approval? I understand that if section 8 money had been made available to that scheme in 1991, when it was short of only £15 million out of £250 million, it would now be on stream. Perhaps the Minister will give us the details of the Gartcosh scheme, and where it now stands. When there is such difficulty in finding successful applicants for the scheme, will he explain why, in 1991, when Gartcosh was so close to achieving all the criteria, the Government did not make the necessary money available?
  As with any scheme of this sort, a number of issues are raised. We are told that the scheme qualifies only if the capital investment is guaranteed by the scheme and will not be available in any other form. The Minister provided no evidence that that condition has been met in relation to this scheme. Why has the Minister come to the conclusion that this scheme, and this scheme alone, will be in a difficult position and not attract the capital investment other than by means of the grant?
  The Minister skated over the job implications of the scheme. As I understand it, he said that the SCA scheme would protect an existing 300 jobs. We welcome that. He also said that there would be 1,000 temporary construction jobs. But in the long term the scheme will not create one new job. It will simply protect existing jobs. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is the case.
  The National Audit Office report in relation to Wales, not necessarily the Department of Trade and Industry, entitled "Creating and safeguarding jobs in Wales", published in October 1991, criticised the Government for not always having effective forecasts and estimates of the job creation implications of particular schemes. It said:
  "From the point of view of jobs alone, the National Audit Office believe that the bodies have been slow to make forecasts

  979
  for and assess the achievements of the initiatives by measuring and verifying actual jobs achieved and by undertaking more regular and communally devised evaluation studies."
  That may apply to this scheme as well.
  The Minister will be aware that SCA has not just had an interest in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing in Aylesford in Kent, but also has or had an interest in Blackburn. SCA bought out the Reed paper organisation, and, on that basis, inherited the Sun paper mill in Blackburn, which employed 180 people and was closed last July. Other buyers were interested, but the impression given is that SCA was not concerned about the possibility of selling the land to any buyer; it was keen to close the mill, and to concentrate its activities on Aylesford.
  In the Minister's calculation of jobs and his discussions with the company, has he taken any account of the 180 jobs that have been lost in Blackburn as a result of SCA's decision to close the Sun paper mill? If he has not, the equation changes dramatically.
  Finally, I should like the Minister to say more about the details of the scheme. I am relying solely on what the Financial Times said on 12 January about the construction contracts. The Minister may well have more information; if so, I defer to his greater knowledge.
  According to the Financial Times,
  "John Brown, a member of the engineering division of Trafalgar House, is to construct a … gas turbine based heat and power … plant at … SCA … papermaking site in Kent.
  The company was awarded the Aylesford contract by National Power who will own the plant and supply the electrical power and heat to meet SCA's current energy and process needs on site."
  Will the Minister tell us whether that gas-driven scheme, however small it may be, was taken into account in some of the broader energy discussions? Were the energy implications noted?
  I welcome the grant, and the support for the plant. I have raised a number of detailed questions. We are keen to know about the future of Gartcosh, the implications of the job losses for Blackburn and the evidence that capital investment would not be made available by other means; but the most disappointing feature of the Minister's statement is the decision to suspend the scheme. That, I think, will disappoint British industry. It will certainly disappoint the House that the Minister has sneaked out the statement so late at night.
  If the Government want industrial partnership with British industry, they should recognise that making such an announcement at this time of night is not a good way of setting up the new relationship. The Opposition will support the measure, but we shall want to return to the broader issues at a later stage.
  10.37 pm
  Sir John Stanley: I am glad that we have the support of the Opposition Front Bench. Obviously it is for my right hon. Friend the Minister to respond to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), but it may assist the House if I briefly sketch the history of paper making at the Aylesford site as it bears directly on the rationale for the grant.
  Paper making began in the 1920s at Aylesford, which was a perfect site for the purpose. The River Medway runs through the site, providing the all-important water supply,
  980
  and also river access from the Thames estuary for the key raw materials pulp, china clay and, at that time, coal. The site prospered until the second world war, and after 1945. Paper making continued to expand on the site until the end of the 1950s. At that point, there were no fewer than 13 paper-making machines on the site, which was the largest single paper-making complex in Europe. Since then, the story of the site has been one of sedate but remorseless contraction. In 1959, there were 13 paper-making machines, but now there are three.
  Sadly, under the management of successive British companies, it has not proved possible to find the finance for the major investment necessary to render the site competitive in the long term. An opportunity to change that occurred in 1990 when the Swedish SCA group took over the site. SCA's strategic plan was to establish within the confines of the EC area a major newsprint manufacturing operation using only recycled paper. It was far from certain that SCA would locate the new £260 million investment in this country at Aylesford, and it reflects credit on the Government that we are holding this debate today and that this important strategic national investment has been secured for this country.
  I should like to pay a personal tribute to two members of the Cabinet and one former member of the Cabinet who were instrumental in retaining this investment in the United Kingdom. I first took the chairman of SCA to my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in August 1991. The chairman eloquently and persuasively set out the case for the major investment at Aylesford. He developed the environmental case, the significant balance of payments case and the employment case. He pointed out, very reasonably, that other countries were anxious to secure SCA's investment, in particular Germany and the Netherlands, both of which were offering substantial capital grants running to tens of millions of pounds to attract investment. He told my right hon. Friend that, unless the British Government were able to match to some degree the financial assistance being offered by other countries, SCA would inevitably have to locate the investment elsewhere. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central may wish to note that because it directly addresses one of the points that he made.
  Against that background, it was clear that unless a degree of financial assistance was offered by the Government the project would be lost to this country. The initial response of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans was not particularly encouraging. He told us that it was not Government policy to subsidise private companies, that private companies were expected to stand on their own feet and that the Government were not sympathetic to the suggestion that they should intervene in industry.
  The meeting ended cordially and, to his credit, my right hon. Friend reflected closely on the detailed case for the project submitted to the Department and moved from a position of scepticism to one of support and strong backing. He was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the £20 million grant was announced at the end of the last Parliament.
  Secondly, I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). I well remember that on the key day—Monday 16 March, the last day of the last Parliament—the Department of Trade and Industry was ready to go ahead with the

  981
  announcement of the grant. All that was necessary was Treasury approval in the form of the agreement of the Chief Secretary. I went in search of him and found him discharging his duties in the House. I was able to have a discussion with him behind the Speaker's Chair. With his usual energy, my right hon. and learned Friend managed to produce Treasury approval in a matter of hours. It is wondrous what can happen on the last working day of a Parliament when Ministers and officials are desperate to clear ministerial desks for whatever may lie ahead.
  Thirdly, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who was Secretary of State for the Environment in the previous Parliament. Since he has become President of the Board of Trade he has played a crucial role in ensuring that the Government's intention to give the go-ahead to the project with the assistance of the £20 million grant was not torpedoed by the European Community. The House may want to know that that was a real possibility at one point, and we are indebted to the determination, skill and persuasiveness of the President of the Board of Trade and his extremely diligent officials in ensuring that the EC did not manage to wreck the project in the United Kingdom. I am grateful to my three right hon. and right hon. and learned Friends.
  I mention one policy point which is important to me as I have lived with the project for some two and a half years. I know that what I am going to say will not please hon. Members with constituencies in assisted areas. My experience of the project is that it has now become almost impossible to gain major manufacturing investment in a non-assisted area in the United Kingdom because of a double handicap faced by such areas. The geographical extent of non-assisted areas in the United Kingdom covers the greater part of England.
  The double handicap applies, first, in the United Kingdom itself. In the non-assisted areas, there is no help with development grants for new manufacturing investment. That is in contrast with the substantial assistance available to assisted areas and it can have some grotesque effects. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central referred to the SCA closure in Blackburn. I do not know the background to that, but I offer an illustration of what has happened as a result of a major discrimination against non-assisted areas in the United Kingdom.
  On the Aylesford site, alongside SCA, there is another paper-making company called Kimberly-Clark. If hon. Members have not heard of that company, they will at least have heard of its major product—the excellent Kleenex tissue range. A few years ago, Kimberly-Clark managed to secure a major new plant investment in Wales —I know that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will be glad to hear that—with development grant assistance. As a result, in October last year Kimberly-Clark at Aylesford announced 300 redundancies. The new plant that it had established in Wales with Government assistance meant that it was transferring products from Kent. It does not seem to make sense to use taxpayers' money to create notional employment in one part of the United Kingdom while producing redundancies in another. That is a serious issue which the Government need to address.
  The second handicap relates to the EC's competition policy. My right hon. Friend the Minister sought to justify
  982
  his suspension announcement today in terms of helping the EC to maintain a level playing field. Although the EC notionally seeks to establish a level playing field for manufacturing industry, there is no level playing field in practice—for the simple reason that any assisted area in the EC can obtain any amount of subsidy that the national Government can produce and not run any risk of having that investment torpedoed by the EC. Inside a non-assisted area, such as Kent generally and Aylesford in particular, the moment any form of Government subsidy is used one runs the gauntlet of the EC and is likely to have one's investment torpedoed
  There is no level playing field. The real issue is whether it is possible to have genuine and fair competition when one geographical section of the EC—the assisted areas —has limitless amounts of Government subsidy open to it while the rest of the EC has no such access to subsidy and faces the possibility of its manufacturing investment being torpedoed by the EC if any Government subsidy is used. There is no such thing as a level playing field at present, and until the issue is addressed there will be no fair competition. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to take my point seriously and to look for some sensible answers to it so that we can have genuine and fair competition in manufacturing investment in the EC.
  Mr. Fatchett: The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point. May I push him a stage further? He said at the beginning of his speech that what was important to the company was the assistance, which is supported in the motion, under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. Is it not the case, in terms of the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the level playing field, that Governments in other countries, regardless of regional policy, find ways to support such projects? The danger with SCA and other similar companies is that if the money had not been forthcoming from the United Kingdom they would have taken the jobs and the investment elsewhere.
  Sir John Stanley: The hon. Gentleman is correct and precisely describes the position. He has explained the central rationale for the grant, as I see it. If the Government had not made the grant available, the £260 million project, with the environmental and employment benefits to which hon. Members have referred, would have gone either to Germany or to the Netherlands. Other countries understand that the wider they draw the boundaries of the assisted areas, the greater the ability they have to play the subsidy system free from EC interference. That is a lesson that other countries understand. Ministers should reflect on that point.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no possibility of other EC countries diminishing the level of state aid that they provide until we provide the same level of aid? We should then be able, as one sovereign country with another, to negotiate within the EC for overall reductions in state aid, thus providing a genuine level playing field.
  Sir John Stanley: I do not see the position as the hon. Gentleman describes it. My experience, deriving essentially from this project, is that each Government will try to work the existing EC rules to their own national

  983
  advantage. That does not affect the aggregate amount of subsidy. Each Government will try to work the system to help their own national interest.
  I suggest that the Aylesford paper-making site has been a microcosm of British manufacturing industry and the way in which it has ebbed and flowed in the post-war period. It prospered through to the end of the 1950s and since then has experienced a slow but steady contraction, although the site is still effective and has done pretty well through the severe recession that we have recently experienced.
  984
  With the assistance of the grant—if the House approves it today—we shall see ushered in at Aylesford another significant period of manufacturing investment and benefit to manufacturing industry at Aylesford. Although the debate has inevitably focused narrowly on my constituency—I am grateful to the House for its time—it is my fervent wish that the strengthening of manufacturing in Aylesford in the 1990s will be accompanied through the 1990s by a general widening and strengthening of manufacturing investment in Britain as a whole.
  10.55 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few comments on the remarkable statement that the Minister made. He is bound to make a statement to the House under the Industrial Development Act 1982 when a grant of more than £10 million is made. It is a matter of great regret that the Minister slipped in a significant change of policy while he was making a statement about an individual grant. He was bound to make such a statement under the terms of the legislation.
  The Minister's change of policy means that all the claims of advantage made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), that industry would be secured in his constituency which would have gone to either Germany or Holland without that inducement, are now scattered to the winds. Any Member of Parliament who makes a similar approach to a Department of Trade and Industry Minister will get naught for his or her pains. Investment of a major nature for special projects cannot now be induced to come to the United Kingdom in spite of the Government's proud boasts that they attract inward investment.
  Assistance cannot be sought for a similar project which, on the admission of the constituency Member of Parliament, required a £20 million inducement—the same as the amount of grant in the motion before the House. We can no longer encourage investment in manufacturing industry in that way. That is a major change of policy. It is a matter of great regret that the Minister chose this underhand method. It is a way of withholding information from Parliament.
  There is a great difference between tabling a motion about a single payment to a factory at Aylesford in Kent and announcing at just before 1 pm on the annunciator throughout the Palace of Westminster that a Minister will make a statement. A statement would have given everyone the opportunity to come to the Chamber. Members could not possibly anticipate from the narrow motion on the Order Paper that it contained a major change of policy.
  Everyone would agree with the criteria in section 8. They are that any grant must benefit the economy; it must be in the national interest; and there must be no alternatives available to the Secretary of State than to pay grant assistance. Those three criteria are reasonable and straightforward. It is madness for the Government to say that they will no longer apply those criteria. Even if a project is in the national interest and will benefit the economy and even if there are no alternative ways of financing it, such a project will go out of the window for the United Kingdom by virtue of what the Minister has announced tonight. That is a matter of great regret.
  The Minister said that the project will have environmental benefits. His statement confirmed that, and it supports the investment to recycle used paper to provide fresh paper. Other industries can provide environmental benefits in exactly the same way. As the Minister knows, the textile industry has had many concerns about the use of water, of which the paper industry is also a major user. If the textile industry had a plan to introduce carbonising and scouring, which involved significant capital expenditure—which I assure the Minister the textile industry could not reasonably afford—it would require grant assistance. However, it would be denied such assistance. That is extremely unfair.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's line, but it is going rather wide of the motion. It is one thing to make a passing reference, but the hon. Gentleman is beginning to develop a theme that falls outside the scope of the order.
  Mr. Cryer: You were not in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, when that very point was raised with Madam Speaker. Because the Minister had referred to the suspension of the scheme, Madam Speaker agreed that it was no longer simply a debate on the narrow issue of this grant to SCA Aylesford but could go wider. I am speaking about the suspension of the scheme.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is a matter of degree. What I have described as a passing reference is one thing, but we cannot widen the debate so that the original issue becomes lost in the other issues of whether the scheme continues. I must draw the line there and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that. He has made his point cogently but should not continue with it.
  Mr. Fatchett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I responded to the Minister I was conscious of the fact that the motion referred only to SCA Aylesford. I asked Madam Speaker for guidance and she made it clear that we could comment on the Minister's announcement and its implications. [Interruption.] Despite the laboured French from the Conservative Benches, it was not en passant. Madam Speaker was clear that we could draw substantial attention to the Minister's announcement, and in his speech the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) said that the scheme relates to projects that are of national importance. I think that Madam Speaker intended to allow a much more general debate.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not my understanding.
  Mr. Cryer: Perhaps I could extend the debate to consider the question of jobs. The Minister made it clear that 300 jobs would be safeguarded and that there would be 100 additional jobs, plus construction jobs on the project to which the grant relates. By virtue of the avoidance of payment of unemployment benefit and the tax revenue that the jobs will yield, surely the cost of the grant will be recouped over time. Has the Minister calculated over how many years the tax revenue and the unemployment benefit would be equivalent to the £20 million grant?
  The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing said that if the grant were not available the paper-making capacity at Aylesford would be extinguished. Therefore, there is a possibility that jobs will be lost if the grant is not forthcoming. My question is therefore valid. The Minister's announcement of the suspension of the scheme means that the Government will pay more money than grant aid through the payment of unemployment benefit and the loss of tax revenue. That potential loss can be set against the amount of grant which would preserve jobs.
  The Minister also mentioned suspension of the scheme, due to a desire to conform to the EC's much-vaunted but highly inaccurate claim of providing what is generally termed a level playing field, because state aids, he said, distort competition.
  I find the statement from the Minister extraordinary, because the reality is that competition inside the EEC is distorted and until the EEC Commission makes it clear

  987
  beyond peradventure that other state aids in other countries are also to be completely removed, we are tying an economic hand behind our back without any economic advantage being provided.
  It does not make sense. What, for example, has the Minister done in the textile industry? This is said by way of example and explanation, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The explanation is getting very full and lengthy so I remind the hon. Member again of the point I made earlier.
  Mr. Cryer: The explanation is one that the Minister made in his statement, when he said that the scheme was suspended because, in his view, it helped to distort competition. I am commenting on the Minister's statement.
  I am saying that, in the EEC, nothing was done about the Lana Rossi scandal in which £4 million was given to a private company, in the Prato region of Italy. There was a 10 per cent. competitive advantage because there were no insurance payments.
  That is what I am saying in comparison and explanation. The Minister is giving away, by suspending it, a scheme which could have been of benefit to British manufacturing industry. It is being scattered to the winds for no advantage.
  Why did the right hon. Gentleman not go to the Common Market and say that if they made certain concessions about schemes which are giving advantage to other EEC countries he would suspend this scheme? Nothing like that happened. He came simply to the House and made this announcement without so much as a by-your-leave statement or anything of that nature. He tried to creep it past Parliament without any concentration on it.
  This scheme is administered under section 8 of the Act and there is provision for advice and guidance from the Industrial Development Advisory Board. Has that board approved suspension of the scheme? Did the board consider all the 44 or so applications before the Minister, which, he said, were not successful? Did the Industrial Development Advisory Board reject them, or did they never reach the position of the board providing advice and guidance?
  Lastly, because the board involves manufacturers, industrialists, merchant bankers, and so on, did any of the board members dealing with this scheme have any financial interest involved, and did any withdraw when the matter was under consideration?
  I can recall, as a former Minister at the Department of Industry, that that policy was scrupulously followed: when members of the Industrial Development Advisory Board had financial investment, it was important that they should withdraw so that independent advice was seen to be continuous and clear for all.
  I hope that, although the Minister was not listening, he will make some acknowledgement of the questions that I raised.
  I conclude by saying that it has been very confusing for you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You came into the House and went into the Chair with a straightforward motion, not realising that the Minister had slipped through a much wider announcement. The confusion for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, is confusion for hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are faced with a typical example of
  988
  the underhand way in which the Government treat Parliament. They tried to slip through a change of policy late at night when hardly anyone would be in the Chamber.
  11.11pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry knows of my interest in the Gartcosh plant, but I do not intend to talk about that plant this evening. Instead, I want to ask some questions about the recycling of paper. Earlier, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who is sitting next to my right hon. Friend on the Government Front Bench, about the Government's target of ensuring that 40 per cent. of waste paper is recycled by the year 2000. I asked also what the Government were doing to encourage outlets to ensure that the target is met. I was told that SCA Aylesford Ltd's plant was an example of the encouragement that was being given to the recycling of paper. I am sure that the Government will accept that if the target of 40 per cent. is to be met, SCA will not be able to produce a sufficient market to ensure that the necessary uptake will be achieved.
  I was glad to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister said about Gartcosh this evening, but what further encouragement will the Government give to ensure that in the south of England, the north and in Scotland there is a sufficient uptake of waste paper and a proper manufacturing outlet so that we can be sure that the Government's sound environmental target is achieved?
  11.12pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: We are here because we want to extend our congratulations to SCA Aylesford and to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), who has fought hard to get the project grant-aided. Our congratulations and our acceptance of the part that the right hon. Gentleman has played are tinged with regret and annoyance because the Minister has chosen to abuse and confuse the House and do untold damage to relationships with industry. The motion refers to SCA Aylesford and nothing but SCA Aylesford, but it has been announced that section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 is being scrapped. That section has been on the statute book for 20 years. It is not some fly-by-night, temporary provision. It is—[Interruption.] If the Minister is telling me that it is only part of section 8 that is being scrapped, perhaps he will elucidate now. Is that why he is shaking his head?
  Mr. Sainsbury: It may be of assistance to the hon. Gentleman and to the House generally if I explain that what I announced was the temporary suspension of a scheme that is operated under the provisions of section 8. That has no effect on section 8 itself.
  Mr. Morgan: I hope that the Minister will be able to say more about that.
  What proportion of total section 8 money is being removed by the suspension of this particular AEP—assistance for exceptional projects to the national economy? Hon. Members on both sides of the House are confused—no doubt industry is similarly confused—in the absence of a proper democratic procedure. There is nothing before us save the motion, and we have not been given proper notice. The Government wish sneakily to slip

  989
  the motion through the House. If the Minister's family grocery store, of which he is a proud scion, tried to sell an SCA Aylesford order while suspending part of section 8, the local trading standards department would be down on it like a ton of bricks. Such behaviour is not acceptable in an advanced and civilised western democracy.
  I am pleased that some of us have been in the Chamber this evening to see what the Government are up to. If their behaviour is any indication of the chiselling that they intend to do to regional aid when section 7 is finally reviewed—several months late—by the President of the Board of Trade, there is a pretty poor outlook for those of us who represent constituencies in the assisted areas.
  The Minister's excuse is extremely thin. The scheme was being suspended, he said, because it did not get sufficient use and there was always money left over at the end of the year. He is forgetting that those of us who have worked in the field and have tried to obtain section 7 and section 8 assistance for projects in our areas—in my case, before and since coming to this place—know that section 7 and section 8 budgeting is almost impossible. It is the most difficult area of prediction for any Government to say how much industrial demand there will be in the next budget year for section 7 assistance, if it is under the regional aid budget, or for section 8 assistance, if it is under the non-regional aspects of industrial assistance.
  It is always pitched high because of the problems that can arise if one needs to return to the House three quarters of the way through the financial year. So an over-estimate is nearly always done because it is demand-led from industry. If there is a great deal of industrial investment, there tends to be a high level of demand, and one tries to allow for that when setting the budget for the following year. In my experience, section 7 is always wildly over-estimated in the Department of Trade and Industry budget and is rarely used. The same probably applies to section 8.
  But that is no reason for suspending—I call it scrubbing —the scheme because the chances of it being revived are slim in the light of the £44 billion public sector borrowing requirement and the Government's attempts to save money here, there and everywhere. We regret that it is happening without proper discussion. Almost by accident—simply because some of us take an interest in the paper industry, since we have paper mills in our constituencies —the matter is being raised. We regret that the Government should be making such an important announcement in a behind-the-hand manner. In his reply, the Minister should apologise to the House and explain the matter in more detail.
  In relation to section 7, particularly during a recession when there is less industrial investment, it is inevitable that the target of the previous year will be undershot. After all, the budget of the year before, particularly in an election year, will have been set in the hope that industrial investment will pick up. In the event, it has not, so there is less call for grant. The same is true of many other industrial aid schemes, but that is no reason for closing them down.
  The Minister's behaviour tonight has been appalling and discourteous to the Chair, to hon. Members and to industry as a whole. If this is part of a new spirit of partnership, I fear that, until the Government are
  990
  removed, we shall continue to have the problem of Ministers announcing unpopular news late at night without making proper provision for the matter to be discussed. It represents an abuse of the House. It may be on a small matter, but in terms of the grossness of the abuse, it is the worst that I have witnessed in my five and a half years' membership of the House. I appeal to the Chair to protect our rights in the future.
  11.18pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and the concerns that have been expressed about Gartcosh. I took part in the vigil when the rolling mill at Gartcosh was closed. I know well the people—I come from there—I lived within a mile of that plant. They have been looking forward to some activity in the paper recycling business.
  I regret that I was not in my place for the Minister's opening remarks. I gather that he announced the suspension of the scheme but that the scheme will still be in existence and could be applied to Gartcosh. That is a non sequitur, in terms of grant availability, if ever I heard one. Is it not a fact that if a scheme is suspended, nothing can be available under it? How can a scheme that is being suspended temporarily still be available for one project? The people of Scotland will be confused when they read about it in tomorrow's newspapers.
  It would have been better if the Minister had made a special announcement about the decision to suspend the scheme, explaining precisely which applications would be processed, how the procedure would apply and when the suspension would come into being. The people of Scotland will not be satisfied about what is proposed until a full explanation is given.
  11.19pm
  Mr. Sainsbury: First, may I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) for his kind remarks. He was modest about his own contribution to the success of SCA Aylesford. Some of his remarks about major manufacturing investment in non-assisted areas were perhaps a little wide of the mark. Two projects currently coming on stream and greatly to the benefit of the areas involved and the country are the Toyota factory in Derbyshire and the Honda factory in Swindon—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will contain his sedentary remarks for a moment and allow me to develop my point.
  My right hon. Friend was suggesting that it was not possible to get major manufacturing investment outside a non-assisted area and I was pointing out that there are a number of major investments.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was decrying our ability to get inward investment and suggesting that somehow a modest change to one scheme which has assisted only two projects in five years would mean that any prospect of attracting inward investment was for ever destroyed. As we might expect from the hon. Gentleman, that is a gross exaggeration, because, after all, Britain gets a larger share of investment from the United States of America and from Japan than any other country in the European Community—something like 40 per cent. of that investment.
  Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I shall just finish one point arising from the remarks of my right hon. Friend.
  We support the European Community in its efforts to create a level playing field; those efforts include monitoring the schemes that are available in assisted areas. My right hon. Friend made some valid points about what occurs, but we are hopeful that the situation is being improved. His rather splendid suggestion that any amount of grants were available in some countries is not precisely the position and I think that matters are improving.
  Mr. Cryer: The Minister, in turn, is exaggerating my remarks about inward investment procedures. Will he confirm that no other SCA Aylesford-type investment projects will be induced to come to Britain because of the suspension of the current scheme?
  Mr. Sainsbury: That scheme has helped only two projects—this being the second one—in five years. A great deal of money has been made available over the years. Since 1972, more than £1.7 billion has been paid out under section 8 and, including the £20 million that we hope the House will approve this evening, only £30 million has been paid out under the AEP scheme. I hope that puts matters in perspective.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how important the project is to two companies in an assisted area in my constituency? The first is Davidson Ratcliffe Ltd., a leading waste paper collector and merchant, and the second is Beloit Walmsley Ltd., a very large manufacturer of paper-making machinery, which I understand is in contention to win orders under this project. I welcome the motion.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I am not familiar with the firms to which my hon. Friend refers, but I know how energetically he pursues the interests of his constituent companies and we hope that one, if not both, of them will be successful in gaining work from this project.
  I began to regret what I had hoped was a courtesy to the House. Let us be realistic and recognise that the normal arrangement for announcing the suspension for one year of a scheme which has produced two grants in five years would have been for a written answer to appear on the Order Paper. If Opposition Front-Bench Members were honest with themselves, they would recognise that. I thought that it was a courtesy to the House, given that we had the opportunity to debate the grant, to announce its temporary suspension in a debate rather than a written question so that right hon. and hon. Members would have the opportunity to comment on it. The Opposition's reaction is more than a little unrealistic.
  Mr. Fatchett: Does not the Minister realise that that is a specious argument? If the response had been through an answer to a written question, it would have been on the Order Paper. My right hon. and hon. Friends would have had the opportunity to study it and to make whatever comments they wished about local schemes. The simple fact is that the announcement was not on the Order Paper —and in that sense it is a gross discourtesy to the House and to the Chair.
  The Minister has taken the opportunity of this debate to sneak through an announcement without having a word with the Chair and getting its support and permission. Out of courtesy to every Member of the House, the right hon.
  992
  Gentleman should have made his announcemenmt at some other time. He should apologise rather than make a specious argument.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I refute the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. All that he has succeeded in doing is to encourage the Government to proceed on such matters by means of a written answer. If the next time that happens we get protests from the Opposition, I shall know to what to draw attention.
  Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if he had made his announcement by written answer, the Opposition would have complained equally vociferously?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I am not too sure about that. The comments of Labour Members this evening suggest that they would rather have such matters dealt with by means of a written answer—[Interruption.] Their suggestion that this matter merits a statement is, as I said earlier, quite absurd. Labour Members—[Interruption]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Many allegations of discourtesy are flying about. I remind hon. Members that it is an elementary courtesy that when someone is speaking he should not have to do so with a chorus of seated interventions.
  Mr. Sainsbury: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall move on to one or two of the more important observations that were made.
  The point about the AEP scheme is that it is for projects that carry exceptional national benefits. As I emphasised in my opening remarks, there are exceptional national benefits relating to this scheme relating to environmental policy objectives. I stress that it is not like the regional selective assistance scheme, which is job related. That point was made by several Opposition Members. The number of jobs actually created or safeguarded, or those created during the construction process, is not in itself one of the objectives of the scheme. The exceptional national benefits have to be something beyond merely job creation. In this case, it is the use of a new technology in de-inking that meets those important environmental policy objectives.
  A point was made about energy consumption. The energy generation on the site is small compared with national energy consumption. The existing mill takes its electricity from the national grid and is derived from coal and oil. One could say that moving to a combined heat and power gas-fired plant would result in lower CO2 emissions, which would meet another environmental objective.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) referred to the further encouragement of the collection of waste paper. We certainly intend to meet the targets and we will consider all measures that ensure that market mechanisms achieve that work.
  Points were raised about the Gartcosh scheme. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) was not in the Chamber when I made my opening remarks. For his benefit and that of others who may not have been listening as closely as they might have done, I shall repeat what I said. I said:
  "I can confirm that we shall consider against those criteria the application currently being pursued by North British Newsprint in respect of the Gartcosh project."

  993
  Now that I have announced that AEP is to be suspended, the company will need to develop its application by the end of February so that the appraisal may go forward.
  Mr. Fatchett: The Minister has omitted an important point. Several hon. Members asked whether the European Commission had indicated its objection to this scheme and whether that was why the Government were suspending it. Can the Minister clarify the position in respect of that matter?
  Mr. Sainsbury: We did not discuss the scheme as a whole with the European Commission. We share the Commission's desire to keep firm control of all schemes that can distort competition in the Community. Such schemes can, of course, be outside or inside assisted areas. In referring to this matter, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing talked about any amount of money being available. Schemes within assisted areas are also subject to the scrutiny of the European Commission. That is something which we welcome, as we believe that distortion of competition does not benefit either this country or any other part of the Community.
  Mr. Fatchett: Am I right in construing the Minister as saying that he thinks that this scheme distorts competition and that its suspension has, therefore, been volunteered to the European Commission?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I believe that in my remarks there was a reference to relaxation of the criteria for this scheme. Such relaxation might result in success for more applicants. As I pointed out, in five years only two applicants have been successful. This would be a move towards more overtly flexible schemes—schemes of just the sort that can be used by others to distort competition and might, therefore, understandably, find disfavour in the Commission. There have been several alleged instances of aid in other countries giving rise to complaints from British industry.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The Minister has said that the scheme at Gartcosh will now have to be developed before the end of February if it is to go forward. Why the end of February? Does the Minister know that that will give the company sufficient time to develop its application? Or is it a purely arbitrary date that the Minister has conjured up out of thin air?
  Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman may not have been in the House when I made my introductory remarks and, therefore, may not have heard my reference to the suspension of the scheme from the end of February until April 1994. I said that North British Newsprint ought to get its scheme registered before the end of February so that it might be subjected to the appraisal process.
  Mr. Connarty: This matter continues to worry me. What notice of the Minister's announcement was the company given? Is it to get its information from tomorrow's papers?
  Mr. Sainsbury: The company has been in contact with the Department for a considerable time. Since July we
  994
  have been waiting to hear from it. We do not know whether it will come back to us. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman was not in the House when I dealt with this point. We have discussed it at length.
  This scheme will bring considerable benefits.
  Mr. James Wallace: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sainsbury: As the hon. Gentleman, unlike some hon. Members, has been in the House for the debate, I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Wallace: Can the Minister be more explicit? When is it intended that those putting in the application for Gartcosh will be told about the suspension and informed that the application will have to be received by the end of February? Have they been informed already, or will this come as news to them? Has the Minister any indication that what he is asking of them is feasible?
  Mr. Sainsbury: To the best of my knowledge, it is entirely feasible. Whether they will actually do so, I do not know. We will, of course, communicate with the company.
  It is occasionally suggested—not infrequently, I suggest, by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—that it is a courtesy to come and tell Parliament things first, and that I have done. I have provided an opportunity for debate, and all I have received in exchange is brickbats. Perhaps we can draw a conclusion from that.
  Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is considerable noise in the House. As you will recollect, a few seconds ago the Minister started a sentence about the company being unable to bring the scheme forward by the end of February; in the noise I lost the second half of that sentence. Perhaps the Minister could complete it for us now.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I may have to read Hansard, which is not immediately available, to find out what I said. Perhaps I could recommend that the hon. Gentleman read Hansard himself. It may be that the sentence to which he referred was when I said that the company would need to develop its application by the end of February so that the appraisal could go forward. Perhaps it was those words that he did not hear clearly; I hope that it was and that we will have it doubly on the record.
  The motion is to approve a grant to a project which I think has exceptional national benefits. It enables environmental policy objectives to be met. It maintains and improves the operation of a company which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling has said, has operated with distinction in his constituency for a long time. I hope that the House will approve the motion.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House authorises the Secretary of State to pay, or undertake to pay, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, in respect of the installation of new and the refurbishment of existing machinery to manufacture newsprint from recycled fibre at Aylesford, Kent by SCA Aylesford Ltd., sums exceeding £10,000,000 but not exceeding£20,000,000.

  Public Health
  11.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I beg to move,
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Oil and Chemical Pollution of Fish) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 17) dated 8th January 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.
  In the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made on 11 January about the Shetland tanker incident, he told the House that an exclusion zone had been declared under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, within which fishing and harvesting of farmed fish is prohibited. The emergency order which set up the exclusion zone requires the approval of Parliament if it is to continue in force, and that is the purpose of tonight's motion. Copies of the map of the area are available in the Vote Office.
  The purpose of the order was to ensure that, in the light of the Braer incident, there was no danger of fish or fish products reaching the market if they could be hazardous to human health. No sensible fishermen would have fished in the area after the incident—in the light of the weather conditions, I do not think that they would have tried—and fish farmers affected by the spread of oil could similarly have been relied upon voluntarily to keep their product from the market. The fishermen imposed a voluntary ban before the order was made. I pay tribute to the Shetland Fishermen's Association and the Shetland Salmon Farmers Association, and particularly to their respective chief executives, John Goodlad and Jimmy Moncrieff, for their excellent and impressive response to all these difficulties. I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) who, in his capacity as constituency Member, has been very helpful and constructive throughout.
  Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend and I thought it right to use the power that was available to give legal force to a ban on taking fish from the area. We did this after full consultation with, and with the agreement of, both the Shetland fishermen and the fish farmers. The imposition of the order was part of a three-pronged strategy which also included the establishment of arrangements to sample and test fish being landed on Shetland markets, and the setting up of longer-term monitoring arrangements covering both fish and water quality.
  That background to the order is important. In setting up the arrangements, we had in mind the vital importance to the Shetland economy of both the fishing and the fish farming industries. They faced an obvious and immediate threat to their businesses. There was also the danger of much longer term damage if those industries should lose market and consumer confidence.
  Therefore, the order, and the other arrangements that I have mentioned, seemed to me of the greatest importance in assuring commercial buyers and consumers that special care was being taken over the quality of Shetland fish products and, correspondingly, that the public should have every confidence in the products when they reach the shops. I know that that approach has the full confidence and support of the industries in Shetland, and with regard to salmon it is reassuring that a number of supermarket chains which have now visited the islands are remarketing Shetland products. I have emphasised the consultation because some newspapers implied that the Government
  996
  had slapped on an order without considering the interests of the Shetland fishermen when, in fact, the reverse was the position.
  Against that background, we must proceed cautiously in considering the future of the ban. It may be helpful to say a little more about the arrangements which underpin the ban. Those are based on a continuous programme of water and fish sampling. The first test is the state of hydrocarbons in the water. If the water is polluted, the pollution will get into the fish. The critical test, from the point of view of food safety, is the fish itself and the accumulation of hydrocarbons in their edible tissue.
  The sampling programme has been hampered by extreme weather conditions, but a clear enough picture has emerged which requires a continuing exclusion of fishing and fish harvesting activity in the zone as presently defined. I confess that I had hoped to be able to inform the House this evening that it would be possible to remove the ban on the east side of the mainland. My feeling is that this may be possible soon, but the latest results indicate not yet.
  On the west side of the zone, readings remain high, and the unhappy news is that I have had to decide to extend the western boundary of the zone by 5 nautical miles, from 1 deg 30 west to 1 deg 40 west. This is in response to most recent results of tests on water quality, and on sea fish caught in the new area. The new area will not extend the present zone any further north or south. Thus it will not bring the salmon farms at Vaila Sound and Gruting Voe into the exclusion zone.
  I recognise that that is not encouraging news for those concerned. However, I thought it right to tell the House at the earliest opportunity. I also emphasise that, while the news in itself is regrettable, it should nevertheless reassure both consumers and the local fishing and fish farming industries that the monitoring arrangements are working effectively, and that fish and fish products reaching the market are safe and are of good quality.
  Nevertheless, I am keenly aware of the problems that the situation creates for the salmon farming businesses. I am anxious that, as soon as the evidence warrants it, we should move to more flexible arrangements which will allow fish to be harvested from within the current exclusion zone when it can be demonstrated that they are free of taint and hydrocarbon contamination. We shall be in continuous touch with those concerned to see what progress can be made as further test results come in.
  Meantime, only one claim from a salmon farmer has so far been received by the claims office in Lerwick. I understand that the insurers and the international oil pollution compensation fund have today agreed a substantial advance payment in this case to mitigate economic hardship. That will be paid to the producer by the insurers direct. The speedy reaction of the insurers and the IOPC fund to a claim submitted only at the end of last week should encourage other salmon producers to bring forward their claims. I am sure that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will have something to say on that.
  Additionally, the Government have made available to producers a bridging fund which will be operated for the Government by the Shetland Islands council. Details of the fund's operation were announced in the House on 21 January by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The purpose of the bridging fund is also to prevent economic hardship to fish farmers and other primary producers facing temporary cash flow difficulties

  997
  pending settlement of compensation claims. The first payment of £1 million to set up the fund will be made to Shetland Islands council this week.
  It is also important for us to assess the ecological effects of the incident. My right hon. Friend has announced his intention of setting up an ecological steering group to consider strategies, in both the short and the longer terms, to deal with the impact of the incident on the local environment.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is the Minister satisfied that there is no danger that oil from the tanker will drift into areas fished by fishermen from other ports in the European Community?
  Sir Hector Monro: As I have said, we are monitoring every development extremely carefully, and taking all possible steps to establish where the oil is now. We feel that the only area where it is unsafe to fish is the current exclusion zone, along with the small extension that I have announced today. I think it important for us to continue the detailed monitoring now being carried out so that we can keep a close check on what is happening.
  As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland knows, my right hon. Friend today announced the terms of reference of the steering group, and the appointment of Professor Ritchie as chairman. The group's initial purpose will be to take an overall view of the various ecological and environmental initiatives that are now getting under way, or are likely to be established on the group's initiative.
  I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that the order forms part of a pattern of effective Government action and is in the best interests of the fishing industry and the consumer.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I welcome the appointment of the principal of Aberdeen university to conduct the local inquiry into the environmental ramifications. Is it not a little unfortunate, however, that the wider inquiry, under Lord Donaldson, will not take place in the area in which the incident occurred? Will the Minister give an assurance, on behalf of the Scottish Office, that any witness—or anyone who feels that he can contribute to the wider inquiry—will not be inhibited from doing so on grounds of cost or inconvenience, wherever that inquiry is held?
  Sir Hector Monro: Lord Donaldson's inquiry is rather outwith the terms of the order. However, I am certain not only that it will be peripatetic and will take place in various centres but that everyone with important evidence to give will have the opportunity to give it. I hope that people will do just that: we want to ensure that the problems that we have faced in the past few weeks can, if possible, be prevented from recurring.
  I hope that I have made clear how seriously the Government are taking the monitoring of the sea around the Shetlands—and, indeed, further afield if that becomes necessary. We are determined that the exceptionally good reputation of fish from the Shetlands—whether they come from the sea or from the salmon farms—is maintained, and I believe that the stringent measures that we have adopted provide the best way of doing that.
  11.48 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I thank the Minister for the further information that he has given us. We do not necessarily thank him for finding it necessary to extend the area concerned, but we recognise that there is no point in trying to take short cuts, or in trying to pretend that something does not exist when it plainly does. I also welcome what the Minister said—and the written answer that I received from the Secretary of State earlier today —about the monitoring committee. It is recognised that the committee will have work to do for a considerable time.
  Some may find it appropriate for us to debate the Shetland area on the last Tuesday in January. Traditionally, this is the evening on which my constituents celebrate Up-Helly-a'. For my own part, I confess that I would much rather be in Lerwick; even at this hour the evening is still young, and there is much dancing and singing ahead. I was in Lerwick this morning at the outset of the day's celebrations, where the strong community spirit that has served Shetland well in recent days was clearly evident.
  I take this opportunity to acknowledge the valuable work and co-operation of the salmon farmers' association, the Shetland Fishermen's Association, crofters in the National Farmers Union and officials of the Shetland Islands council, who have conducted themselves with exemplary professionalism.
  Perhaps the local mood might best be judged by the proclamation that was published this morning by the Guizer Jarl in Lerwick. Under the heading "Stop Press" —I think that the pun is probably intended—there is the following notice:
  "Contrary to some immediate predictions our outlook is less BLACK as various expressions would have it to be. Crude and slick exaggerations do us no favours and are unfounded, thanks to the 'rolling sea' and the 'foaming tide'. we are sure that raising the 'flaming brand' will help brighten our outlook once more."
  Although that is humorously intended, it emphasises a clear need for balance in our approach to events since the grounding of the Braer on 5 January. It has been necessary to be alert to possible health risks but, equally important, not to overstate them and cause undue alarm. This order is necessary because there has been some contamination, but it is important to stress the determination of Shetlands' food industries, which the Minister has acknowledged, to maintain their reputation for high quality produce, which over many years they have justly earned.
  In a way, the order reinforces that commitment because, as the Minister has acknowledged, fishermen and fish farmers imposed a voluntary closure before the statutory order was promulgated. The Minister mentioned the industries' co-operation with the closure orders.
  It is in no one's interest that produce that fails to meet stringent quality tests should be marketed. The order is a safeguard, which I hope will reassure potential customers. The Minister referred to the monitoring conducted by some of the industries, including the salmon farmers' programme. Samples taken from fish harvested outwith the closed area have shown no traces of contamination. After inspecting that monitoring programme and visiting salmon farms last week, food technologists from Marks and Spencer expressed their satisfaction with what they found and lifted the temporary suspension on Shetland salmon.

  999
  The House should be in no doubt that in protecting the longer-term market integrity of our natural products there will inevitably be some short-term and perhaps medium-term pain, depending on how long it is necessary to keep the closure orders in force. I am told that, at this time of year, but for the ban, most Shetland fishermen would fish in the closed area. Most of the vessels involved are capable of going further afield, but that inevitably involves additional costs. They may have less knowledge of where stocks are likely to be, and for a number of smaller vessels, principally white fish or shellfish vessels operating out of Scalloway or Burra, there is no alternative but to tie up.
  For a number of salmon farmers, crisis is imminent. It has not been possible to harvest because of the closure order, and cash flow problems quickly loom. Others may be missing a key window for bringing in smolts, and that problem will increase if the ban is maintained for some time. All in all, economic hardship mounts up, particularly on certain individuals.
  It was against that background that the case for immediate Government assistance to tide over businesses and individuals pending settlement of claims was made.
  I welcome the fact that in his statement on 11 January the Secretary of State for Scotland said that a bridging fund would be made available. Some might have quibbled about the timing, but the most important thing is that it was established. Some expressed disappointment that a figure was not mentioned, but I took some reassurance from that because I should have been rather alarmed if a cash-limited figure had appeared when no one could have been entirely sure—and still cannot be—how much would be needed.
  On 11 January the Secretary of State also said:
  "There is … understandable concern in Shetland about the cash flow problems which may face businesses, particularly the farming, fishing and fish-farming industries, in the period before claims are settled in full. In view of the significance of these industries to the Shetland economy, my Department is proposing to make resources available through a special bridging fund to help them with particular economic hardship pending the settlement of compensation claims."—[Official Report, 11 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 626–27.]
  That was followed last week by a written answer from the Secretary of State in which he again referred to the bridging fund and said that it was designed
  "to help in particular the farming, fishing and fish-farming industries in Shetland, and prevent economic hardship to primary producers facing temporary cash-flow difficulties pending the settlement of compensation claims."
  My concern is that there may have been some initial difficulties in activating the bridging fund. The Minister said that, to date, there had been one claim. I understand that one of the reasons why claims have not been made more quickly is that the original form issued by the international oil pollution compensation fund contained a requirement for the claimant to state that it was a "complete and accurate account of the loss suffered and costs incurred".
  At this stage, no one—especially a salmon farmer—is in a position to say that he can offer a complete account. To be fair, the matter having being raised with IOPC representatives in Lerwick, there is some movement in the nature of the form to be submitted.
  It is also a matter of concern that there were signs, certainly at the meeting I had this morning with regard to meeting the cash flow problems, that IPOC representatives were showing a certain unwillingness to act as bankers, as
  1000
  it were. As recently as yesterday, it was said that they claimed to know nothing about the bridging fund. Objectively, the idea is that claims should go through the claims office opened in Lerwick. The Minister said that a payment had been made today. As that relates to a cash flow problem, I hope that it means that that difficulty has been overcome.
  I appreciate the fact that matters are developing from day to day, but in view of the fact that the purpose of the bridging fund was to meet cash flow difficulties, there was concern that that particular difficulty seemed to be causing a blockage. I shall certainly want to monitor what happens during the rest of this week because, although I do not want to overdramatise, we are talking of days rather than weeks before difficulties arise for some companies.
  I know that the Minister has taken a close interest in events in Shetland as they have unfolded. Will he therefore satisfy himself that the bridging fund which the Government have set up and which they have said will pay £1 million to Shetland Islands council this week is operating as the Government intended. If it appears at some stage that there are inadequacies in the fund and that it is not meeting the need, will he assure us that there will be a willingness to show flexibility so that individual hardships can be dealt with?
  Initial claims are to be channelled through the IOPC office. In the written answer to which I referred it was stated that claims
  "from businesses which qualify under this scheme and which are, in the view of the club and the IPOC fund, likely to receive compensation in due course will be passed to the islands council".—[Official Report, 21 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 411.]
  Will the Minister therefore confirm that persons submitting claims for assistance under the bridging fund are in no way excluding the possibility of taking other courses of action? I do not believe that it is for politicians, either as members of the Government or as constituency Members of Parliament, to give legal advice on whether people should pursue their claims through compensation funds set up under international convention or through United States attorneys. That must be a matter for legal advisers with the full range of knowledge about what the options are. However, I should like the Minister to confirm that options are not being foreclosed by those who wish to take advantage of the Government's bridging fund.
  The reason why the order is before us tonight is the grounding of the Braer. I was grateful and interested when the Minister said in response to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that the Donaldson inquiry may be peripatetic.
  What is causing concern is that the inquiry into the circumstances of the grounding is being undertaken presently by the marine accident investigation branch. As a result of the way in which the branch works, the inquiry is being carried out in confidence and in secret. People want openness about how the vessel ran aground in Shetland. I have looked through the statutes, and I find that it is open to the Secretary of State for Transport to order a formal investigation by a sheriff under section 56(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970. I hope that he will take the opportunity to do so.
  On the economic impact that will flow from the order and from what has happened in Shetland, I was also, interested by a comment by the Secretary of State for Scotland in his statement on 11 January. He said:

  1001
  "Once the extent of the damage is more fully known, Shetland Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will work with Shetland Islands council to assess the impact on the island's economy. I shall consider carefully any recommendations made to me as a result of this assessment.—[Official Report, 11 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 627.]
  We should like to hear more commitment than just a reference to a consideration of any recommendations. It will be necessary to have a longer-term economic impact assessment of what the effects will be. A closure order, such as this one, could apply for some time. It could have implications for the economy in terms of having to regain markets. That will not necessarily be easy and may not be covered by any compensation fund supplied by the insurers.
  We want to be satisfied that Shetland businesses and Shetland individuals will not be out of pocket at that stage. Shetlanders are well aware of the importance of the marine environment to their economy. The Select Committee on Agriculture, when examining fish farming, commended Shetland salmon farmers on the environmental controls they had introduced. The Minister knows from his own experience that Shetland fishermen tend to be at the forefront when it comes to promoting technical conservation measures in the fishing industry.
  The Government have recently announced environmentally sensitive area status for Shetland, which shows that, after a difficult start, harmony has been built up between crofting and farming interests and environmental interests. We in the isles understand the importance of a clean environment for our economic prospects.
  People have felt badly let down for a number of years. Shipping safety measures were not taken at national or international level to protect the environment. Shetlanders must not have to pay for what has happened. A Government commitment in the longer term to the economic well-being of the islands, apart from the announcements already made, would be very welcome.
  12.2 am
  Mr. John McFall: I concur with the comments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and I commend him on his industry and his work since the unfortunate accident.
  The Opposition will support the order, for a number of reasons. The Minister has mentioned that the exclusion zone will be extended westwards. We support that because the Shetland people themselves wish the zone to be extended, despite the hardships they will face.
  The Minister mentioned John Goodlad and Jimmy Moncrieff. I spoke to both of them today on the telephone. The Shetland Fishermen's Association said that, although it recognised that the introduction of the zone was causing serious problems to fishing and farming in Shetland, the industry remained of the view that the objective must remain the protection of its quality reputation for producing some of the best fish and fish products in the world. With that and the maintenance of quality and consumer safety in mind, the industry fully supports the continuation of the ban. We concur with it on those points.
  The economic problems caused by the incident must, of course, be addressed. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned that. My comments will focus on compensation and monitoring. The fishermen and the
  1002
  salmon farmers have mentioned to me that the marine laboratory in Aberdeen has done excellent work in sending 25 individuals to Shetland to work alongside those in the islands. Scottish Office personnel have also done excellent work. I pay tribute to them.
  I was in Shetland last week with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who has the shadow environment portfolio. We were impressed by the good work that was being done by Scottish Office and marine laboratory representatives and environmental personnel in the Shetland islands. I pay tribute to Shetland Islands council. We are all aware that Members of Parliament are often criticised. But district and regional councils are also criticised. There was not one criticism of Shetland Islands council among all the comments made to me by people on the island that day, including farmers, crofters and fishermen. Shetland Islands council has stepped in and written an open cheque for the farmers and fishermen to go ahead and do what they think is necessary.
  While good work has been done on monitoring from scratch and in terrible conditions, there is anxiety about the Government's commitment to long-term monitoring. The headline in the Shetland Times last week when I was there was "The cruel sea cleans it up." The fact that the water is clear does not mean that the problem is removed. The latest press reports say that oil has been found in the flesh of some farmed salmon in the south of the Shetland islands. Volunteers from British Divers Marine Life Rescue have discovered what they term as an ecological disaster in Spiggie bay four miles north of Quendale bay. Those reports show that both short-term and long-term monitoring is essential.
  I visited the wildlife co-ordinating rescue centre in the south part of the island on the day of my visit. It did a tremendous job. It was up and running within 48 hours, not because a Government scheme was in operation or the Scottish Office moved fast but because of the existence of Sullom Voe. Monitoring arrangements were already in place. Indeed, Sullom Voe has a budget of £200,000 per year for monitoring. The existence of that body meant that the response to the incident was instant and something could be done.
  I suggest that if Sullom Voe had not been in existence, the position could have been entirely different and more detrimental to the interests of people on the islands. While we are glad that the wildlife co-ordinating committee responded so quickly, we have to recognise that the Government had no system in place. If, God forbid, another accident happened, perhaps we should not be so fortunate in the location of that accident close to facilities such as those at Sullom Voe. That is worth remembering.
  The fishermen and others agree with the Secretary of State that the polluter should pay. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. But the problem is that a time scale is associated with it. If a benign view is taken of the polluter—pays principle, we could be talking about a time scale of five to 10 years. That is far too long for salmon farmers, because the problem for them is immediate. I said that they had imposed a voluntary ban. They imposed it 12 hours before the Government did so, simply because of their recognition that their worldwide reputation had to be maintained. They have also monitored outwith the exclusion zone and taken flesh samples of salmon harvested in that zone. The industry is paying for that itself to reassure the trade—firms such as

  1003
  Marks and Spencer, Asda, and Tesco, which have sent their food technologists to the area. They are satisfied with what is being done. The exercise is being paid for by the industry. The Minister should direct his attention to that, so that the fishermen's expenditure can be recognised and the Scottish Office will act quickly.
  In a statement earlier this month, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
  "the Government strongly uphold the polluter-pays principle.
  There is every reason to believe that the resources available for compensation from the international fund will be sufficient to meet all eligible claims."—[Official Report, 11 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 626.]
  Not one person to whom I or my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury spoke believes that resources will be available from that fund. As we all know, the fund has a limit of £50 million. Jimmy Moncrieff said to me today that the compensation for the salmon farmers could run into tens of millions. That could be mirrored by the comments of the farmers themselves. Therefore, the £50 million limit is insufficient, and recognition of that fact by the Minister would reassure people in the islands that the Government will not rely solely on the £50 million.
  I know that the Government will have claims on the fund. In order to reassure farmers and others, will they consider being last in the queue to claim from it? Such a commitment would be some comfort to the salmon farmers and others. The Secretary of State spoke about the special bridging fund, but no mechanism has yet been established, despite what the Minister said, for payments from that fund. I was assured today in my discussions with the salmon farmers and fishermen that, despite the Secretary of State's announcement on 11 January, not one penny has been paid to any of the farmers. I shall give an illustration of the effect of that on the salmon farmers.
  Salmon farms range from those with 500,000 fish and a value of £8 million to those with running costs of, say, £40,000.1 was told today that such a small firm could take out an overdraft of £90,000 to £100,000. That firm's exposure to the banks will already be at a maximum, with personal guarantees and mortgaged houses. As of today, some of the banks are telling the smaller salmon farmers that they cannot issue any more cheques. That means that those farmers are currently experiencing a cash flow problem. Because it is an intensive cash flow industry, farmers need to harvest or they will go bust. Farmers, such as the hypothetical one with running costs of £40,000, are only days away from the bank pulling the plug on them, so the need for that money to get to the islands is urgent. It has to be addressed now. The Minister has to take away from this debate the feeling that these farmers have to be assisted almost immediately.
  I agree with the Minister about the testing taking place in salmon farming areas, and salmon farmers and fishermen are content for the tests to take place.
  I also realise that the test for hydrocarbons, as the Minister mentioned, is an elaborate one, taking about two days, but there is concern about the future for sand eels, which spawn at this time of the year, and it is unclear at present whether they will be affected. Some reassurance about that should be given to farmers and fishermen. I am also aware that the herring will come down for spawning in two or three months' time. Those concerns have to be kept in mind.
  On the extension of the exclusion zone on the west coast, may I ask the Minister to comment further on the
  1004
  east of the Shetlands? It has been mentioned that very little oil has reached there and it might be possible to relax the restrictions if the scientific tests are favourable.
  Lastly, I mention the comments that have been made about the public inquiry. We welcome the inquiry which Lord Donaldson will conduct.
  We stand here tonight in sorrow because there was no mechanism about tanker transportation in place. There is still no mechanism, and I note from the papers today that the European Community had a meeting yesterday in which systems such as the obligatory routeing of ships were put forward, with stiff penalties for transgressors. I am dismayed that it says that the Netherlands, Denmark, Greece and Britain are among the countries that are slow to support tougher legislation, and that the Secretary of State said in the paper today that, while a tightening of safety standards would help, "we have to realise we cannot prevent everything".
  Those who live on the Shetland islands know that the Braer disaster is not preventable now. It is in the past, but they are looking for reassurances for the future. They are looking for reassurances about tanker transportation in Fair Isles and The Minch. It has got to stop.
  While that is not totally germane to this debate, we shall be back to debate it at another time if the Government and the Scottish Office do not make their views known to the Department of Transport. That is the message we want to get across. Do not let us come back in a few months' time because there is a disaster waiting to happen now. Let the Minister tell us exactly what the Government are going to do, so that we are not back here again, debating in sorrow. Let us have legislation in place so that we do not have anything like this catastrophe occurring again.
  12.18 am
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I intend to speak very briefly because I certainly endorse in full many of the points that have already been made. The Minister will understand that right across the House there will be substantial cross-party feeling that we want to see the concerns which the local Member, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), expressed tonight fully met in the ministerial reply, if that is at all possible.
  I would also mention in particular the points made from the Labour Front Bench on the long-term environmental assessment because I suspect that no one knows what the knock-on effects of the disaster will be on the environment. Some assurance tonight that there is to be effective monitoring over the medium term will be very welcome.
  I want to restrict the burden of my remarks to two features which perhaps require some amplification. First, what will be the Government's approach to the medium and long-term economic damage that the accident may cause? Perhaps the Minister will be able to give me an interim answer. Billions of pounds have been spent internationally on media exposure that has given negative publicity to the Shetland islands. The islands have been associated internationally with a major environmental disaster. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland rightly said, we are talking about a community that prides itself on the quality of its produce—sea fish—and the products of its fish farming. The economic damage over the medium term is potentially seriously damaging.

  1005
  The Government may be able to reintroduce confidence —restrictions are to be extended—that produce from the Shetlands is 100 per cent. all right in environmental terms and that quality is being secured. The vigour of the environmental assessment is important. We hope that Government action will contribute to mitigating the economic consequences. There is bound to be an economic impact on the Shetlands—at what level we cannot say—because of international exposure that associates Shetland with a major environmental disaster. Images are still fresh in our minds of the disaster, but less publicity will be given to the measures that are being taken to ensure that Shetland produce meets the highest health regime standards.
  Will an assessment be undertaken and a judgment made? The problem could be tacked by a reinforcement of the Shetland marketing effort internationally. Would that come within the context of the assistance that the Government might be prepared to make available to the islands in future? I accept that it would be difficult to make such an assessment. It would be difficult also for the Minister to give us a guarantee this evening. I hope to hear, however, that an assessment will be considered. If it were found that an intensive marketing effort from the Shetland islands was necessary to secure the position in the markets that their produce held, I hope that the Government would be forthcoming with assistance. I hope that the Minister will comment on how often these measures will be implemented or called into question.
  Early-day motion 1177 was tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). It reflects the great concern of Greenpeace and other organisations that at least one major international oil company appears through its internal documents to be extremely reluctant, to say the least, to discuss the safety of tanker transportation. I would like the Minister to indicate that he shares the concern that is felt widely throughout the parties, which is reflected in support for the early-day motion. As I have said, the internal documents of a reputable company suggest that it wants to avoid a public debate on tanker-route safety. I hope that the Minister will respond.
  The motion states that there is a great deal of support for routeing and for some interim action—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Tanker routeing is pretty wide of food and fisheries.
  Mr. Salmond: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am bringing my remarks to a close.
  We are all concerned that we might regularly be faced with measures such as the order in the absence of an assurance from the Minister that interim action will be taken while we await the results of the inquiry.
  12.25 am
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I wish at the outset to add my praise for the attitude of the Shetland Fishermen's Association and the Shetland Salmon Farmers' Association and to congratulate them on the professional and thorough way in which they acted in dealing with the disaster.
  It should be remembered that the Shetland Islands council has for a long time had a contingency plan to deal
  1006
  with disasters of this kind. It is clear that that plan was put into operation effectively, professionally and quickly. That is a tribute to the council and, in particular, to its environmental health department, which is closely involved in the monitoring exercise.
  It is right that we should have the order, not only to protect the health of consumers but to guarantee the quality of produce from the Shetland isles. That aspect has been emphasised in the debate. Some major retailers, such as Marks and Spencer, have begun to buy again from the areas which have not been affected by the disaster. It is clear that there are parts of Shetland from which quality produce can still be marketed, even though the order applies to the affected area.
  I draw the attention of the Minister to the state of the fishing industry and the fact that although it has backed the closure order—and has brought forward its own voluntary ban—the industry faces a series of problems. The ban is yet another problem that it must bear, in addition to the restrictions imposed by the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992, fish quotas, and so on. Knowing that the Minister is aware of those problems, I hope that he will take them into account when considering the strains on the industry and that he will listen carefully to the industry's representations. They will include an appeal for support in the coming months.
  There is the question of salmon stocks now in the cages. Will the Minister consider consulting the industry about whether those stocks, having been contaminated, may be difficult to sell? Bearing in mind the points that have been made today about the quality of Shetland produce, it may be necessary to consider whether those contaminated stocks might compromise that quality. Accordingly, they may have to be destroyed and the farmers compensated.
  The Minister should also consider the effect of the disaster on shore-based industries which rely on the salmon breeding industry. They have been greatly affected by the lack of trade and supplies. Although some industries are not directly involved in salmon farming, the knock-on effect on them has resulted in financial hardship. Are they eligible to submit claims for compensation?
  The long-term monitoring aspects of the disaster must be borne in mind. It was a unique disaster in that it was a very light crude; never before had there been a spill on that scale in the weather conditions which prevailed and the crude mixed in with the water and penetrated the water column.
  Perhaps the Minister will also comment on the effects of the dispersants. After all, the fact that dispersants were used is one reason for the closure order. May we be assured that the dispersants currently being held in this country for use in such disasters are modern and not old stocks which have been stored for years waiting for disasters to occur? Are they internationally approved chemicals, including those approved by the Ministry for licensing purposes?
  Long-term monitoring may be necessary for perhaps 10 years. Who will pay for it? The cost should not become a burden on Shetland Islands council or the local communities. The oil industry should make a contribution on the principle that the polluter pays.
  The Minister will be aware of the three-year project, now reaching its conclusion, being carried out by Glasgow university and the Natural Environment Research Council. He will be aware that I have asked him some written questions about whether the project could be

  1007
  extended to study the relationship between the biology of sea birds and sand eels. If he cannot reply tonight, will he give the matter serious consideration, given the commercial effects of the spill and the fact that the Shetland islands are of international importance in terms of the ecology they support?
  Can the Minister confirm that the Shetland consortium of conservation groups has now been disbanded and, if it has, whether it is being replaced by the ecological steering group? What time scale does he envisage for monitoring?
  The Minister will be aware that there has been a ban on the industrial catching of sand eels in Shetland waters. When will he be able to give us a statement on whether the ban will continue in relation to the disaster and its effect on the long-term ecology of sand eels in terms of the fish which prey on them and the local wildlife?
  The oil spill is a tragedy which could have been avoided. It is right that we should implement the order to guarantee consumer confidence and safety. I know that it has the full support of the fish producers in the Shetlands who have acted in a responsible and professional way. However, the disaster raises issues which go beyond the scope of the order, such as the tragic decline of our merchant fleet, flagging out, tanker routes and coastal policy. I hope that those issues will be thoroughly addressed in the forthcoming inquiry.
  I hope that the Shetland Islands council and its community get the help and support that they have every right to expect to overcome this disaster. Above all, I hope that the lessons learnt in this tragedy will be applied so that we do not have another one in British waters.
  12.31 am
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Although I have no knowledge of or expertise in the salmon fishing industry, as a former member of the Salmon Fisheries Board I know a little about wild salmon.
  I am pleased that we are supporting the order as it is obviously necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) touched on one of the concerns I wish to express. The contamination from the oil will take a long time to disappear, but the contamination caused by the chemicals was a cause of concern when they were being used. It will be much longer before we know whether it will have affected the salmon stocks and the other fisheries.
  It is a great tragedy and I pay tribute to the stalwart way in which the people of the Shetlands and their representatives have shown determination to win back markets and not to have their lifestyles and the quality of their lives destroyed. It is a pity that the order provides only for public health and food issues as it is quite clear that the matters of tanker routes that are not for discussion tonight will hang as a cloud over the Government who will be criticised for not laying an order to deal with those matters.
  I also wish to ask a naive question that other mainlanders and people in the industrial sector who have watched the tragedy with amazement will be asking. Where is the rest of the oil going now? The monitoring that we have discussed seems to be taking place in a small area close to the Shetlands, but 80,000 tonnes of oil do not disperse without landing somewhere and causing more
  1008
  pollution. The Minister mentioned monitoring far and wide and I hope that he will say something about how it will be carried out.
  The amendment of the designated area for the order five miles further west makes it clear that there was some miscalculation or lax monitoring when the original order was placed. It must be a matter of concern that the original order was insufficient to cover the area that now seems to be affected.
  I was one of those who asked about compensation. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) thought it better to leave the figure unstated, in the hope that it will increase in line with needs. Those in the Shetlands who are probably reaching the bottom line in their calculations are beginning to worry whether it will be sufficient.
  The ecological steering group, which will deal with the local area, will be welcomed. However, the people on the mainland are wondering whether the monitoring will be sufficiently rigorous and whether the ecological damage that may occur further afield will be properly monitored and made public. People still have in mind the long-term effects of a much larger disaster, Chernobyl, where the emissions continued to leak out. Indeed, I believe that leakage has not yet stopped. People are worried that the Government might not want to talk about ecological damage because they would, first, have to admit to it and, secondly, have to deal with it.
  I hope that the Government will take account of the fact that five million people in Scotland are concerned about the long-term damage that may be caused outwith the Shetlands. I ask the Minister to do me the courtesy of explaining the technical detail of the monitoring operation. We need to ensure that a lack of proper monitoring does not lead to long-term and long-distance effects on other fishing stocks which, perhaps, have just been fed into the food cycle of the people of Scotland and elsewhere. I should be grateful for reassurance on that point.
  The hon. Gentleman must realise that there are many people on the mainland who do not have the special knowledge of the Shetlanders and of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. Those people are looking for answers, but they are not getting them from the Government. We need to know where all that oil has gone and which other fishing areas we need to be concerned about. Although the order covers only the Shetlands, the concern stretches much further afield. No one believes that 80,000 tonnes of oil can be dispersed without damage to some other parts of Scotland's ecology, not just that of the Shetlands.
  12.36 am
  Sir Hector Monro: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am glad to reply to the debate, which in general has been welcomed by all hon. Members who have spoken. However, I was a bit disappointed with the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty).
  Everything that I said tonight demonstrated that our maximum effort was on monitoring, in particular on what we have been doing in difficult circumstances during recent weeks and what we will continue to do. It has been difficult to get boats out to sea west of the Shetlands, but we managed to do it and they caught fish. We are grateful to the Shetland fishermen for catching fish for us to monitor. It is because we have been monitoring effectively that we

  1009
  have to extend the exclusion zone. That shows that we are taking the correct action, which will continue for as long as is necessary.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) gave a warm welcome to the order. I want to express my appreciation for all that he has done regarding his constituency since the wreck. The hon. Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) referred to the economic problems of the salmon farmers. I, too, recognise the problems, which is why we have introduced the facility of a bridging loan, to be paid this week. The Shetland Islands council, which is responsible for the administration of the claims, today paid out a large sum to the first salmon farmer who put in a claim. I hope that that will encourage others to apply if their cash flow requires that. I am sure that a significant number of farmers are affected.
  It is good news that the vast majority of the salmon farms are not in the exclusion zone. We are dealing with a small number of farmers, but the scheme is important for their cash flows. We hope that, in the end, the situation will be brighter—that the damage will not be quite so long term as some hon. Members have implied. In the meantime, monitoring will continue. There is virtually continuous contact between the Scottish Office and the salmon farmers. We welcome that contact, and we shall continue to provide all possible assistance until the whole situation has been sorted out. I do not know whether that will take weeks or months, or even years, but general monitoring will continue, as will monitoring of the long-term ecological implications.
  There is no firm knowledge about how long the oil will linger in the area. We do not know what will happen. However, the Government give a categorical assurance that there will be monitoring in all directions, where it is thought to be necessary, to allay the fears of anyone in the United Kingdom. There may have been much more evaporation than some people believe. In any case, there will not be any complacency. We shall be working full time and as hard and fast as possible to make certain that the situation is fully dealt with.
  Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, talked about the longer-term economic problems. Most hon. Members will agree that that matter is a little wide of the subject of this debate. However, I assure the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that we are considering it. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, hopes to go to the islands at an appropriate time in the not-too-distant future—a time when it is felt that the islands council would like to meet him and have a discussion involving Highlands and Islands Enterprise and everyone else concerned.
  Mr. Salmond: May I take it from the Minister's reply that he is not ruling out the possibility of longer-term economic aid in such areas as reinforcement of the Shetlands marketing effort internationally if that should be judged to be necessary?
  Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman is a great man for trying to widen issues and get Ministers on the hop. We shall do all we can to help the economy of the Shetlands.
  1010
  It has been amazingly robust and effective over the years, and we want that to continue. Help will be provided. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will be able to talk to the Shetland Islands council about the economic aspects.
  But all hon. Members must realise that we are in a somewhat grey area. Nobody knows quite what the future holds. The situation may resolve itself in the medium term, but no one can be certain about the long term. However, I hope that we can be optimistic about the economy of the Shetlands—whether fishing, agriculture or other pursuits. I do not want in any way to run down the opportunities of the Shetlands. They have rightly emphasised the importance of regaining the quality reputation of their products, and I am optimistic about their ability to do just that.
  The hon. Member for Dumbarton implicitly criticised us on the ground that we were unprepared for a major shipwreck. The hon. Gentleman must give credit for the fact that the marine pollution control unit was present on the day of the accident and that on the following day aircraft were spraying dispersant. Because of Sullom Voe, the Shetland Islands council had outstanding preparations. The operations room was put in place extremely quickly. It was a highly commendable effort by all concerned.
  Mr. McFall: Just to correct a point that the Minister made, I paid fulsome tribute to the fact that the wildlife rescue co-ordinating committee was in place because of Sullom Voe and because it already existed in the Shetland Islands council. What I am saying is that perhaps on another occasion—which God forbid—the Government will not be so well prepared. It was quite fortuitous that we had that organisation there on the ground and up and running immediately. That is my point.
  Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about compensation. I give him the assurance that the Government are last in line for the payment by the polluter.
  The hon. Gentleman then raised the issue of the ban that was put in place voluntarily by the fishermen. The only reason why we were not ready at exactly the same time is that it takes a certain amount of time to lay an official order, but discussions were going on at the same time and we were in entire agreement—and I am glad about that.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the waters to the east of the islands and about monitoring. We are monitoring that area as well as the west and the south. It is encouraging, but it is too soon at this stage to reduce the exclusion zone to the east of the island. I should think that it will, however, come earlier than in the west.
  I cannot go into too much detail about the Donaldson inquiry because that is where the future of oil transport and routeing of tankers will be discussed. Recommendations from that in line, I hope, with what took place in Brussels yesterday will produce legislation which may well have to be international to make certain that tankers do not sail in vulnerable waters such as those in the Shetlands. We are also most concerned about the Minch.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) talked about the economic damage. Again, we are watching the situation as closely as we can, but it is more

  1011
  a medium and long-term problem rather than getting over the immediate problems that we are dealing with at present. Scottish National Heritage is co-ordinating what may be required in the longer term for ecological monitoring, and the steering group is in place and will give wise and helpful advice on how we should proceed, so there is no question but that the Government have acted very quickly in setting up these organisations to look after the future of the ecology of the whole area. It is absolutely vital, and we will not let up on it.
  I welcome what the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said about the Shetland Islands council and everyone involved. I said that we are having continuous consultations with the salmon farmers. The hon. Member asked about the dispersant. It was approved for use at sea. Through an unfortunate accident, a certain amount was sprayed on the rocks—not an approved use, but on this sort of occasion one must accept that accidents happen. I do not think that it will have caused lasting damage to any person, and again it is being monitored by the health officers on the island.
  All in all, I am very pleased at the tremendous efforts that have been put in by the Shetland Islands council, by the fishermen and by everyone concerned. We hope that the order will not have to be in place for too long, but it must be there while there is any doubt about the quality of the fish landed in the area concerned.
  Mr. Morley: Before the Minister reaches his conclusion, I wonder if he would deal with the point about the fish that have been contaminated in the cages. He quite rightly said that it is difficult to know how long the order will apply because of unknown factors, and people accept that; but he must also accept that if the fully grown fish are held in cages, the whole cycle of salmon farming as regards replacement of the smolts is disrupted, and the disruption will go right down the line of production. Will the Minister consider talking to the industry about the present situation of the fully grown fish?
  Sir Hector Monro: I cannot say tonight whether any of the salmon in the cages have been contaminated. There was talk about a light sheen over one or two of the cages. Some are in the exclusion zone, so the fish cannot be sold. I am well aware that the fish farming cycle is crucial, and that must now be discussed with the Shetland Islands council and the insurers.
  The insurers' initial payment shows that they are willing to accept their responsibility and I hope that no salmon farmer will be out of pocket as a result of this serious incident, which to them will be catastrophic if they cannot sell their fish. I hope that they will be able to do so in the future and that the order will be lifted as soon as the water is clear and the fish are uncontaminated. I commend the order to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Oil and Chemical Pollution of Fish) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 17), dated 8th January 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.

  Postal Services (Valley and Rural Areas)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  12.50 am
  Mr. Peter Hain: I am grateful for this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the Government's misguided and doctrinaire policies which mean that a sword of Damocles now hangs over the Post Office, threatening the future of services in rural and valley areas.
  For example, the Government's policy of blocking Post Office Counters' desire to offer new business and services has resulted in the closure since 1979 of 2,072 sub-post offices and 561 Crown post offices, making a total of 2,633 local post offices.
  Desperately at risk because of the Government's privatisation threat are 10,000 rural offices which form half the Post Office Counters network but provide just 4 per cent. of its volume and are subsidised by nearly £30 million, so they are extremely vulnerable.
  In addition, the Government have forced huge negative external finance limit payments from the Post Office of more than £1 billion at constant prices since 1979, and that extra penalty tax has stopped investment to improve quality in postal services, especially in rural and isolated areas.
  Because the Government are refusing to allow the Post Office, which is entirely self-financing, to raise finance for its investment and modernisation, that, too, is delaying improvements in quality of service.
  In short, the Government's cost-cutting and privatising mania ignores a series of critical questions. For example, if they proceed with their privatisation objectives, who will fund the £200 million rural letters subsidy? The profitable inter-city parts of the Post Office Royal Mail network subsidise the outlying rural deliveries and collection boxes.
  Do the Government plan to restrict deliveries in outlying areas to boxes at the bottom of gardens or drives, or do they propose to ensure that residents will have to go to collection points at the centre of villages or outlying areas to collect their mail, rather than have it delivered to their homes?
  Mr. Elliot Morley: Is my hon. Friend aware that what he has outlined so well is already happening in my rural areas? The village post ladies are being taken to the nearest town and are being replaced by a service from out of the village, coming in by van. Parcels will no longer be left at the village post office but will have to be collected from the nearest town or alternative arrangements will have to be made. That seems to be part of the rationalisation which is linked to the privatisation proposals that my hon. Friend outlines.
  Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend. The point that he makes should be answered by the Minister who is directly responsible.
  For example, in Wales, the Post Office is rapidly losing its distinctive relationship with the Welsh people. We have seen substantial cuts in services and jobs. For example, 100 small post office closures have occurred in the past five years, often depriving valley villagers of the last remaining service. In addition, 22 urban and Crown offices have closed—and, more recently, about 600 of the 1,200

  1013
  remaining rural post offices' opening times have been cut substantially: instead of being open throughout the week, they are to be open several hours weekly.
  Moreover, the closure of Post Office Counters headquarters in Bangor and Bridgend will take effect by the summer. Those headquarters will be shifted—to Bristol and Manchester. The move will involve the loss of 120 jobs in Wales; in addition, about 500 postmen's and sorters' jobs will be lost over the next five years as part of Royal Mail's reorganisation and introduction of new technology in Wales.
  Parcel depots are being merged as a prelude to privatisation, and 50 jobs in Wales will be lost as a result. Depots in Swansea, Newport and Cardiff are being merged, and some jobs are being transferred to Bristol —again, out of Wales into England. Those 50 job losses exclude future job losses that will occur as a result of the privatisation of Parcelforce. A total of 670 Post Office jobs will be lost over the next five years as a result of the Government's policies, and that excludes the consequences of privatisation.
  A monument to the Government's folly is their proposal to privatise Parcelforce. It has been sloppily planned. Characteristically, the President of the Board of Trade was shooting from the hip when he announced the privatisation in July. If I were charitable, I would suggest that he had been set up by his Svengali, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—a Minister who is obsessed with privatisation, regardless of the consequences to the public.
  I ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to deal with the central issue. Services to rural areas will undoubtedly be threatened by privatisation: 20 per cent. of parcels traffic, worth £50 million, is now handled by Royal Mail Letters on behalf of Parcelforce. That is unprofitable and extremely costly, and the aim of the Government's privatisation proposals seems to be to dump it back on to the public sector.
  I hope that we shall receive some straight answers from the Under-Secretary of State about the issue with which the Government are now grappling—the question of VAT. Under schedule 6(3) to the Value Added Tax Act 1983, which implements article 13 of the European Community's sixth directive, the postal services are exempt from VAT, but, as a result of the privatisation of Parcelforce, there will be an immediate price increase of 17.5 per cent.—nearly a fifth—because VAT will be levied.
  Businesses registered for VAT will be able to reclaim the money, but that does not apply to the estimated 1·3 million small businesses that are not VAT-registered. Even more important, it will not apply to the ordinary citizens who posted 11 million parcels to one another last year, worth £40 million.
  In valley and rural areas, there are effectively no competitors. TNT, Securicor, United Parcel Service and all the other predators waiting in the wings for a privatised parcel service are not interested in delivering to a remote Welsh mountainside, or to a remote village—in the valleys or anywhere else in Britain. Residents will be faced with a price increase of 17·5 per cent., because they will attract VAT. That means that a typical 1 kg parcel charge of £2·50 will jump by 42p to £2·92, while the charge for a large parcel costing £7·80 will jump by £1·36, to £9·16.
  1014
  On 2 December, at column 282 of the Official Report, the Minister told me that he intended to maintain a uniform tariff for parcels. He dodged the issue on 15 December, when— as can be found in column 147–I asked about the impact on VAT. There will no longer be a uniform tariff, because the businesses that are able to reclaim VAT will be charged 17·5 per cent. less than ordinary individuals who have to pay VAT alongside small businesses. The uniform tariff will no longer exist.
  How will charities be affected by this proposal? What about the small businesses that purchased expensive metering and franking machines, because they will not be able to use stamps once Parcelforce has been privatised?
  I understand that, because of the intractable problems raised by the VAT issue, the Minister has canvassed the idea of ring fencing parcels posted by individuals across Post Office counters and somehow making them VAT exempt. I do not know whether it can be done without a change in the law. Is the Minister planning to introduce such a change in the Finance Bill after the Budget on 16 March? If he does so, no doubt competitors will protest about unfair treatment. Alternatively, is the Minister's real agenda to privatise the whole of the Post Office, including Parcelforce?
  I have seen advice to the Post Office that the £1·4 billion surplus in its pension funds cannot be transferred. Parcelforce's share is worth about £84 million. Parcelforce's employees are entitled to that money because they contributed to the surplus. Will the Minister confirm that it is not possible to transfer that surplus if he privatises Parcelforce?
  Will the Minister confirm that the Queen and royal family currently send parcels free—what one might call the royal mail prerogative—that the Government will require a privatised successor to provide those services free and, if so, who will pay for it?
  Will the Minister address the question of customs clearance? These matters are central to services in outlying areas and the viability of a future parcels service. Will he confirm that, after privatisation, Parcelforce will operate on the same level as private operators? Its operations may be speeded up as a result, but it will have to be charged extra costs, as the Post Office is currently not charged for customs clearance.
  Then there is the perhaps small matter of yellow lines. I am told that guidance is given to parking wardens not to book Royal Mail vans that are parked on single or double yellow lines. Will the Minister confirm that that special privilege will apply after privatisation?
  What about the employees, whose legally contracted employer is the Post Office? In 1989, when Parcelforce was separated from the Royal Mail, staff were given the option of transferring to Parcelforce. Many did so on the clear and written understanding that they would remain Post Office employees. The Government propose to break that pledge—to dishonour it or to rat on it. Will the Minister confirm that?
  Another example of the overall effect of privatisation on outlying areas is the Government's investment freeze as part of their privatisation of Parcelforce. They have frozen £200 million of Parcelforce's planned £250 million investment in a modernisation programme. As a result, the Coventry hub, a new regional centre linking air to network services, has been postponed. I understand that the

  1015
  £2.5 million needed to purchase the site—a critical part of Parcelforce's new planned network—has been disallowed and that therefore the programme will not go ahead.
  The biggest scandal is perhaps the public subsidising the privatisation of Parcelforce. Parcelforce lost £155 million pounds in the years 1990–92. That amount was absorbed by the Post Office—principally by the highly profitable Royal Mail service—but that was our money, which we have paid into the Post Office as a result of using its services. It is public money. In addition, a further £80 million was spent establishing Parcelforce as an entirely separate business, ripe and ready for privatisation. It is outrageous that a total of £235 million has been spent to set up Parcelforce for privatisation. Are the Government suggesting that any new private operator taking on the business will pay that money back to the public? Incidentally, what will happen to the £187 million of outstanding loans that Parcelforce owes the Royal Mail? Will a privatised company pay back that money? The public are subsidising Parcelforce with a total of £422 million in setting it up for privatisation. It should be remembered that the business is worth only half that amount.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Will my hon. Friend raise with the Minister the fact that current Post Office Counters legislation restricts what it can sell and does not allow it the full freedom of any other shop in a rural environment or town?
  Mr. Hain: That is an important point. The Government have not allowed Post Office Counters to compete on a level playing field with other businesses. It would very much like to extend its services by operating ticketing, travel and financial services and to undertake the national lottery if that is established. All those initiatives are being blocked by the Government, which puts local post offices under enormous pressure because they are not economically viable.
  What guarantee can the Government give that a privatised successor to Parcelforce will always be able to fulfill its duty under the law to maintain a universal service? They can give no such guarantee. What would happen to services in valley and rural areas if the company went bankrupt? Someone will undoubtedly be willing to pick up the profitable but not the unprofitable parts.
  It is crystal clear that the proposal to privatise Parcelforce is a dog's breakfast. I urge the Government and ask the Minister specifically to invite the Select Committee on Trade and Industry to investigate it before he and the President of the Board of Trade finalise it and make an announcement to the House.
  1.6 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Edward Leigh): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) for raising the important issue of the future of postal services in valley and rural areas. I am especially grateful to him for having given me a preview of his speech in The Observer last Sunday. It proved most useful in informing me that various demands would be made of me. I apologise in advance if I am not able to answer all his questions, but I shall try to cover as much ground as I can in the time available.
  The House respects the hon. Gentleman's great knowledge of postal matters, which is based on his 15
  1016
  years as director of research for the Union of Communication Workers. However, I must say that he approaches these issues with a particular political bias, but I forgive him for that.
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced on 29 July 1992 that there was to be a review of the structure and organisation of the Post Office. We are considering a wide range of options, including private sector options, for the Royal Mail and Post Office Counters. We must recognise that the Post Office is first and foremost a commercial business and that our first duty in this matter is to consider what is best for customers of the business, and that is what we shall do.
  My right hon. Friend has emphasised that the Government remain committed to a nationwide letter service with delivery to every address in the United Kingdom, within a uniform and affordable structure of prices, and with a nationwide network of post offices. He said when he announced the review, and I repeat now, that these commitments are not negotiable and will remain at the heart of public policy towards the Post Office. All the alternative ownership and structural options are being examined with this in the forefront of our minds. Any reform must satisfy these non-negotiable commitments.
  The Post Office is made up of three separate businesses —Royal Mail, Parcelforce and Post Office Counters. I shall speak about each in turn, starting with Parcelforce.
  As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said in his announcement last July, Parcelforce operates in a fully competitive parcels market. The majority of its traffic is business traffic. For that reason, my right hon. Friend announced his intention to privatise Parcelforce. I believe that Parcelforce can flourish in the private sector. It has a distinctive brand image and a large customer base which are strengths on which it can build.
  Energetic commitment and support from the work force have already contributed to Parcelforce's improved financial performance. Such attitudes are vital to the future of the business. Parcelforce needs its employees as much as it needs its depots, its sorting offices and its vehicles.
  My right hon. Friend said that he would take advice on the best way to privatise Parcelforce and that he would involve the Post Office board. I am not able to say anything more at the moment about the results of the studies. We are considering the many issues involved.
  Mr. Hain: Will the Minister confirm that the Post Office board has made representations to him, and has said that it does not want Parcelforce privatised separately but wishes to keep the whole Post Office together, either as a fully privatised operation or in the public sector with the commercial freedom that he now denies it?
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have had a series of meetings with all interested parties, not only with the Post Office board on a number of occasions, but with the trade unions involved, with interested parties in the public sector and with the Post Office Users National Council. They have given me their advice in the review on the basis of confidentiality. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me at this stage to reveal what the various parties have said to me, but I note the hon. Gentleman's question. We are considering the many issues,

  1017
  involved, some of which the hon. Gentleman has touched on, including the best way to secure the universal parcel service. That is not a process that can be rushed.
  The hon. Gentleman has questioned the future of rural parcel services once Parcelforce is privatised. He made some personal comments about me in his speech, but I forgive him for that. However, this is a debate about rural services. He will appreciate that I have one of the most rural constituencies in the country, covering about 750 sq miles. As I am charged with looking after the Post Office, not in terms of operational matters, to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his intervention, but in terms of overall policy, I assure him and give him the commitment from the Dispatch Box that whenever I am considering matters appertaining to the Post Office, it is rural areas, and the needs of rural consumers, of those who live in villages and of those who attach great importance to the village post office, which are uppermost in my mind. The other point that is uppermost in my mind is ensuring that the Post Office has a bright, competitive future.
  Mr. Morley: My point concerns the village of Winterton where I live. The jobs of the three village post ladies are under threat in the reorganisation. The service is deteriorating in the sense that people can no longer collect bulky items from the local sub-post office. Having raised the matter with the Minister, will he use his influence to make representations to the Post Office board to reconsider the matter?
  Mr. Leigh: I know the village of Winterton. The hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to raise the matter. It is an operational matter, but following the debate I will contact Mr. Mike Heron, the new chairman of the Post Office, and convey to him the deep concern of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents in the matter.
  I can assure the hon. Member for Neath that the service to rural communities is not in doubt. My right hon. Friend said clearly in his announcement to the House on 15 July that the continuation of a universal parcel service at a uniform and affordable tariff—I emphasise the word "uniform"—was not negotiable. That means that users of the standard parcel service can still expect to have parcels delivered anywhere in the country within a few working days. The general public use Post Office Counters to send parcels. They can leave parcels to be collected at any of the 20,000 post offices in the country, however remotely located. Charges are based on a simple weight-related tariff so that it costs no more to send a parcel 300 miles than 10 miles. It makes good sense for each aspect of the service to continue, because that is what the public are familiar with and find convenient. Of course, it has been a traditional part of our Post Office.
  Mr. Hain: What about VAT?
  Mr. Leigh: In the time available to me I shall reach that point.
  We are still looking at how the Parcelforce pension surplus should be dealt with. It is a complex and highly technical issue. The options need to be identified and clarified. I cannot say what the conclusions will be.
  Another issue that we are considering is the value added tax position of a privatised Parcelforce. The hon. Member for Neath has been speculating that a privatised
  1018
  Parcelforce will be obliged to charge VAT. He has made that point several times before. He has said that that would put up the price by 17·5 per cent. Such speculation is idle. We have not yet decided on the appropriate VAT treatment for Parcelforce in the private sector. There are many issues to be addressed and we are looking closely at them all in consultation with the European Commission, which obviously has an interest in the matter. It is foolish to wring our hands and speculate about price rises when no decision on the matter has yet been made.
  Mr. Jim Cousins: The Minister has said several times that the matter is complicated in the context of VAT and a chain of other issues and that it must not be rushed. When the President of the Board of Trade announced the possible privatisation of Parcelforce in July, he promised a statement in December. Can the Minister give us some idea when the matters which at the end of January still cannot be rushed may be brought to a conclusion?
  Mr. Leigh: We have had a Post Office for some three and a half centuries. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will not take three and a half centuries over the review, but I cannot give him any more information than that. This is a serious and complex issue. Both my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I are determined to ensure that we get it right and that we consider all the options. In good time, my right hon. Friend will come to Parliament when he and his senior Cabinet colleagues have made a decision. The process will not be rushed, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a firm date when a statement will be made. It will be made at the right time. It will be made at a time which will allow us to introduce legislation at a suitable point, if that is what we have to do.
  Mr. Cousins: Is the Minister saying that the privatisation of Parcelforce alone—separate from the rest of the Post Office—is a matter that will require legislation?
  Mr. Leigh: I did not say that. Our advice is that if we decided to privatise Parcelforce alone, it would not require legislation. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that already.
  Royal Mail provides the fastest and best value—for —money postal service in Europe, and it is not resting on its laurels. In each of the last four years the Post Office has recorded a significant improvement in its delivery performance, as measured by independent researchers. In the first six months of the financial year, Royal Mail's quality of service climbed to record levels, with 91.5 per cent. of all first class mail reaching its destination the following day after posting. This compares favourably with other EC countries. Since 1990, the British Post Office has led Europe for quality of service and value for money in terms of speed of delivery. Royal Mail is, indeed, the only postal administration in the world to conduct independent end-to-end monitoring of service quality.
  In the Swansea postal district, which covers the constituency of Neath, 93 per cent. of all first class letters are now delivered by the next working day. Indeed, Wales as a whole, even in the most rural and remote of areas, has a service which is better than the national average. My own constituency is in the Lincoln postal district, where 95 per cent. of first class letters are delivered the next working day. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that those are excellent performance figures.

  1019
  The figures show Royal Mail's commitment to service in rural areas and there is no reason to believe that this will change. However, the Royal Mail faces change in many other respects. It no longer has a monopoly over express products and unaddressed mail, its direct mail services face competition from other forms of advertising, and competition from the telecommunications sector is ever growing. Now is the time to consider the potential impact of these changes on Royal Mail.
  The reason for the review is to explore ways in which the organisation and structure may need to adapt to enable Royal Mail to face new challenges and benefit the consumer. I stress that no decisions have yet been taken, but in terms of Parcelforce, the hon. Member may be assured that the manifesto commitments to a universal letter service and a uniform tariff structure are non-negotiable and will be maintained.
  With regard to Post Office Counters and the network of post offices, I remind the hon. Member of the clear, unfettered commitment in our manifesto to a nationwide network of post offices. I do not recall seeing any such
  1020
  commitment in the honourable Member's party manifesto. Post offices and their customers throughout the country can therefore rest assured that whatever solution we adopt for the Post Office and its constituent parts, whether in the public sector or in the private sector, our manifesto commitment will not be compromised.
  That does not, of course, mean a guarantee that no post office will ever close. That would be an absurdity. The precise number and location of offices has to adjust to shifts in population, and to changes in the requirements of clients and customers. Our commitment is to maintain a readily accessible network which fully satisfies the social, industrial and commercial needs of the United Kingdom.
  I echo the hon. Member's sentiments about the importance of the rural sub-post office network. These small post offices play a vital role—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty minutes past One c'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what information he has on the proportion of cases postponed by magistrates because of the non-appearance of essential people or documents.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department into which category of offence the six most expensive legally aided cases or groups of cases fell in each of the last five years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Information is available for only the last four years. An analysis of criminal legal aid payments in respect of cases heard in the Crown court indicate that the six most expensive cases fell into the following offence categories:

  Offence type

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Fraud

  2

  2

  4

  4

  Obtaining by deception

  1

  2

  1

  1

  Handling stolen goods

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Revenue law offences

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Murder

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Drugs offences

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Other offences

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will estimate for each area committee the number of applicants who will no longer be eligible for legal aid after 1 April.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Whether or not an individual is eligible for legal aid depends both on the details of his or her financial means and the merits of the case he or she wishes to bring or defend. The only estimates that are made are of the number of certificates likely to be issued in England and Wales as a whole.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to introduce new rules regarding the granting of legal aid in complex fraud cases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Legal aid will continue to be granted, subject to the applicant's means, where the court considers that it is in the interests of justice.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list for each area 602
  committee for each year since 1985 (a) the annual budget for legal aid in current and 1985 prices, (b) the number of legal aid cases granted aid and (c) the number of legal aid cases not granted aid.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It has not been possible to obtain the information requested in the time available. However, I will write to the hon. Member.

  Fraud Trials
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to reduce the time taken to conclude long fraud trials; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office and the Law Officers' Department issued a consultation paper on 3 December seeking views on how to reduce the length of criminal trials, particularly those involving fraud. The consultation paper considers the causes of all types of long trials and seeks views on a wide range of options available which might help to reduce their length. The paper asks for responses by 28 February 1993. A view will then be taken as to which particular proposals and options commend themselves. In addition, we await with interest the report of the Royal Commission on criminal justice.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to introduce a properly structured system of plea bargaining, with safeguards, for long fraud trials; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to my reply to him on 7 July 1992, at columns 93–94. The Lord Chancellor and I are considering the matter, but there are no plans to introduce a structured system of plea-bargaining in long fraud trials, or any others, at the present time. However, our recent evidence to the Royal Commission on criminal justice has explored the issues raised by this suggestion.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Recruitment and Assessment Services
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give details of the cost per job created in the civil service by the use of Recruitment and Assessment Services in Basingstoke.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the chief executive of Recruitment and Assessment Services. I have asked him to write in reply.

  Letter from Michael D. Geddes to Mr. David Hanson, dated 25 January 1993:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster enquiring about the cost per job created through the use of this Agency. I assume that you are referring to the cost per vacancy filled.
  It is not possible to give a precise answer to your question as RAS provides a wide range of recruitment and related services. In some cases we prepare only further particulars of a post and place an advertisement; in other cases we provide a full service including perhaps an individual assessment service or a full-scale Assessment Centre. Departments and the Civil Service Commissioners are not required to use the

  603
  services of RAS. We negotiate an agreed price for each particular project which we undertake which reflects the amount of work requested by the customer department.
  In 1991/92 we processed more than 100,000 applications as well as over 150,000 general enquiries. We filled 2,989 vacancies through the provision of comprehensive recruitment schemes (Many of which were for multiple vacancies) and participated in one way or another in a further 66 partial schemes. We also provided 803 consultancy days. The total cost of the Agency, including overheads, was £11.9 million. Statistics for the current year will be given in our 1992/93 Annual Report, which will be published in the middle of the year.
  I hope that this provides you with the information which you require, but please let me know if you would like any further details.

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those occasions in each of the past five years in which officials with responsibility for placing printing contracts in(a) HMSO headquarters and (b) HMSO, Llanishen, Cardiff, have been subject to disciplinary proceedings leading to (i) suspension on full pay, (ii) suspension without pay, (iii) summary dismissal and (iv) criminal proceedings.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to HMSO under its chief executive. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from Paul Freeman to Mr. Rhodri Morgan, dated 25 January 1993:
  As you are aware, your Parliamentary Question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, about disciplinary action against officials with responsibility for placing printing contracts, has been referred to me for reply.
  There has been just one such case at HMSO Headquarters during the past five years. The officer concerned was dismissed, and criminal proceedings are pending. There was also one such case at HMSO Cardiff. In this case the officer concerned was also dismissed, but I understand that the police, who have seen the papers, are not pursuing the matter further.
  I should add that both officers were dismissed for using their official position to personal advantage, and not for any improprieties in the placing of printing contracts.

  Research Council
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the meeting of European Research Ministers on 9 December 1992 and on the United Kingdom's presidency of the Research Council.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I am pleased to report that following the meeting of Research Ministers on 9 December under my chairmanship, member states were able to reach agreement on a common orientation to supplement the funding of the third R and D framework programme by 900 million ecu in the years 1993 and 1994. This supplement increases the total funding guaranteed from 5.7 becu to 6.6 becu and represents an important interim measure to ensure the continuity of R and D activities under the objectives for the third framework programme, in the approach to the implementation of a successor programme, thereby avoiding a potential reduction in R and D funding over this period.
  604
  In addition, I chaired an in-depth discussion at the Council meeting on 12 October, on the evaluation of the second framework programme on the basis of a report prepared under United Kingdom chairmanship, in preparation for a first orientation debate on the fourth framework programme at the Council on 9 December.

  There was also an informal discussion at the December Council of how to improve the management of EC research programmes on the basis of a paper presented by the United Kingdom. The Commission agreed to respond to these ideas before the next Council of Research Ministers.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing, Sandwell
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total provision from central funds received by the Sandwell metropolitan borough authority in support of capital expenditure on housing for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  The amounts of capital grants paid to Sandwell MBA in the years 1981–82 to 1991–92 in support of housing capital expenditure, including any adjustments for over or under payment in previous years, were as follows:

  Years

  £ thousand

  1981–82

  110

  1982–83

  233

  1983–84

  328

  1984–85

  187

  1985–86

  119

  1986–87

  238

  1987–88

  88

  1988–89

  94

  1989–90

  -5

  1990–91

  3,826

  1991–92

  8,360

  Figures for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The significantly higher payments in 1990–91 and 1991–92 reflect the revised arrangements for private sector renovation grants introduced on 1 April 1990.

  The Government also influence housing capital expenditure by local authorities through housing investment programme—HIP—allocations and supplementary credit approvals. Those for Sandwell for the years since 1979–80 are given in the table, which also gives total housing capital expenditure by Sandwell MBA in these years.

  Housing investment programme allocations and supplementary credit approvals and capital expenditure for Sandwell metropolitan borough authority 1979–80 to 1992–93

  £ thousand

  1Housing investment programme allocations and supplementary credit approvals

  Housing capital expenditure

  1979–80

  18,119

  n/a

  1980–81

  19,869

  n/a

  1981–82

  14,684

  n/a

  1982–83

  15,834

  18,004

  1983–84

  16,668

  22,728

  605

  1Housing investment programme allocations and supplementary credit approvals

  Housing capital expenditure

  1984–85

  14,664

  22,390

  1985–86

  13,153

  17,597

  1986–87

  13,382

  20,898

  1987–88

  12,057

  24,079

  1988–89

  10,849

  41,287

  1989–90

  10,124

  42,058

  New capital finance system2

  1990–91

  20,431

  26,659

  1991–92

  323,229

  322,140

  1992–93

  421,156

  532,866

  1 Allocations for 1989–90 and earlier years are final allocations, i.e. the initial allocation plus any increases to the initial allocation made in-year. The figures for 1990–91 and subsequent years cover the housing investment programme allocations (housing annual capital guidelines and specified capital grants) issued prior to the start of the financial year and any supplementary credit approvals subsequently issued.

  2 From 1990–91, under the new capital finance system, the housing investment programme allocation is an assessment of relative need for housing capital expenditure rather than a direct borrowing approval. Borrowing approval is now conveyed by the single, all service, basic credit approval.

  3 Provisional.

  4 Includes only supplementary credit approvals for 1992–93 already issued.

  5 Estimated.

  n/a—Not available.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will recalculate his proposals for 1993–94 standard spending assessments for every authority

  Local authority

  Total pupils

  Primary Education SSA £ million

  Secondary Education SSA £ million

  Post-16 Education SSA £ million

  Total of primary secondary and post-16 Education SSA £ per pupil

  Essex

  205,308

  203.468

  240.749

  34.788

  2,333

  Hampshire

  191,786

  203.178

  219.978

  11.352

  2,266

  Kent

  206,183

  201.057

  235.907

  47.953

  2,352

  Lancashire

  190,639

  193.978

  211.551

  18.347

  2,223

  All shire counties

  3,900,976

  3,827.319

  4,317.165

  658.495

  2,257

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates of the number of elderly people on income support for each local authority area in 1992–93 and 1993–94 were used in determining standard spending assessment levels.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Estimates of the number of elderly people on income support in shire counties, metropolitan districts and London boroughs are produced by the Department of Social Security from its quarterly 1 per cent. sample inquiries of claimant records for use in the calculation of standard spending assessments. The estimates relate to the average number of persons over eight quarters who are, or whose partner is, aged 60 years and over and in receipt of income support. For 1992–93 SSAs, the eight quarters cover the period May 1989 to February 1991; and for 1993–94, they cover the period May 1990 to February 1992.
  606
  on the notional basis of the Isle of Wight becoming a unitary authority comprising the present county council and district councils from 1 April 1993; and if he will make a statement on the effects on SSAs of local government reorganisations, in particular any changes in SSAs of those authorities not being reorganised being brought about by the impact on non-linear SSAs of data in respect of reorganised authorities being aggregated or disaggregated.

  Mr. Howard
  No; it is too early to produce such figures. The detailed implications of local government reorganisation for standard spending assessments will be discussed with representatives of the local authority associations in due course.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the increase in the area cost adjustment factor compared to the overall increase in standard spending assessment for 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  These figures are not yet available. I will write to the hon. Member when final 1993–94 standard spending assessments are announced.

  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the total number of pupils used in the calculation of standard spending assessments, (b) the allocation of standard spending assessment for primary, secondary and post-16 pupils and (c) the standard spending assessment per pupil for (i) Essex, (ii) Hampshire, (iii) Kent, (iv) Lancashire and (v) all shire county education authorities.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is as follows, on the basis of provisional SSAs for 1993–94.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to change the standard spending assessment formula to include direct measures of unemployment and proxies for wealth, including levels of car ownership.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Secretary of State will shortly be announcing his final decisions regarding the 1993–94 revenue support grant settlement. For 1994–95 there will be a review of the indicators used in the calculation of standard spending assessments as a result of the new information available from the 1991 census.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the area cost adjustment factor as a percentage of the standard spending assessment for each year from 1990–91 to 1993–94.
  607
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total amounts allocated on the basis of the area cost adjustment factor as a percentage of standard spending assessments for each of the last three years is as follows:

  Total SSA £ million

  Total allocated on area cost adjustment factors £ million

  Percentage allocated on area cost adjustment factors

  1990–91

  29,805.3

  836.5

  2.8

  1991–92

  35,586.7

  1,152.1

  3.2

  1992–93

  37,992.7

  1,314.5

  3.5

  Final standard spending assessments for 1993–94 will be announced shortly. I will write to the hon. Member with the corresponding figures for 1993–94 when these are available.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average standard spending assessment for each year from 1990–91; and which local authorities and by how much in each case benefited from the area cost adjustment factor in that year.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total of standard spending assessments and the average per head of resident population for each year since 1990–91 is as follows:

  Total SSA (£ million)

  Average per head (£)

  1990–91

  29,805.3

  627

  1991–92

  35,586.7

  746

  1992–93

  37,992.7

  794

  1992–931

  35,584.3

  744

  1993–942

  36,622.2

  762

  1 Adjusted.

  2 Provisional.

  There was a reduction in SSAs between 1992–93 and 1993–94 because of the transfer of some local authority responsibilities, mainly in respect of further education. The table also, therefore, shows 1992–93 figures on an adjusted basis, taking account of these transfers for comparison with the 1993–94 figures. The 1993–94 figures are based on those announced on 26 November for the purposes of consultation. Final settlement figures will be announced shortly.

  On the area cost adjustment, I have placed in the Library a table showing the figures requested in respect of the three years 1990–91, 1991–92, and 1992–93. Corresponding figures for 1993–94 are not yet available. I will write to the hon. Member with final figures for 1993–94 shortly.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what central Government support Coventry can expect in addressing its inner-city problems.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My Department and others have a range of complementary programmes to address the problems of Coventry and other urban priority areas totalling some £4 billion a year. As far as my own Department's programmes are concerned, in addition to substantial resources to tackle housing problems, in the 608
  current financial year, Coventry has been allocated £4.6 million under the urban programme and task force funding of almost £1.3 million.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the urban programme as a source of support for voluntary organisations in Coventry working in the poorer areas; how much has been provided to those organisations under the urban programme; and what arrangements he has made to continue support for voluntary organisations when the urban programme is phased out.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The urban programme—UP—has, and will continue to, support in Coventry and other urban priority areas some excellent projects developed by voluntary sector and other organisations. The city council's annual report indicates that £2.1 million was spent on voluntary sector projects in Coventry in 1991–92. Commitments arising from voluntary sector projects approved as part of Coventry's UPs in 1992–93 and previous years will be honoured in full. In addition, the urban partnership fund, part of the capital partnership programme, will provide up to £20 million in 1993–94 in uncommitted UP resources to support capital and directly linked revenue projects in the 57 urban priority areas. It is open to local authorities to involve voluntary organisations in particular projects.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that Coventry will be granted inner area status from 1994–95 onwards.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The circumstances of Coventry and all other authorities in England will be considered as part of a review of urban priority areas later this year using 1991 census and other data. The review will inform decisions on geographical targeting and the balance of programmes required to tackle the needs of urban areas.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what detailed studies were conducted prior to the Government's decision to wind up the urban programme; and if he will place copies of their findings in the Library.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There will continue to be a substantial urban programme—UP—in 1993–94 amounting to £176 million which will fund existing commitments and provide £20 million for the urban partnership fund. Decisions on the new UP arrangements were taken having regard to all the relevant factors.

  Repair Grants
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 167, what steps he takes to monitor the effectiveness of the mandatory repair grant scheme in improving unfit houses.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department collects regular quarterly and annual statistics of the number and value of mandatory renovation grants approved and paid by local authorities. It has recently completed research to monitor the early operation and effectiveness of the new grant system, including the extent of targeting of expenditure on unfit houses. The 1991 English house condition survey will also provide data on the impact of mandatory grant expenditure in improving housing conditions.

  Crown Land (Planning Procedures)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment has been carried out by his Department concerning the effectiveness of the non-statutory planning procedures which have been operating over the development of Crown land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The non-statutory procedures for Crown development are generally considered to work well in practice. But in the interests of greater accountability and openness, the Government believe that a more formal system is now appropriate.

  In reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon, (Mr. Whittingdale) my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning announced on 24 June 1992, Official Report, column 202, that the Government believe that it is now appropriate to bring Crown exemption under the planning system largely to an end. A public consultation paper on the removal of Crown immunity from planning law was issued on 5 November 1992 and we are currently considering responses. Any changes will be embodied in primary legislation when a suitable opportunity arises.

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to allow local authorities to buy empty housing properties from the private sector; and what evaluation he has made of the comparative cost-effectiveness of doing so as against using temporary accommodation.

  Mr. Baldry
  The provision of new social housing is now mainly the responsibility of housing associations, with local authorities concentrating on the management of their existing stock and on their broad enabling role. The Government expect local authorities to make the most efficient use of all permanent housing stock available to them, so as to reduce to a minimum the need for temporary accommodation. Nevertheless, authorities are able to acquire empty private sector housing, in line with their priorities for the use of available resources.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to amend part L of the Building Regulations 1991 to encourage the conservation of fuel and power; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am today issuing a consultation paper setting out proposals for strengthening the requirements of part L of the Building Regulations 1991 for the conservation of fuel and power. The aim is to reduce the CO emissions from buildings by incorporating cost effective measures, but to do so in a way which does not introduce unacceptable technical risks and maintains some flexibility for designers. We estimate that adoption of these proposals would improve the energy performance of space and water heating in houses by some 25 to 35 per cent. compared with current building regulations standards, with similar improvements in the non-domestic sector.

  Among the proposals is one to require an energy rating for all new dwellings and house conversions. This would
  610
  be a major step forward in increasing energy awareness among house buyers. A copy of the consultation papers has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each education authority in England the standard spending assessment for education per pupil, the actual spending per pupil, the cash difference and the percentage of education SSA this difference represents for the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 21 January 1993]: The standard spending assessment for education consists of five sub-blocks, only three of which concern pupils— primary, secondary and post-16. It is not possible to provide expenditure figures on a basis which would allow comparison with these three elements.

TRANSPORT

  Aircraft (Smoking)
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is Her Majesty's Government's policy with respect to the International Civil Aviation Organisation's recommendation to ban smoking in aircraft from 1996.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government believe that the question of smoking on aircraft should remain a matter for airlines, which would have to implement any ban.

  Nuclear Material (Transport)
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the safety of the arrangements for nuclear waste to be transported by train; and if he will make it his policy to collect information about the quantity of nuclear material transported through each parliamentary constituency.

  Mr. Freeman
  Safety regulations for the transport of all radioactive materials in this country are based on stringent internationally agreed standards laid down by the International Atomic Energy Agency. These require safety to be "built in" to the design of the container used for transport, so that the contents would not present a significant radiological hazard even in the event of a severe accident. The IAEA standards are kept under continuous review, and major revisions take place every 10 years, the most recent one being in 1985. I have no plans to collect information about the quantity of nuclear material transported through each parliamentary constituency.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley),Official Report, 11 January, column 531, on what basis he described the quantities of plutonium exported, to which he refers, as small.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Individual shipments of radioactive material are not notifiable to the Department when transported in type B(U) packages containing an
  611
  activity equal to or less than 3000 A1 or 3000 A2, as appropriate, or 1000 terabecquerels, whichever is the lower. The terms A1 and A2 are defined in the International Atomic Energy Agency regulations for the safe transport of radioactive material, a copy of which is available in the library of the House.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what inquiries are made in respect of fishing vessels requested to be registered as British to establish that beneficial ownership resides in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norris
  The registrar has to make such inquiries as he considers necessary to establish that ownership of the vessel meets the qualifying criteria and that the vessel is operated and managed from within the United Kingdom.

  For the latter he will usually look to any existing management agreement to see that the basic requirements of section 14(1)(b) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 are met.

  Merchant Ships
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the registration of merchant ships under flags of convenience; and what steps he intends to take to assist the development of the British register of merchant ships.

  Mr. Norris
  The issue of flag state responsibility is better tackled by effective international action in the International Maritime Organisation and elsewhere aimed at ensuring that all flag states discharge their responsibilities properly. This is already in hand.

  As for assisting the British register, we are implementing the recommendations of the joint working party on British shipping of 1990, and to this end the Government will be supporting the Merchant Shipping (Registration etc.) Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) at its Second Reading next month. We shall also continue to press in the European Community for measures to increase commercial opportunities for EC merchant fleets and to remove their competitive disadvantages.

  Greater Manchester Buses
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further representations he has had about the future of Greater Manchester Buses from the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority; what reply is being sent; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since the Secretary of State issued a direction that Greater Manchester Buses—GMB—should be split, I have met the chairman and other representatives of the Greater Manchester PTA and the chief executive of GMB. There has also been a meeting at official level.

  We discussed the reasons for requiring GMB to be split, possible options, and how the splitting and subsequent sale might be progressed.

  I am keeping in touch with the PTA.

  Motorways
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those instances where two motorways travel side by side in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Many interchanges between motorways involve motorway slip roads running alongside the main carriageway with which they merge. In addition a skewed interchange between two motorways such as the M6 and M42 near Coleshill, or motorways merging such as the M26 where it joins both the M20 and the M25, can result in a short distance of parallel running.

  M62, Ferrybridge
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the length of the proposed route of the Al from the M62 junction 33 to the next proposed interchange with the M62 at Ferrybridge, West Yorkshire.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The proposed route of the A1(M) crosses over the M62 approximately half a mile west of junction 33. From this point, the new A1(M) would run alongside the M62 for a distance of approximately one mile to the proposed interchange at Ferrybridge.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the distance between the planned route of the Al and the M62 where they run side by side in Ferrybridge, West Yorkshire.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The distance varies. While precise details of the separation will depend on detailed design, the routes would run as closely together as practicable.

  A38
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends announcing the options for possible routes for the A38 trunk road improvement between Saltash and Trerulefoot; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The public will be consulted on possible routes for the improvement of the A38 trunk road between Saltash and Trerulefoot later this year.

  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects construction work to begin on the Dobwalls bypass section of the A38 trunk road improvement between Liskeard and Bodmin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Dobwalls bypass is one section of a much larger trunk road scheme which would link the A38 Liskeard bypass to the A30 Bodmin bypass. Construction could start in the latter part of the decade, depending on satisfactory progress with statutory procedures and the availability of funds at the time.

  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends announcing his Department's preferred route for the A38 trunk road improvement between Liskeard and Bodmin immediately to the west of Dobwalls; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I expect to announce the preferred route for the remaining section of the A38 Liskeard to Bodmin improvement scheme before Easter.

  Pescado
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on developments in respect of investigations into the loss of the fishing vessel Pescado since the report of the marine accident investigation branch; what further information he has regarding submarine activity in the area at the time; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Steven Norris
  The circumstances surrounding the loss of the Pescado have been investigated by the marine accident investigation branch. Action on the seven recommendations made by MAIB is being urgently pursued. The Ministry of Defence provided details of warship movements in the area from 25 February to 5 March 1991. Two submarines were in surface transit during that period.

  Eastgate to Bishop Auckland Line
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding environmental impact of transfer of current traffic from rail to road as a result of the planned closure of the Eastgate to Bishop Auckland line.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received no specific representations about the withdrawal of cement traffic from the Eastgate to Bishop Auckland line. However, some correspondents have mentioned the loss of cement traffic when raising various rail freight issues generally with my Department.

  Traffic Projection Figures
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish revised traffic projection figures.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The current national road traffic forecast was published in 1989. The forecast is kept under constant review, but I have no present plans to publish a revision.

  New lettings

  as a percentage of:

  Total number1

  All privately rented property (per cent)

  All rented property (per cent)

  1988–89

  England:

  South-East

  2,200

  0.37

  0.10

  East Anglia

  300

  0.33

  0.11

  South-West

  300

  0.16

  0.06

  West Midlands

  300

  0.23

  0.04

  East Midlands

  400

  0.31

  0.08

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  400

  0.26

  0 06

  North-West

  1,100

  0.71

  0.13

  North

  200

  0.22

  0.04

  Wales

  400

  0.47

  0.11

  Scotland

  800

  0.58

  0.07

  Northern Ireland

  neg

  neg

  neg

  United Kingdom

  6,400

  0.36

  0.08

  1989–90

  England:

  South-East

  1,200

  0.20

  0.05

  East Anglia

  100

  0.11

  0.04

  South-West

  100

  0.05

  0.02

  West Midlands

  100

  0.08

  0.01

  East Midlands

  200

  0.16

  0.04

  MV Braer
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the product licence status in respect of each dispersant used to date in dispersing oil spilled from MV Braer.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 14 January 1993]: I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is as follows:

  Product

  Date approved

  Tested and approved for

  Enersperse 1583

  30 April 1986

  Sea

  Rocky shores

  Sandy beaches

  Dispolene 34S

  25 March 1980

  Sea

  19 September 1985

  Sandy beaches

  Dasic Slickgone

  6 April 1984

  Sea

  LTSW

  7 April 1989

  Sandy beaches

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new lettings from investments under the business expansion scheme there were in(a) each region and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole; and what percentage these figures represent of (i) all privately rented property and (ii) all rented property, for each year of its existence.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The business expansion scheme was extended to include investment in privately rented housing in 1988–89. Reliable estimates by regions are available for years up to 1990–91. These and preliminary estimates for the United Kingdom total in 1991–92 are shown in the table.
  615

  as a percentage of:

  Total number1

  All privately rented property (per cent)

  All rented property (per cent)

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  400

  0.26

  0.06

  North-West

  500

  0.33

  0.06

  North

  neg

  neg

  neg

  Wales

  neg

  neg

  neg

  Scotland

  400

  0.30

  0.04

  Northern Ireland

  100

  0.45

  0.05

  United Kingdom

  3,100

  0.18

  0.04

  1990–91

  England:

  South-East

  2,500

  0.42

  0.11

  East Anglia

  1,100

  1.24

  0.43

  South-West

  500

  0.26

  0.10

  West Midlands

  100

  0.08

  0.01

  East Midlands

  400

  0.31

  0.08

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  100

  0.07

  0.01

  North-West

  500

  0.33

  0.06

  North

  neg

  neg

  neg

  Wales

  neg

  neg

  neg

  Scotland

  100

  0.08

  0.01

  Northern Ireland

  400

  1.82

  0.20

  United Kingdom

  5,700

  0.33

  0.07

  1991–92

  United Kingdom

  8,500

  0.49

  0.11

  Note:

  neg = Negligible.

  1 Estimates rounded to nearest 100.

  Bicycles (Ministers)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to amend the rules for ministerial expenses to encourage the use of bicycles by Ministers on official duties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None.

  Tobacco Sales
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has of the amount of tax the Government received from cigarettes sold illegally to people under age in the last financial year.

  Sir John Cope
  Evidence on the consumption of cigarettes by children aged under 16 is provided by the survey "Smoking among secondary school children in 1990" carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. But we have no estimate of the proportion of total consumption that is met from cigarettes illegally sold to people under age as children also acquire cigarettes from parents and other sources. Nor do we have an estimate of the proportion of cigarettes illegally sold to children for consumption by parents or other adults.

  EC Sales Statements
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1992,Official Report, columns 378–79, what authority to impose civil penalties for failure to submit EC sales statements is contained in (a) section 82 of the Finance Act 1992 and (b) paragraph 82 of schedule 3 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 1992.
  616
  Mr. Lamont
  The authority to impose civil penalties for failure to submit European sales lists derives from an amendment to the Finance Act 1985—enforcement provisions in relation to value added tax. Section 82 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1992 amends the 1985 Act by the introduction of a new section 17A covering European sales list penalties—for failure to submit.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 1992,Official Report, column 1003, what is the maximum penalty under sub-paragraph 6(c) of paragraph 82 of schedule 3 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 1992, for failure to submit an EC sales statement.

  Mr. Lamont
  The maximum penalty—for third and subsequent default—is £1,500.

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people have been employed by(a) the Inland Revenue and (b) Customs and Excise specifically to tackle tax evasion in each of the last five years;

  (2) how much money has been allocated by his Department to (a) the Inland Revenue and (b) Customs and Excise to tackle tax evasion in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In Customs and Excise officials with responsibility for tackling tax evasion may have other duties. This is true, to a lesser degree, of the Inland Revenue, where most counter-evasion work is carried out by inspectors of taxes. On this basis, the approximate numbers of staff units/year engaged in such work, and the related costs to their respective Departments, were as follows:
  617

  Staff Units

  Cost

  £ million

  IR

  C&E

  IR

  C&E

  1987–88

  2,800

  7,000

  70

  111

  1988–89

  3,100

  7,100

  79

  125

  1989–90

  3,200

  7,300

  89

  139

  1990–91

  3,300

  7,300

  102

  152

  1991–92

  3,600

  7,200

  115

  166

  Foreign Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about bringing the tax regime and rates for foreign vessels registered in the United Kingdom and the companies running them into line with those applying to United Kingdom-owned vessels and companies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We receive representations on this subject from time to time.

  Autumn Statement
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish expanded versions of tables 2B.2, 2B.3 and 2B.4 of his "Autumn Statement 1992", Cm. 2096, which (i) subdivide technical adjustments into(a) transfers of function, (b) changes of financing responsibility, (c) classification changes reflecting changes in the way public expenditure is measures, (d) other technical changes and (e) cyclical social security; (ii) subdivide other changes into (a) revised estimates of the costs of existing policies, (b) expenditure changes resulting from policy changes and (c) other and (iii) provide technical notes as to which of these categories of adjustment have occasioned restatements of outturn-year figures in Cm. 2096;

  (2) if he will publish (a) an analysis of the factors underlying the trend in table 2B.1 of his "Autumn Statement", Cm. 2096, of the net effects of the changes from charging all accruing superannuation costs to civil and defence departmental budgets over the period 1987–88 to 1994–95 and (b) an analysis by departmental programme of accrued pension liabilities at 31 March 1993; and for what reasons it is judged appropriate to take the differences between payments and accruals outside the new control total;

  (3) if he will publish an analysis comparable to that in table B1 of Cm. 1920, of the accounting adjustments shown for the years 1987–88 to 1995–96 in table 2A.3 of his "Autumn Statement 1992", Cm. 2096, to show which components have been unaffected by the switch from the planning total to the new control total and which are a direct consequence of that switch;

  (4) if he will publish in the statistical supplement to the 1992 "Autumn Statement" planning figures for total local authority expenditure in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 by territory and economic category, in the format of table 5.7 of Cm. 1920, and by function, in the format of table 5.8 of Cm. 1920;

  (5) if he will publish a table, consistent with table 2A.11 of his 1992 "Autumn Statement", Cm. 2096, showing (a) local authority debt interest and (b) total local authority expenditure, for the planning years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96;

  (6) if he will publish an analysis of the effects of transfers of function between spending sectors, changes of
  618
  financing responsibility between sectors, classification changes, estimating changes and policy changes on the 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95 figures for (i) central Government support for local authorities and (ii) total local authority expenditure, as given in table 2.6 of his "Autumn Statement 1992", Cm. 2096;

  (7) if he will publish a reconciliation between the figures given by table 2B.1 of his "Autumn Statement 1992", Cm 2096, for classification changes in 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95 and those given by each of tables 2B.2, 2B.3 and 2B.4;

  (8) if he will publish (a) a compositional analysis in the form of table 2A.3 of Cm 2096 of the figures provided by table 2A.1 for the new control total in 1984–85 to 1986–87, (b) a compositional analysis in the form of table 1A.3 of Cm 1729 of the figures provided by table 2A.1 for the new planning total, that is, after 1990 redefinition, in 1984–85 to 1993–94, and (c) totals for the old planning total, that is, pre-1990 redefinition, for whichever of the years 1963–64 to 1995–96 such data can be provided on the comparable public expenditure measurement basis as table 2A.1 of Cm 2096;

  (9) if he will publish (a) the series of money GDP published in rounded form in table 2A.1 of his "Autumn Statement 1992", Cm 2096, (b) the adjusted money GDP figures which underly the calculated adjusted series, index (1990–91 = 100) in table 2A.1 and (c) the detailed adjustments to money GDP which constitute the difference between the two series, for the years 1963–64 to 1995–96, to the nearest pounds million; and how future such tables will be affected by the replacement of the community charge by the council tax on 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Portillo
  Analyses of public expenditure will be published in the "Statistical Supplement to the 1992 Autumn Statement" on 29 January 1993.

  Corporate Taxation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to adjust the United Kingdom's corporate tax take in line with the average for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The level of tax on companies is considered each year in the Budget, and international comparison is one of the factors taken into account. The United Kingdom's main rate of corporation tax is currently the lowest of the EC and G7 countries, and one of the lowest of the OECD.

  Underground Economy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate for the loss to the Exchequer due to the activities of the underground economy in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Reliable estimates are not available.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will outline the measures taken by his Department to tackle the underground economy in the United Kingdom since 1986.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the chapter entitled "Deterring and tackling non-compliance" in the annual reports of the Board of Inland Revenue, which may be found in the House of Commons Library.
  619
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to launch a commission of inquiry into the underground or ready-money economy in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government have no such plans. We do not believe that a commission of inquiry would add significantly to our knowledge and understanding of the "hidden economy".

  VAT (Children's Clothes)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the size specifications governing VAT zero-rating of children's clothes, including shoes, were first fixed; and when they were last reviewed.

  Sir John Cope
  Since the inception of VAT, zero-rating for young children's clothing and footwear has been decided by reference to a schedule, published by Customs and Excise, of minimum measurements reflecting the average body sizes of children up to their 14th birthday. The continuing relevance of the size specifications in the schedule is monitored against the results from surveys by the British Standards Institution: the most recent of which is BS 7231/1990. The schedule of garment and shoe sizes was laid reviewed by Customs and Excise in 1985. A further review is currently in progress.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has as to what percentage of gross domestic product in the United Kingdom is accounted for by the underground economy.

  Mr. Nelson
  By its very nature, the underground economy cannot be measured directly or estimated with any precision. An evasion adjustment is made in the United Kingdom national accounts to allow for that part of income which is concealed but where the corresponding expenditure is not. This results in an addition to factor incomes of around 1¼ per cent. in recent years.

  The evasion adjustment applied in the calculation of GDP does not attempt to encompass the whole of the underground economy. Estimates of the size of the underground economy made by a number of researchers show wide variation.

  MEPs' Allowances
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the travel and office allowances for Members of the European Parliament will be treated for tax purposes in the same way as for hon. Members.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A ruling of the European Court of Justice in 1981 said that expense allowances paid by the European Parliament to its Members are not liable to United Kingdom tax. That ruling does not apply to Members of this House.

  Gifts to Employees
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the Inland Revenue ensures that all additional gifts to employees are declared under the Taxes Management Act 1970.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Employers are required to make returns of taxable gifts to employees. Employees are required to 620
  declare their taxable income. The Inland Revenue audits the operation of PAYE by employers, and investigates possible under-declarations both in business accounts and personal tax returns.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total percentage contribution to gross domestic product in(a) the latest year for which figures are available, (b) 10 years previously and (c) 20 years previously of (i) manufacturing industry, (ii) the construction industry, (iii) banking, insurance and financial services and (iv) the energy industry.

  Mr. Nelson
  The available information is shown in the table:

  Share of gross domestic product

  Per cent.

  Industry

  1971

  1981

  1991

  Manufacturing

  31.2

  25.1

  21.0

  Construction

  6.4

  6.0

  6.8

  Banking, insurance, finance, business services and leasing

  10.3

  11.4

  17.7

  Energy and water supply

  5.3

  10.8

  5.7

  Source: United Kingdom National Accounts, 1992 edition.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what has been the net United Kingdom/ European Community trade balance, at current values, in all goods and services in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available;

  (2) what has been the net United Kingdom trade balance, at current values, in all goods and services in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nelson
  The United Kingdom's balance of trade in goods and services is available from published sources. The requested information is available in the 1992 edition of the Central Statistical Office's United Kingdom balance of payments publication—the Pink Book. The latest estimate for the United Kingdom's total balance on trade in services in 1991 is in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics". Copies of these publications are available in the Library of the House. The data can also be found on the Central Statistical Office's database which can be accessed through the House of Commons Library.

  Industrial Investment
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much investment in manufacturing industry has grown in percentage terms in each of the OECD countries since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  Data on manufacturing investment may be obtained from the OECD's "National Accounts, Volume II" and the Central Statistical Office's database which is accessible through the House of Commons Library.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Simon Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the clearing banks on their policies on lending to small businesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lamont
  In recent months much concern has been expressed both that banks have been failing to pass on cuts in base rates to their small business customers and more generally that they have acted in a way that is damaging to the small business sector. That concern has been brought home to me in many letters from small firms and in representations from MPs. I therefore asked the Batik of England to repeat the survey of bank lending to small businesses that it undertook in June 1991. I have discussed the results with the main clearing banks and the president of the British Bankers Association.

  The Bank has now carried out its study and I am placing a copy of its report in the Library. The main findings are:

  the number of small business accounts is about 4.1 million, of which two-thirds are in credit;

  around a quarter of continuing borrowers (ie those who were borrowing both in June 1991 and November 1992) have seen their bank facilities reduced, against a third who have seen an increase;

  around 60 per cent. of small business borrowers benefited from the full 4.5 per cent. reduction in base rates seen between June 1991 and the completion of the survey, and around a further 10 per cent. actually saw their borrowing margins reduced. Margins widened on 30 per cent. of accounts, about half by more than 0.5 per cent.;

  there has been little movement in average margins, but there is a wide variation in average margins between different banks;

  three banks operate minimum interest rate floors, but none have yet come into play;

  the trend towards greater implementation of fees and charges has been maintained and some banks have raised their levels;

  the proportions of lending at fixed rates and for specified terms (as opposed to overdrafts) has increased slightly.

  The Bank's survey is the most comprehensive and recent guide to the interest rates charged by banks to small businesses. It confirms, as did the survey in June 1991, that the majority of small businesses have seen their interest rates come down in line with the reductions in base rates over the last year. This finding is supported by the Nottingham university study recently published by the Forum of Private Businesses. This is welcome news, because it means that the benefits of falling interest rates are being passed through to small businesses which have a vital part to play in bringing about economic recovery.

  I welcome the moves a number of banks have made to increase the number of borrowers on term rather than overdraft finance. That can bring greater certainty to borrower and lender alike. I believe there is also a place for more fixed rate lending. I was disappointed, therefore, that the survey showed that interest rates offered on fixed rate loans had remained very much higher, at around 15 per cent., despite the fall in base rates and longer-term market rates. I am pleased that several banks have reduced their fixed rates since then and I hope that they will keep these rates under review.

  Although the broad picture on interest rate margins is reassuring, there is no doubt that many small businesses remain dissatisfied with their banks, so, when I met the bank chairmen and chief executives, I explained the concern that has been expressed in letters to me and others.
  622
  The banks stressed the importance of the small business sector to them. They pointed out that the number of complaints is small by comparison with the overall number of customers and transactions and that tensions are bound to arise between banks and some customers in a recession. They argued also that they have had to make heavy provisions for losses on loans to small businesses and that they have to take that into account in their judgments on credit risk and pricing.

  I pointed out that the complaints that I have received bear more widely on the quality of service offered to small businesses. It was in response to such complaints that I asked the banks to publish codes of practice for their small business customers and set out seven principles which codes should satisfy. All the major Scottish and English clearing banks have now produced such codes. Small firms and their representatives have generally welcomed this development and the willingness by banks to work to ensure greater transparency in relationships with customers. I know that the banks will continue to keep their codes under review and to assess how their relationships with their customers might be further improved; recently, for example, Lloyds substantially revised its code in response to customer pressure. I am pleased also that all the banks have introduced—or will introduce in the course of 1993—pre-notification of charges. This is a further positive step.

  One important element of each code is to set up a clear procedure by which small businesses can take up complaints which cannot be resolved at branch level. The chairmen of the banks have assured me that they ensure that such complaints are looked into closely. Most have established special units to this end and the chief executives and chairmen themselves review a large number of cases personally. These procedures deal successfully and quickly with a great many complaints by explaining the basis of decisions clearly or by putting right mistakes that have been made. I hope therefore that small businesses, and MPs and others with whom they may correspond, will take up complaints directly with the banks, if necessary at the highest level.

  There will, of course, be a number of customers who remain dissatisfied. Many will dispute the banks' judgment on how much they should be lent or on what terms. Such arguments have to remain a matter of negotiation between the banks and their customers. It is not for the Government or any other third party to second-guess the banks' commercial judgment on such matters.

  However, a number of complaints I have received allege maladministration, for example charging incorrectly or the changing of terms without proper warning. In most cases, complaints of this sort can be resolved through the banks' internal procedures. But in the minority of cases where that is not so, personal customers and unincorporated businesses can take their case to the banking ombudsman. Small incorporated businesses cannot.

  The Jack committee on banking services in 1989 recommended that the ombudsman scheme should be extended to cover incorporated businesses because they often faced identical problems and constraints. At that time, the change was resisted by the banks and not accepted by the Government. In view of the continuing level of complaints, I have taken the matter up again with the largest banks and with the president of the British Bankers Association. They have agreed that the scheme should be extended to cover small incorporated businesses

  623
  with a turnover of less than £1 million a year. They will now propose this change to the council and board of the banking ombudsman.

  Given the continuing interest in the financing of small firms, I have also asked the Bank to continue to monitor from time to time developments in the provision of bank finance to this sector.

  Central Government Staff
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of staff in post in central Government Departments at 1 October 1992.

  Mr. Portillo
  On 1 October 1992 there were 567,850 staff in post in central Government. Of those 510,651 were non-industrials and 57,199 were classified as being in industrial work. A summary showing staff in post by Department has been placed in the Library.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement outlining the position underlying the oral statement of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), on 18 January,Official Report, column 144, concerning a possible obligation on the United Kingdom to rejoin the exchange rate mechanism at any particular date.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 22 January 1993]: I have nothing to add to the memoranda submitted by Her Majesty's Treasury to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee—appendices 1 and 5 to the first report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee for the Session 1992–93, HC 201.

  European Community
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates have been made of the additional cash contributions from the EC which will accrue to each member state in consequence of the decisions taken at the Edinburgh meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The Edinburgh European Council agreed the following allocation of expenditure from the European Community budget:

  (billion ecu—1992 prices)

  1992

  1999

  increase

  (a) Commitment ceilings

  Agriculture (guideline)

  35.30

  38.40

  3.00

  Cohesion Fund

  —

  2.60

  2.60

  Structural Funds—Objective 1

  11.00

  19.30

  8.30

  Other Structural operations

  7.50

  8.10

  0.60

  Other internal policies

  3.90

  5.10

  1.20

  External policies

  3.90

  5.60

  1.70

  Administrative expenditure

  3.20

  3.90

  0.70

  Repayments

  0.90

  —

  -0.90

  624

  (billion ecu—1992 prices)

  1992

  1999

  increase

  Monetary reserve

  1.00

  0.50

  -0.50

  Reserves for external policies

  —

  0.60

  0.60

  Total expenditure commitments

  66.90

  84.10

  17.20

  (b) Own resources ceiling

  as percentage of GNP

  1.20

  1.27

  becu12

  64.90

  80.60

  15.70

  1 The own resources ceiling expressed in ecu is calculated using the Commission's growth assumptions which were available to the European Council.

  2 The expenditure commitment ceilings sum to more than the own resources ceiling. Although the Edinburgh European Council conclusions limit the own resources ceiling (and hence payments from the Community budget) to 1.27 per cent. of community GNP in 1999, commitments were constrained to 1.335 per cent. of GNP. This is possible because first, some commitments will in practice not be taken up and so will not result in payments being made; and second, there is in some cases, a considerable time-lag between commitments and payments. As long as the European economy continues to grow in nominal terms, such expenditure commitments will represent a smaller proportion of Community GNP when the payments are made than when the commitments were given.

  As the existing financial perspective ended with 1992, it is not possible to say what would have happened to Community expenditure over the next seven years if no agreement had been reached at Edinburgh.

  However, until there was agreement the revenue available to the Community would have continued to be subject to the 1988 own resources decision, with the own resources ceiling limited to 1.20 per cent. of GNP. The revenue which the Community could call up could therefore have grown in line with growth in the Community economy. On the basis of the growth assumptions available to the Edinburgh European Council, the revenue from a 1.20 per cent. own resources ceiling would allow payments of up to 76.1 billion ecu in 1999. In effect, therefore, the decision of the European Council to increase the own resources ceiling from 1.20 per cent. to 1.27 per cent. of GNP increased the permissible level of payments from the Community budget by 4.5 billion ecu a year by 1999.

  It is not possible to estimate with any certainty how each member state would benefit from this additional 4.5 billion ecu by comparison with decisions which might have been made in the absence of agreement in Edinburgh.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 30 November,Official Report, columns 49–50, if he will provide figures on the amount of United Kingdom debt relief provided under the Trinidad terms which has been counted as official bilateral development assistance.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Paris club has so far granted Trinidad terms to 13 countries. After a framework agreement is reached at the Paris club, each creditor must negotiate a separate bilateral agreement with the debtor. Not all of the United Kingdom's bilateral agreements have been concluded, but provisional figures suggest that these agreements will reduce debts to the United Kingdom by around £200

  625
  million. In accordance with directives agreed by the
  626
  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, all debt relief under Trinidad terms is counted as bilateral official development assistance.

SCOTLAND

  Community Care
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the preparedness of local authorities in Scotland to implement the new community care arrangements in April.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Local authorities have been implementing the new community care arrangements in phases since 1991. All authorities now have complaints procedures and arm's length inspection units. The mental illness specific grant introduced in 1991–92 has built up community facilities for mentally ill people. All authorities, except one, have prepared community care plans which form the basis of discussions between them and the Scottish Office community care implementation unit. In the next phase, starting in April 1993, local authorities will assume responsibility for assessing individual's needs and purchasing residential and nursing home care. Preparations for this are well in hand, but systems will continue to develop and be refined with experience of the new arrangements.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the individuals and organisations which he consults on matters relating to the needs and rights of disabled people in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of bodies consulted on these important matters is extremely lengthy and I am therefore arranging for a list to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Constituency Sizes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing, in descending order, the geographical area, expressed in hectares, of parliamentary constituencies in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Parliamentary constituency

  Area by hectares1

  Ross, Cromarty and Skye

  954,680

  Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber

  870,708

  Caithness and Sutherland

  788,297

  Argyll and Bute

  661,362

  North Tayside

  485,104

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  441,883

  Western Isles

  308,717

  Kincardine and Deeside

  261,106

  Orkney and Shetland

  247,928

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  242,811

  Gordon

  229,485

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  226,956

  Moray

  224,399

  Stirling

  219,243

  Dumfries

  200,662

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  198,818

  Banff and Buchan

  153,278

  Perth and Kinross

  152,963

  Clydesdale

  138,829

  Angus East

  121,034

  Cunninghame North

  77,188

  North East Fife

  76,125

  East Lothian

  71,682

  628

  Parliamentary constituency

  Area by hectares1

  Dumbarton

  53,127

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  37,521

  Midlothian

  36,128

  Renfrew West and Inverclyde

  33,812

  East Kilbride

  28,613

  Livingston

  27,117

  Clackmannan

  24,142

  Linlithgow

  23,512

  Dunfermline West

  19,733

  Eastwood

  17,003

  Falkirk East

  15,547

  Ayr

  15,501

  Dunfermline East

  14,727

  Motherwell North

  13,576

  Monklands East

  13,463

  Monklands West

  11,388

  Cunninghame South

  11,302

  Central Fife

  10,874

  Falkirk West

  10,610

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  10,511

  Kirkcaldy

  10,414

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  9,451

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  8,630

  Hamilton

  7,703

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  6,381

  Motherwell South

  3,807

  Paisley South

  3,801

  Aberdeen North

  3,552

  Aberdeen South

  3,342

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  2,997

  Dundee East

  2,587

  Edinburgh South

  2,585

  Edinburgh West

  2,554

  Dundee West

  2,511

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  2,438

  Glasgow Shettleston

  2,388

  Paisley North

  2,325

  Glasgow Pollok

  2,220

  Glasgow Provan

  2,188

  Glasgow Maryhill

  1,910

  Edinburgh East

  1,832

  Glasgow Springburn

  1,824

  Glasgow Govan

  1,734

  Glasgow Cathcart

  1,658

  Edinburgh Leith

  1,506

  Glasgow Hillhead

  1,461

  Edinburgh Central

  1,426

  Glasgow Central

  1,380

  Glasgow Garscadden

  1,270

  1 Land and inland water.

  Further Education Colleges (Creches)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines he has issued, or plans to issue, to further education colleges regarding creche facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Provision of creche facilities in further education colleges is currently the responsibility of education authorities. From 1 April 1993 that responsibility will rest with individual college boards of management.

  We have no plans to issue guidelines to boards of management on the provision of creche facilities.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) names, (b) place of residence, (c) salary, honorarium or allowance and (d)

  629
  expected weekly time-commitment of each (i) executive and (ii) non-executive director of each hospital trust in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Annual remuneration £

  Trusts already in operation:

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. Bryan Broomfield

  Aberdeen

  19,285

  Non-executive Directors

  Professor Graeme Catto

  Aberdeen

  5,000

  Professor Michael Meston

  Aberdeen

  5,000

  Mr. Harold Tocher

  Aberdeen

  5,000

  Dr. Fiona Lyle

  Laurencekirk

  5,000

  Mrs. Ann D. Scott

  Aberdeen

  5,000

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. J. D. Brown

  Ayr

  17,145

  Non-executive Directors

  Mr. William M. Mowatt

  Ayr

  5,000

  Mr. Harold J. Currie

  Mauchline

  5,000

  Mr. Graeme McKinstry

  Ayr

  5,000

  Mrs. Anne Wilson

  Girvan

  5,000

  Mrs. Dorothy McLellan

  Symington

  5,000

  Royal Scottish National Hospital NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. Adrian Ward

  Uplawnmoor

  17,145

  Non-executive Directors

  Mr. William Hughes

  Falkirk

  5,000

  Ms. Valerie Smart

  Falkirk

  5,000

  Professor Averil Stewart

  Linlithgow

  5,000

  Mr. David Tarr

  Bridge of Allan

  5,000

  Dr. Peter Williams

  Bridge of Allan

  5,000

  Trusts coming into operation on 1 April 1993

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Health Care NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mrs. Aileen Bates

  Galston

  17,145

  Non-executive Directors

  Mr. Ian Allison

  Ayr

  5,000

  Mr. David Gall

  Ayr

  5,000

  Mr. Robert Johnston

  Beith

  5,000

  Dr. Susan Kinnaird

  Troon

  5,000

  Mr. W. Scott McConnell

  Strathaven

  5,000

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. George Bruce

  Thurso

  15,125

  Non-executive Directors

  Mr. John Gunn

  Wick

  5,000

  Rev. Alexander Murray

  Lairg

  5,000

  Dr. Elizabeth Mackenzie

  Skerray by Thurso

  5,000

  Mr. John Rosie

  Thurso

  5,000

  Ms. Wilma Taylor

  Wick

  5,000

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. Stuart Fair

  Dundee

  19,285

  Non-executive Directors

  Mrs. Maureen Cane

  Broughty Ferry

  5,000

  Mr. Gordon Lowden

  Dundee

  5,000

  Mr. Robert Lyon

  Dundee

  5,000

  Mrs. Jacqueline Wood

  Dundee

  5,000

  Professor Heather Dick

  Dundee

  5,000

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. James Snedden

  Elgin

  17,145

  Non-executive Directors

  Mrs. Marjory Adams

  Elgin

  5,000

  Mr. Russell Anderson

  Elgin

  5,000

  Mrs. Lydia King

  Lossiemouth

  5,000

  Mr. William Phillips

  Elgin

  5,000

  Mr. James Royan

  Elgin

  5,000

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. William Ritchie

  Kirkoswald

  19,285

  Non-executive Directors

  Mrs. Angela Dunbar

  Saltcoats

  5,000

  630

  Annual remuneration £

  Mrs. Kim Donald

  Fenwick West

  5,000

  Mr. James Grier

  Kilbride

  5,000

  Mr. Alan Stewart

  Kilmarnock

  5,000

  Mr. Keith Tulloch

  Monkton

  5,000

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. James Kyle

  Gairloch

  17,145

  Non-executive Directors

  Mr. James Gray

  Fortrose

  5,000

  Mrs. Flora Hunt

  Inverness

  5,000

  Mr. Alexander Morrison

  Golspie

  5,000

  Professor George McNicol

  Rosemarkie

  5,000

  Mrs. Judith Robertson

  Inverness

  5,000

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. Tom Gibson

  Paisley

  17,145

  Non-executive Directors

  Mrs. Audrey Burns

  Houston

  5,000

  Mr. Allan Durward

  Bridge of Weir

  5,000

  Mrs. Marion Ford

  Paisley

  5,000

  Mr. Alec MacDonald Gaunt

  Paisley

  5,000

  Mr. George Murray

  Paisley

  5,000

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. George McKelvie

  Auchterarder

  17,145

  Non-executive Directors

  Mrs. Agnes Bowie

  Stirling

  5,000

  Mr. Graham Houston

  Dunblane

  5,000

  Mrs. Doris Littlejohn

  Bridge of Allan

  5,000

  Mr. Graeme Simmers

  Balfron

  5,000

  Mrs. Anne Walker

  Deanston

  5,000

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  Chairman: Dr. John Dall

  Glasgow

  19,285

  Non-executive Directors

  Dr. Robert Colville

  Glasgow

  5,000

  Mrs. Danielle Glasser

  Glasgow

  5,000

  Mrs. Lorna Howieson

  Glasgow

  5,000

  Mrs. Joan Mackenzie

  Glasgow

  5,000

  Mr. Desmond O'Brien

  Glasgow

  5,000

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. Robert Watt

  Edinburgh

  19,285

  Non-executive Directors

  Mr. Thomas Bennie

  Linlithgow

  5,000

  Mr. Jack Cunningham

  Armadale

  5,000

  Mrs. Irene Douglas

  West Calder

  5,000

  Mr. Peter Johnston

  Livingston

  5,000

  Mrs. Carole Stevenson

  Livingston

  5,000

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. Andrew Garland

  Glasgow

  19,285

  Non-executive Directors

  Mr. Robert McEwan

  Glasgow

  5,000

  Mrs. Ann Moore

  Glasgow

  5,000

  Mrs. Agnes Stewart

  Glasgow

  5,000

  Mr. Henry Tankel

  Glasgow

  5,000

  Mrs. Susan Bell

  Biggar

  5,000

  Grampian Health Care NHS Trust

  Chairman: Dr. Alex Taylor

  Fyvie

  19,285

  Monklands and Bellshill NHS Trust

  Chairman: Dr. George Bell

  Bellshill

  19,285

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mrs. Joan Cameron

  Glasgow

  19,285

  My right hon. Friend expects to announce shortly the names of the non-executive directors of the Grampian HealthCare, Monklands and Bellshill, and Yorkhill trusts.

  631
  Trust boards themselves appoint, and determine the salaries of, executive directors and information on this is not held centrally.

  In addition to the remuneration payable, the chairmen and non-executive directors are entitled to claim travelling and subsistence allowances at rates set for members of public bodies. There is no specific weekly time commitment but trust board directors are expected to give about three days per month to the board's work.

  Crime, Paisley
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will visit Paisley to discuss policing and crime.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. It is the responsibility of the chief constable of Strathclyde police to take operational decisions on the policing of Paisley. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State had a meeting with the hon. Members for Paisley, South and for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) on 20 October 1992 in the course of which he described the initiatives being taken by Strathclyde police to deal with Paisley's crime problems.

  Hardy Nursery Stock
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to launch an initiative to promote the export of hardy nursery stock, including roses, heaths and heathers, from Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to introduce an export promotion initiative for Scotland's hardy nursery stock.

  I am pleased to say that this sector of the industry continues to demonstrate steady progress and, by its own efforts, is responding positively to the opportunities afforded at home and by the opening up of European Community markets.

  Excellent examples of this progressive attitude to marketing are the Scotgrow exhibition, now an established annual event, and the Scotgrow's directory of Scotland's ornamental nursery stock growers. Both these and other initiatives are proving to be highly successful in promoting quality Scottish produce.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to give victims of abuse, or their representatives, forewarning of the release date from prison of the offenders.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Directors of social work are notified in advance of the release of offenders when a person has been convicted of an offence under schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 against children under the age of 17 years. This includes incest or other forms of sexual assault and cruel and unnatural treatment of children. Local authority social work departments will determine in the light of individual cases if victims or their representatives should be advised of the release of an offender. In addition the Scottish Prison Service informs the police and social work departments of the release of all prisoners on parole.

  Poll Tax
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were(a) registered to vote and (b) registered to pay the poll tax in each Scottish parliamentary constituency in the financial year 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information about electoral registrations by parliamentary constituency in 1992 is given in OPCS's "1992 Electoral Statistics"—series EL NO 19—published by HMSO, a copy of which is in the Library. Electoral registers in Scotland are published on 16 February each year.

  No information is available centrally about the number of persons within parliamentary constituency areas who are on the community charge register.

  Ecological Steering Group
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he has made to set up the ecological steering group referred to in his statement of 11 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I plan to establish as soon as possible an ecological steering group on the oil spill in Shetland with the terms of reference shown below. Professor W. Ritchie, professor of physical geography, vice principal of the university of Aberdeen, has accepted my invitation to be the chairman. I shall make a further announcement about the membership of the group in due course. The terms of reference are as follows:To monitor environmental work arising from the incident and to provide a focus for liaison and advice;
  To assess the impact of the incident on the ecology of the Shetland Islands;
  To develop urgently the best strategies in the short and longer term for dealing with the implications of the incident as they affect the ecology of the Shetland Islands and to report to the Secretary of State for Scotland on these at an early date;
  To oversee special studies for monitoring the impact on and subsequent recovery of the environment in order to advise the Government of the lessons to be learned which could be applied more widely, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.

  Water Services
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much capital investment on water services in Scotland has been paid for by private finance.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 22 January 1993]: Identified private sector contributions to capital investment on water sewerage services in Scotland amounted to £1.5 million in the financial year 1991–92.

  Land Access
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many public access agreements have been concluded in Scotland in each of the last three years in respect of Forestry Commission holdings sold to the private sector; and what percentage of total sales these figures represent.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The arrangements for securing continued public access to woodlands sold by the Forestry Commission were introduced in October 1991. Three of the woodland areas considered under these arrangements have been sold so far. None of the sales was subject to an access agreement.

  Museums and Galleries (Attendance)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the attendance figures for 1992 reported by the national museums and galleries in Scotland, broken down into the individual institutions but including their outstations, with figures in each case of the percentage increase or decrease on the attendances figures for 1991.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: The information is as follows:

  1992

  Percentage change since 1991

  National museums of Scotland

  1,005,316

  -6.12

  National galleries of Scotland

  759,102

  +10.00

  The national museums of Scotland comprise the Royal Museum of Scotland buildings at Chambers street and Queen street, Edinburgh, the Scottish agricultural museum, the Scottish united services museum, the Museum of Flight and the Museum of Costume. The national galleries of Scotland comprise the National Gallery of Scotland, the Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art and the Scottish National Portrait Gallery.

  National Testing
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to implement national testing in schools in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 November 1992, c. 153–54]: National testing is an essential part of the Government's education strategy. It ensures for parents that the progress of their children in school is checked against national standards.

  The new arrangements for national testing announced last November and set out fully in The Scottish Office Education Department's circular 12/92, were widely welcomed in Scotland. National tests will now be given in primary schools in Scotland whenever pupils are considered by their teachers to have largely completed a level of the curriculum in mathematics, reading and writing. From January 1994, these arrangements will apply also to pupils in S1 and S2.

  Education authorities were asked to confirm that they would implement these arrangements. They have now done so, in response to which regulations have been laid before Parliament today to revoke the regulations on national testing currently in force.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the United Kingdom contribution to United Nations funds for United Nations relief in the former Yugoslavia; and whether these funds came from the existing Overseas Development Administration budget.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Out of a total of £70.5 million so far committed towards humanitarian relief for the former Yugoslavia, £23.6 million has been provided for the United Nations humanitarian relief programme. These funds come from the United Kingdom aid programme.

  UN Relief Operations
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for additional help for United Nations relief operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1992 we committed £8.25 million to Afghanistan, of which £4.5 million was provided for United Nations relief operations; £10.84 million to Iraq of which £6.5 million was provided for UN relief operations; and £70.5 million to the former Yugoslavia, of which £23.6 million was provided for UN relief operations. Our future responses towards these crises depend on the assessment of needs and we are maintaining a close dialogue with the UN on this.

  Aid-Trade Ratios
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the ratio of the amount supplied as British overseas aid to the amount generated in extra trade; and if he will set out the basis for the estimate.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1991, 74 per cent—£934 million—of our bilateral aid commitments were tied to British goods and services. We estimate that for every £1 we commit to multilateral agencies—£918 million in 1991— an average of £1.40 is spent on British goods and services. More widely our aid supports economic growth and liberalisation in developing countries, helping to provide a better climate for trade and investment.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Treaties
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 12 November 1992,Official Report, columns 932–44, which of the treaties listed, under each of the side headings, have been signed but not ratified by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The treaties in question are as listed. Command Paper references are given for ease of reference.

  Animals and conservation

  European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter.

  Signed at Strasbourg on 10 May 1979.

  Miscellaneous Series No. 002/1980, Cmnd. 7776.

  European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate

  Animals used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes.

  Signed at Strasbourg on 18 March 1986.

  Miscellaneous Series No. 004/1986, Cmnd. 9884.

  Convention on the Protection and the Use of Transboundary

  Watercourses and International Lakes.

  Signed at Helsinki on 17 March 1992.

  Miscellaneous Series No. 005/1993 to be published 5 February 1993.

  Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents.

  Signed at Helsinki on 17 March 1992.

  Certified copy of Convention awaited..

  Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas.

  Signed at New York on 17 March 1992.

  Miscellaneous Series No. 002/1993, Cmnd. 2119.

  Convention on Biological Diversity.

  Adopted at Nairobi on 11 May 1992.

  Miscellaneous Series No. 003/1993, Cmnd. 2127.

  635
  Human rights

  Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950.

  Signed at Strasbourg on 16 September 1963.

  Miscellaneous Series No. 006/1964, Cmnd. 2309.

  Protocol amending the European Social Charter.

  Signed at Turin on 21 October 1991.

  Miscellaneous Series No. 005/1992, Cmnd. 1940.

  Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level.

  Signed at Strasbourg on 5 February 1992.

  Miscellaneous Series No. 008/1992, Cmnd. 1964.

  Protocol No. 10 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950.

  Signed at Strasbourg on 25 March 1992.

  Miscellaneous Series No. 012/1992, Cmnd. 2031.

  Disarmament

  Treaty on Open Skies.

  Signed at Helsinki on 24 March 1992.

  Miscellaneous Series No. 013/1992, Cmnd. 2067.

  Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the use of certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects.

  Concluded at Geneva on 10 October 1980.

  Miscellaneous Series No. 023/1981, Cmnd. 8370.

  Pollution

  Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution concerning the Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds or their Transboundary Fluxes.

  Adopted at Geneva on 18 November 1991.

  Miscellaneous Series No. 010/1992, Cmnd. 1970.

  Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage resulting from Exploration for and Exploitation of Seabed Mineral Resources (with Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference on the Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage from Offshore Operations 20–31 October 1975 and 13–17 December 1976).

  Signed at London on 1 May 1977.

  Miscellaneous Series No. 008/1977, Cmnd. 6791.

  Protocol of 1984 to amend the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971.

  Adopted at London on 25 May 1984.

  Miscellaneous Series No. 007/1986, Cmnd. 9926.

  Protocol of 1984 to amend the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969.

  Adopted at London on 25 May 1984.

  Miscellaneous Series No. 008/1986, Cmnd. 9927.

  Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal.

  Adopted at Basel on 22 March 1989.

  Miscellaneous Series No. 004/1990, Cm. 984.

  Protocol [further] amending the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, done at Oslo on 15 February 1972.

  Signed at Oslo on 5 December 1989.

  Miscellaneous Series No. 010/1990, Cm. 1039.

  Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context.

  Adopted at Espoo (Finland) on 25 February 1991.

  Miscellaneous Series No. 015/1991, Cm. 1645.

  Iran
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the relationship of Iran with the Hizbollah and Hamas.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Hizbollah has itself stated the importance it attaches to its relationship with Iran. Both Hizbollah and Hamas attended the conference the Iranian Government organised in October 1991 in opposition to the middle east peace process.

  Iraq
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 January,Official Report, columns 853–54, what consultations he had with representatives of the telecommunications company concerned before allowing the visas to be issued.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs wrote to a representative of the parent company twice during 1992 and stressed that he would not be prepared to put forward a project of the type proposed to the United Nations sanctions committee.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 January,Official Report, columns 853–54, what steps he took to ensure that any equipment being discussed was incapable of military application before granting the visas.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It was made clear to representatives of the company concerned on a number of occasions that only goods approved by the United Nations sanctions committee could be exported to Iraq.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Spanish Government as to transport/passenger delays at the Spanish-Gibraltar border.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Spaniards are well aware of our view that there should be the maximum possible free movement of EC nationals at internal borders commensurate with controlling the movement of terrorists, drug smugglers, other international criminals and illegal immigrants.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to announce the name of the future Governor of Gibraltar; and what discussions on this appointment he has had with the Government of Gibraltar.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We hope in the near future to be in a position to announce the name of the new Governor of Gibraltar. The appointment is a matter for Her Majesty's Government, but we are in touch with the Gibraltar Government.

  Immigration
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) men and (b) women in (i) Bombay, (ii) New Delhi, (iii) Karachi and (iv) Islamabad, were seeking entry visas to join spouses in the United Kingdom as at 14 January; and what is the average current waiting time at each post.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The number of men and women waiting for an interview for entry clearance to join their spouses in the United Kingdom in Bombay, New Delhi, Karachi and Islamabad on 14 January, and the waiting time for interview, was as follows:
  637

  Men Numbers

  Women Numbers

  Waiting Time Months

  Bombay

  87

  90

  3

  New Delhi

  10

  105

  3

  Karachi

  44

  42

  2

  Islamabad

  1,195

  411

  3

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement outlining the kinds of transactions which may be undertaken with Iraq and Iraqi nationals on humanitarian grounds under the current sanctions regime for Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The only transactions with Iraq permitted in the UK are those humanitarian exceptions permitted tinder UN Security Council resolutions 661 and 687 agreed on a case-by-case basis by the UN sanctions committee. Such exceptions include foodstuffs, medicine, medical and surgical equipment, basic human requirements—for example, toiletries, cooking requisites, tents, blankets and other items for the construction of basic shelter—and equipment necessary to restore basic local services—clean water, sanitation and agriculture.

  Israel
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in sequence the actions taken by Her Majesty's Government over the decision of the Israeli Government to expel the Palestinians to the Israeli-occupied south Lebanon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since the decision of the Israeli authorities to expel the Palestinians, we have issued two EC statements as presidency and supported United Nations Security Council resolution 799. In addition, the Foreign Secretary has written to the Israeli Foreign Minister, I have made our views clear to the Israeli ambassador, and EC ambassadors in Tel Aviv have made representations to the Israeli Foreign Minister. On 23 January RAF helicopters provided support to an International Committee of the Red Cross humanitarian mission to the deportees. Our position on the deportations remains clear: they are illegal and we will continue to urge the Israelis to comply with Security Council resolution 799 which calls for the immediate and safe return of the deportees.

EDUCATION

  Behaviour Policies
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many local education authorities have developed strategies for supporting the behaviour policies of their schools which meet the standards expected by his Department;

  (2) how many local education authorities have schools which have whole school behaviour policies, as recommended in the Elton report on discipline in schools; what information he has on the percentage.of such schools in each LEA; and to what extent they meet the standards expected by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Parents' Civil Liabilities
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what research he has commissioned on the impact of imposing on parents' civil liabilities for the acts of their children in schools.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Languages (Communication)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of how many local education authorities and schools in each of these local education authorities communicate with parents in languages other than English in accordance with the recommendations of the Elton report.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally. It is for local authorities and schools to consider the need for communication with parents in languages other than English in the light of local needs and circumstances. The Government have made the necessary statutory provisions to enable schools and LEAs to make governors' annual reports, pupils' reports and other documents for parents available in translation where this is appropriate.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what criteria are employed by his Department in distinguishing full-time and part-time nursery education for statistical and other purposes.

  Mr. Forth
  There is no statutory definition of these terms and the Department has not attempted to define full-time or part-time nursery education as such for statistical purposes. In its published pupil statistics it distinguishes those nursery pupils who usually attend for the length of the school day throughout the week, from those—the majority—who attend on mornings or afternoons only or on some other pattern.

  Counselling Courses
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many LEAs have provided courses on basic counselling skills in the last two years; what information he has on the percentage of staff in each LEA which have been on such courses; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of such courses.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Management Consultancy Services
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many local education authorities provide management consultancy services for head teachers and support services for the professional development of teachers which meet the standards expected by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  It is for individual local education authorities to decide what services of these kind to provide, in the light of demand from the schools and colleges which they maintain.

  School Discipline
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made, following the Elton report of discipline in schools, of the equitable distribution of teaching and other resources across the ability range in schools and of how local education authorities are taking this recommendation into account when funding schools.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 573, if he will take steps to introduce a DFE grant for new projects to meet the education needs of the ethnic minority population of all ages.

  Mr. Forth
  No. My right hon. Friend has no plans to introduce a separate DFE grant for new projects to meet the educational needs of the ethnic minority population.

  Ballots
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in what circumstances a parent entitled to a list of parents who can vote in a school's opt-out ballot may be required to give an undertaking before receiving a copy of such a list.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education Reform Act provides that where a parent makes a request in connection with any proposal that a ballot should be held in accordance with section 61 of this Act, the parent is entitled to a copy of the list of the names and addresses of other parents. An appropriate fee may be charged for the cost of supply of the list.

  Special Needs Education
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures he is taking to reduce the time taken in the issuing of statements of special needs for children.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education Bill presently before the House provides for the Secretary of State to set statutory time limits governing local education authorities' conduct of assessments and the making of statements of special educational needs. The Bill also provides for a statutory code of practice including criteria and guidance to which LEAs should have regard in carrying out those duties.

  Home Economics
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received concerning the practical input in home economics in the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received conflicting representations about the place of aspects of home economics in the national curriculum. In addition to those aspects included in national curriculum mathematics and science, the proposals for a revised national curriculum technology order, which my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Wales issued 640
  for consultation in December, make clear their view that pupils should learn to apply designing and making skills to textiles and food, as to other materials, as part of the programmes of study for this subject.

  English Test Papers
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he was first aware that national newspapers were in possession of this summer's key stage 3 English test papers; if he will carry out an inquiry into the circumstances; and if he will now defer the tests or treat them as a pilot exercise.

  Mr. Forth
  The tests for English will go ahead as planned. In the light of the leak of the current question, my right hon. Friend has asked Lord Griffiths, chairman of the School Examinations and Assessment Council, to draw up new test papers, based on the successful model developed over the last two and a half years.

  My right hon. Friend first learnt that the current tests for English had become public on 20 January. He fully expects SEAC to establish how the leak occurred, to ensure that it does not happen again.

  Truancy
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) on 20 January,Official Report, column 282, if he intends to provide schools with a national definition of what constitutes (a) truancy and (b) an unauthorised absence.

  Mr. Forth
  Truancy and unauthorised absence are terms which are largely interchangeable. They may be defined as absence from school without leave from a duly authorised person. Guidance as to what constitutes authorised absence was given in DFE circular 11/91, published in July 1991. A copy is available in the Library.

  Child and Family Guidance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his policy towards the funding of child and family guidance services by local education authorities.

  Mr. Forth
  It is for individual local education authorities to make provision for child and family guidance services in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Lord Griffiths
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will dismiss Lord Griffiths from his post as chairman of the School Examinations and Assessment Council.

  Mr. Forth
  No.

DEFENCE

  Vulcan Bombers
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) of 16 November 1992,Official

  641
  Report, column 44, what sustainable sponsorship proposals to accept financial responsibility for keeping the Vulcan XH 558 in flying condition he has received; what would be the required annual financial contribution and any non-recurring costs; what steps he has taken to inform potential sponsors of these costs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Officials have met and corresponded with representatives of the campaign to keep the Vulcan flying on a number of occasions since 16 November, to explain in detail the implications of its continued operation. We have received no new sponsorship proposals during this period.

  The estimated costs of continuing to operate the Vulcan remain as set out in the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend on 26 October 1992, Official Report, column 507.

  I have decided that, without viable sponsorship, there is no further justification for delaying the sale of the aircraft, and tenders will be issued during the next week.

  European Defence
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of a continuing role for NATO alongside an independent European defence policy;

  (2) what is his policy in respect of the establishment of permanent forces of the WEU, in respect of their effect on the role and position of NATO.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government welcome the development of a European defence identity and fully support the development of the Western European Union (WEU) as a means to strengthen the European pillar of the Atlantic alliance. NATO will remain the principal guarantor of stability throughout the North Atlantic area and the forum for agreement on policies bearing on the security and defence commitments of its members. We do not advocate the establishment of permanent WEU forces or headquarters. Our approach, which is reflected in the WEU's Petersberg declaration of June 1992, is that WEU member states should make available military units from the whole spectrum of their conventional armed forces for the WEU's use in situations where NATO is not involved. These units will be drawn from forces with national and NATO roles, in the latter case after consultation with the alliance.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the effect of the new European defence proposals, involving rapid deployment of forces, potentially over long distances, on the United Kingdom defence budget.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Petersberg declaration of June 1992 made it clear that military units which will be made available to the Western European Union will be drawn from the forces with national and NATO roles. NATO's new strategic concept emphasises the need for armed forces to be mobile and flexible. The defence budget agreed in the 1992 public expenditure survey took account of the restructuring of Britain's armed forces in line with the requirements of the strategic concept.

  HMS Ark Royal
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated initial and subsequent cost of the deployment of the Ark Royal group and the units deployed therewith; and how much of that cost will be reimbursed to his Department by the Foreign Office.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The estimated additional cost is expected to be some £30 million if the deployment lasts for one year. It is not possible at this early stage to produce a meaningful breakdown of costs given the variable nature of the operation. No decision has yet been taken on which Department will bear the cost.

  Merchant Seamen
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to mark the 50th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic by taking steps to commemorate the contribution to the war effort made by merchant seamen.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department is working closely with the Chamber of Shipping to ensure that the. Merchant Navy and merchant seamen are properly represented at the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic on Merseyside at the end of May.

  Anti-air Warfare Frigate
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future development of the Franco-British anti-air warfare frigate.

  Mr. Aitken
  A preliminary co-operative phase for a common Franco-British AAW frigate, to enter service early in the next decade, was launched in November 1991 and is due to conclude in the autumn of this year. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the French Minister of Defence, Mr. Pierre Joxe and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence have recently agreed proposals for the procurement and project management of project Horizon, as it is now termed. Discussions are continuing with Italy. The three chiefs of staff of the French, Italian and Royal Navy signed a joint staff requirement for the frigate in December 1992.

  Joint Planning and Training
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards joint planning and training between the members of NATO and the other members of the North Atlantic Co-operation Council.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Areas of defence co-operation agreed by all members of the North Atlantic Co-operation Council (NACC) are outlined in the "Statement issued at the meeting of Defence Ministers at NATO Headquarters on 1 April 1992" and in the NACC statement of 18 December 1992. Both these documents are in the Library of the House. These guidelines cover discussion with NACC partners on members' approaches to planning and training, but not on joint planning and training.

  Defence Trade
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made towards a NATO code of conduct in defence trade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Discussions are continuing with out allies on a NATO code of conduct in defence trade, with the aim of moving towards a more open defence equipment market within the alliance. We fully support this objective.

  NATO
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive the results of the review currently being undertaken of NATO's force structure.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  NATO Ministers expect to see an interim report on the implications for the new NATO structure of changing force levels among alliance members at their next meeting in the spring.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the consequences for NATO's force structure of the proposals by Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain to reduce their domestic forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  An assessment of the consequences of our allies' proposals for NATO's force structure will be made once their reviews have progressed.

  Polaris
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the technical maximum number of warheads capable of deployment on Polaris missiles when they first entered service; what change took place in connection with the deployment of Chevaline; and what is the technical maximum currently.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The 16-missile Polaris submarines each entered service with the Royal Navy carrying 48 warheads. The Chevaline development provided warheads that are hardened against the effects of anti-ballistic missile defences, together with penetration aids, and the ability to manoeuvre the payload in space. It is long-standing policy not to divulge specific warhead numbers either current or planned; but the Government made clear at the time that Chevaline did not involve any increase in the number of warheads associated with the Polaris force.

  Royal Yacht Britannia
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the refit of the royal yacht Britannia in 1987 was spent on(a) the superstructure, (b) the engines and (c) the royal apartments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The work carried out during Britannia's refit in 1987 falls into the following categories:

  Per cent.

  Structure

  22.0

  Propulsion

  7.2

  Royal apartments

  17.3

  Other

  53.5

  644
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the annual costs published for the royal yacht Britannia include the cost of personnel; and what is the personnel cost for the latest available year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The annual costs published for the royal yacht Britannia do include the cost of personnel. The personnel costs for 1991–92 were £3,904,000.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the planned service life of the royal yacht Britannia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  HMY Britannia had a routine refit in Portsmouth last year costing some £6 million to £7 million. This was designed to keep her safe, seaworthy and up to date for the next few years. In view of her age, it is obviously sensible to consider her future. This consideration is at an early stage and it is too soon to speculate as to its outcome.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many days the royal yacht Britannia was used by members of the royal family for public engagements and private purposes in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  During the period specified, HMY Britannia has been used by members of the royal family, as follows:

  Total number of days

  1989

  55

  1990

  42

  1991

  31

  1992

  27

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many days the royal yacht Britannia was used for military manoeuvres in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  During the period in question HMY Britannia was not required to participate in military manoeuvres.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many sea-days the royal yacht Britannia was used for conferences and seminars to attract business for Britain in 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  HMY Britannia hosted six such sea-days during the period in question, three in each year.

  Royal Flight
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flights were undertaken by the royal flight in 1991; and how many aircraft of what type are in the flight.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Queen's Flight undertook 1,220 passenger-carrying flights in 1991. The flight currently comprises three BAe 146–100 executive jet aircraft and two Wessex helicopters.

  Parachute Training
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of training in first aid, and specifically in the symptoms of head injury, given to personnel involved in the supervision of service men and women undertaking parachute training.
  645
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All non-commissioned officer parachute training instructors are required to obtain a first aid certificate during basic training as a physical training instructor; this includes recognition of some forms of concussion.

  Trainees have immediate access to fully qualified medical officers the moment they feel unwell and during all forms of parachute training a fully qualified medical attendant and ambulance are available at all times. Furthermore, individual trainees are instructed to report sick if they consider themselves unfit to continue further training.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Waste Exports
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 9 November 1992,Official Report, column 587, if he will indicate (a) the type of waste sent to each country, (b) the ports utilised to transfer the waste, (c) the original producer of the waste within the United Kingdom, (d) the responsible authorities for each producer of waste and port of exit for waste exports and (e) the companies receiving the waste after its export.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is not possible to answer the question without disproportionate cost. However, a certain amount of the information is available in the public domain, and may be obtained from HM Customs and Excise through their appointed marketing agents. Broad statistics on exports of waste products are contained in Business Monitor (MM20)—"Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Plugs
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of.Trade what recent statements his Department has made on the Plug and Socket (Safety) Regulations 1987 in respect of pre-fitted plugs; and when he expects to lay further regulations.

  Mr. Leigh
  Following my Department's review of the Plugs and Sockets (Safety) Regulations 1987, I announced on 30 January 1992 a proposal to revise these regulations and to include a requirement that domestic electrical appliances be supplied fitted with a correctly fused 13-amp plug. This matter is currently the subject of consultation.

  No decision on the progress of the revised regulations can be taken until full consideration has been given to the responses received from the public consultation.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is considering an application made under section 172 of the Insolvency Act for the removal of the liquidators of BCCI.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Representations have been made which ask that the liquidators be removed under the powers contained in section 172 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and these are being considered.

  Computer Programmes Regulations
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what representations he has received from the EC Commission regarding the wording of the draft Copyright (Computer Programmes) Regulations 1992; and if it is his intention to reconsider the wording of the regulations;

  (2) if the draft Copyright (Computer Programmes) Regulations 1992 meets all the requirements of the relevant EC directive.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 25 January 1993]: No representations have been received from the European Commission on the draft regulations laid before Parliament, but the wording of those regulations took account of representations from the Commission and from interests in the United Kingdom on an earlier, consultative draft. Following approval of the draft regulations by both Houses, they have been published as the Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No. 3233). The Government consider that the regulations meet all the requirements of the relevant Council directive and have no plans to reconsider their wording.

  Oilseed
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what current research projects are being undertaken by his Department to study the viability of producing oilseed for non-food uses, with particular reference to the development of bio-diesel.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 January 1993]: My Department has commissioned work at the energy technology support unit which assesses the economics of the production of oilseed rape and its conversion to bio-diesel. This review of the potential of bio-diesel as a transport fuel will be published shortly by HMSO.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has held with his European counterparts about the development of bio-diesel through the growth of oilseed; and if he will list the number of hectares devoted to oilseed growth specifically for the development of bio-diesel in each EC member state.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 January 1993]: I chaired the Council of Energy Ministers on 30 November 1992 which discussed a proposal for a decision concerning the promotion of renewable energy sources in the Community (ALTENER programme). The United Kingdom presidency secured political agreement to this programme which, inter alia, aims to secure for bio-fuels, such as bio-diesel, a market share of 5 per cent. of total consumption by motor vehicles by 2005. Bio-diesel can be derived from any oil-seed rape, thus areas grown specifically for bio-diesel cannot be separately indentified.

  Logic Control Systems
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has received a report from the disqualification unit of the insolvency service following the move into receivership of Logic Control Systems of Clowne, Derbyshire, in July 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 January 1993]: The Insolvency Service, acting on behalf of the Secretary

  647
  of State for Trade and Industry, has responsibility for considering reports made by insolvency practitioners on the conduct of directors of failed companies to determine, with advice from lawyers as appropriate, whether it is expedient to bring disqualification proceedings. This process, with regard to Logic Control Systems Ltd, is continuing.

  "Managing into the '90s"
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many workshops have been held in Wales as part of his Department's "Managing into the '90s" campaign to date; and how many are planned for 1993.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 25 January 1993]: Since the launch of the "Managing into the '90s" programme in 1989 there have been 12 events held in Wales under the programme variously described as conferences, seminars and workshops. A further four are so far planned for 1993.

  G6 and Swiss exports of machine tools to Iraq 1985–1990

  US$ 000s

  USA

  Japan

  France

  Germany

  Italy

  Switzerland

  United Kingdom

  1990

  728.1

  0

  0

  0

  2,124

  1,270

  578

  570

  731

  537

  645

  1,279

  22,209

  2,783

  7,666

  8,278

  733

  5,891

  911

  499

  6,992

  1,070

  2,762

  246

  735

  2,377

  39

  1,331

  6,286

  10,824

  1,743

  2,955

  TOTAL

  8,805

  1,595

  3,109

  37,611

  15,947

  12,749

  12,049

  1989

  728.1

  43

  N/A

  61

  1,530

  1,601

  69

  991

  731

  2,272

  2,816

  609

  57,486

  1,545

  20,505

  18,990

  733

  1,857

  2,268

  1,385

  18,948

  6,890

  3,375

  1,208

  735

  7,080

  451

  2,637

  20,007

  4,391

  13,203

  3,138

  TOTAL

  11,252

  5,535

  4,692

  97,971

  14,427

  37,152

  24,327

  1988

  728.1

  168

  504

  111

  832

  1,287

  550

  529

  731

  N/A

  77

  239

  59,372

  10,920

  21,772

  53,951

  733

  N/A

  1,627

  5,922

  34,316

  7,306

  594

  2,160

  735

  N/A

  263

  4,711

  21,166

  2,754

  20,497

  6,436

  TOTAL

  168

  2,471

  10,983

  115,686

  22,267

  43,413

  63,076

  1987

  728.1

  116

  39

  63

  135

  208

  55

  359

  7361

  33

  1,991

  1,161

  16,740

  5,244

  13,871

  5,130

  TOTAL

  149

  2,030

  1,224

  16,875

  5,432

  13,926

  5,489

  1986

  728.1

  294

  15

  117

  674

  1,040

  10

  334

  7361

  267

  3,054

  812

  7,886

  1,358

  3,176

  2,078

  TOTAL

  561

  3,069

  929

  8,560

  2,398

  3,186

  2,412

  1985

  728.1

  510

  56

  483

  464

  1,323

  18

  137

  7361

  50

  2,903

  3,915

  10,578

  3,090

  3,902

  5,249

  TOTAL

  560

  2,959

  4,398

  11,042

  4,413

  3,920

  5,386

  Code

  Description

  728.1

  Machine tools specialised for particular industries.

  731

  Machine tools operated by laser or other light beam process.

  733

  Forgoing or die-stamping machines (inc. presses) and hammers.

  735

  Tool holders and self-opening dieheads.

  736

  Metal working machine tools.

  1 SITC Rev 2—Replaced by codes 731, 733 and 735 from 1988 onwards.
  648
  In addition, workshop-type activities occur in visits to demonstration companies—63 in the period 1989–92, with a further 43 planned for 1993—and at the presentations at the touring Strategy Roadshow—12 in the period 1989–92, with a further 16 so far planned for 1993.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) on 11 January,Official Report, column 555, if he will supply the corresponding information about the export of machine tools to Iraq in (a) 1985, (b) 1986 and (c)

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: For ease of reference the information requested for the major countries supplying machine tools to Iraq from 1985 to 1990 is set out in the table:

  Airline Bookings
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will bring forward proposals to require that bookings made and confirmed with airlines can be changed only on the personal instructions of the passenger.

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are circumstances in which airlines have to change confirmed reservations for reasons beyond their control. The Government do not wish to introduce undue rigidities, but we are aware of cases in which passengers with confirmed reservations have been transferred to alternative flights before they have presented themselves for boarding, even though the flight on which they were booked had not been cancelled. Unlike passengers who are transferred at the check-in desk, such passengers are at present not entitled to compensation under EC law (Council Regulation (EEC) No. 295/91 on Denied Boarding Compensation).

  My Department is looking into this matter to see whether a change to the EC regulation might be desirable and practicable.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is making official visits to India and Oman.

  Population Conference
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Prime Minister which Minister will be heading the British delegation to the European population conference to be held in Geneva in March; and which Government officials and experts will make up the British delegation to the conference.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  These matters have not yet been finally decided. An announcement will be made shortly.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Prime Minister if the country statement for Britain for the European population conference will be made available to hon. Members before the conference.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom country statement will be placed in the Library before the conference begins.

  Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the latest up-to-date list of next steps agencies, together with a list of further agencies that it is intended to set up.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is as follows:

  Next steps—executive agencies established to date

  Agency

  Launch date

  Accounts Services Agency

  1 October 1991

  ADAS Agency

  1 April 1992

  Building Research Establishment

  2 April 1990

  650

  Agency

  Launch date

  Cadw (Welsh Historic Monuments)

  2 April 1991

  Central Office of Information

  5 April 1990

  Central Science Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  Central Statistical Office

  19 November 1991

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  2 April 1990

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment

  2 April 1991

  Civil Service College

  6 June 1989

  Companies House

  3 October 1988

  Compensation Agency

  1 April 1992

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  1 July 1992

  Defence Operational Analysis Centre

  1 July 1992

  Defence Postal and Courier Services

  1 July 1992

  Defence Research Agency

  2 April 1991

  Directorate General of Defence Accounts

  1 April 1991

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  2 April 1990

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  1 April 1992

  Driving Standards Agency

  2 April 1990

  Duke of York's Royal Military School

  1 April 1992

  DVOIT

  1 April 1992

  Employment Service

  2 April 1990

  Fire Service College

  1 April 1992

  Forensic Science Service

  1 April 1991

  Historic Royal Palaces

  1 October 1889

  Historic Scotland

  2 April 1991

  HMSO

  14 December 1988

  Hydrographic Office

  6 April 1990

  Insolvency Service

  21 March 1990

  Intervention Board

  2 April 1990

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  30 October 1989

  Land Registry

  2 July 1990

  Medicines Control Agency

  11 July 1991

  Meteorological Office

  2 April 1990

  Military Survey

  2 April 1991

  National Physical Laboratory

  3 July 1990

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  18 April 1989

  Natural Resources Institute

  2 April 1990

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation

  1 April 1992

  NEL

  5 October 1990

  NHS Estates

  1 April 1991

  NHS Pensions

  20 November 1992

  Occupational Health Service

  2 April 1990

  Ordnance Survey

  1 May 1990

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  1 April 1992

  Patent Office

  1 March 1990

  Planning Inspectorate

  1 April 1992

  Public Record Office

  1 April 1992

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  6 July 1989

  Queen Victoria School

  1 April 1992

  Radiocommunications Agency

  2 April 1990

  RAF Maintenance

  2 April 1991

  Rate Collection Agency

  1 April 1991

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency

  2 April 1991

  Registers of Scotland

  6 April 1990

  Royal Mint

  2 April 1990

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  1 April 1992

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  12 April 1991

  Service Children's Schools (North West Europe)

  24 April 1991

  Social Security Agency (NI)

  1 July 1991

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  2 April 1991

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  2 April 1991

  Social Security Information Technology Services Agency

  2 April 1990

  Social Security Resettlement Agency

  24 May 1989

  Teachers' Pensions Agency

  1 April 1992

  The Buying Agency

  31 October 1991

  Training and Employment Agency (NI)

  2 April 1990

  Transport Research Laboratory

  2 April 1992

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  2 April 1991

  Valuation Office

  30 September 1991

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  2 April 1990

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  1 August 1988

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  2 April 1990

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  20 April 1989

  Wilton Park Conference Centre

  1 September 1991

  651

  Agency

  Launch date

  Customs and Excise (30 Executive Units)

  1 April 1991

  Inland Revenue (34 Executive Offices)

  1 April 1992

  Next Steps—activities announced by Ministers as candidates for agency status

  Army Logistics

  Chessington Computer Centre

  Child Support Agency (NI)

  Defence Animal Centre

  Defence Central Services

  Directorate Information Technology Bureau Services

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing (NI)

  Equipment Test and Valuation

  Fisheries Research Services

  Fuel Suppliers Branch

  Her Majesty's Prison Service

  Human Factors Research

  Meat Hygiene Service

  MOD Police

  Naval Training and Recruitment

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  Paymaster General's Office

  Pesticide Safety Directorate

  Property Division

  Property Holdings Portfolio Management

  RAF Training

  Royal Parks

  Scottish Office Superannuation Division

  Scottish Prison Service

  Social Security Child Support Agency

  Surveyor General's Organisation

  Transport and Security Services Division

  Valuation and Lands Office (NI)

  Youth Treatment Service

  Treaty of Rome
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each of the provisions of the treaty of Rome which confer on the institutions of the Community a power(a) to pass legislation by regulation or by directive or (b) to incur expenditure, binding on member states, indicating in each case where applicable the principal United Kingdom Government Departments and areas of policy involved; and if he will give the same information in respect of the treaty on European Union.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is clear from the wording of the articles of the treaty of Rome which of them authorise the Council or the Commission to adopt legislative measures. The same is true of the additional articles inserted into the treaty by title II of the treaty on European union. The articles do not, however, determine whether or not measures adopted under them are capable of involving expenditure from the Community budget. This depends on the nature of the individual measure concerned. Indeed, any measure is capable of having implications for the Community budget, even if only in terms of administrative costs. Nor is it possible to detail in advance which Government Departments will have principal responsibility for areas of Community legislation. This information is supplied in the explanatory memorandum submitted to Parliament in respect of each specific proposal for EC legislation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many case files for(a) attendance allowance, (b) mobility allowance and (c) disability living allowance were lost within the Benefits Agency handling system during 1992.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr David Hinchliffe, dated 25 January 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many claim files for (a) Attendance Allowance (AA), (b) Mobility Allowance (MobA) and (c) Disability Working Allowance (DWA) were lost within the Agency during 1992.
  For AA and MobA I should explain that there are no central records available on the number of case files which are mislaid. I am sure you will appreciate, however, that when vast numbers of cases are being handled it may sometimes be difficult to locate a particular file immediately.
  When files have been mislaid a special search is instigated as soon as possible so that the enquiry can be answered. If the procedures for locating mislaid files are unsuccessful a duplicate file is created and replacement evidence gathered to determine the claim with the aim of minimising any further delay.
  The measures we have introduced to clear the backlog of AA claims have already reduced the number of outstanding cases to manageable proportions and location of files should be more straightforward in future.
  There have been no instances of DWA case files being lost.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations his Department has had from the Alzheimer's Disease Society in regard to the independent living fund; what reply has been sent; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The Department received a letter from Mr. Harry Cayton, the director of the Alzheimer's Disease Society, on 8 December 1992. We also received several letters from the Alzheimer's Disease Society (Scotland). Replies have been sent to all letters, explaining the new arrangements for independent living.

  The principal concern raised in the letters is that of the restriction of the fund to new applicants aged between 16 and 65. This decision was taken in order that the fund could be targeted towards people whose usual pattern is to live and work in the community and who have therefore often lost the opportunity to earn and save.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what advice he has received from registered pools promoters about the effects of the National Lottery Bill on their business if enacted unaltered.
  653
  Mr. Brooke
  Since the publication of the Bill, the pools companies have directed their concerns to the press.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what further research he has commissioned from the GAH Consulting Group since 7 October 1992, into the effects of a national lottery.

  Mr. Brooke
  None.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of pools turnover is retained by the promoters as profit after payment of pool betting duty and contributions to the Football Trust and Foundation for Sport and the Arts.

  Mr. Brooke
  That is a matter for the individual companies.

  Press Regulation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has had from the Guild of Newspaper Editors in relation to the Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley).

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 15 January 1993]: We have received no representations from the Guild of British Newspaper Editors specifically relating to the Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill. But earlier this month the guild joined forces with the Newspaper Society to produce "Blindfolding the Watchdog", a pamphlet on freedom of the press, copies of which were sent to the Department.

EMPLOYMENT

  European Works Council
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she next expects to discuss with other EC member states and the European Commission the proposed Council directive on the establishment of a European Works Council in Community-scale undertakings or groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing the counselling employees; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The proposed European works council directive has not been discussed by the Labour and Social Affairs Council of the European Community since December 1991. I am not aware of any plans for EC Ministers to discuss this proposal in the near future.

  Equitable Wages
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions she has had with representatives of other EC member states and the European Commission on the proposed opinion on the introduction of an equitable wage by the member states; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The draft opinion is mainly concerned with improving the transparency of the labour market, removing discrimination and encouraging high skill, high productivity jobs in member states. The UK Government endorse these principles. However, the 654
  opinion will represent only the views of the European Commission and will have no legal force whatsoever. Member states do not have to endorse it or take any action that is not appropriate in light of their own circumstances. The Commission has not discussed the draft opinion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or with other European Community Ministers.

  Greenbank Project
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will visit the Greenbank project in Mossley Hill, Liverpool, to discuss the provisions of training places for disabled people on Merseyside.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to visit Liverpool in the near future.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what information she has concerning the percentage of the work force, whole-time equivalent, which is currently employed in manufacturing industry in(a) each member country of the European Community, (b) the United States of America and (c) Japan;

  (2) what information she has concerning the percentage of the work force, whole-time equivalent, which is currently employed in the banking, finance and insurance industry in (a) each member country of the European Community, (b) the United States of America and (c) Japan;

  (3) what information she has concerning the percentage of the work force, whole-time equivalent, which is currently employed in the construction industry in (a) each member country of the European Community, (b) the United States of America and (c) Japan.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department does not provide estimates of whole-time equivalents.

  The information required is available from the civilian employment tables in "Labour Force Statistics 1970–1990" (OECD), a copy of which is in the Library. For Great Britain, the latest estimates for 1990 of civilian employment as a percentage of total civilian employment are as follows:

  Great Britain: June 1990—not seasonally adjusted

  Per cent

  Manufacturing

  20.7

  Banking, finance and insurance

  12.2

  Construction

  6.9

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people, whole-time equivalent, have been employed in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available in(a) the construction industry, (b) manufacturing industry and (c) banking, finance and insurance industry; and what percentage of the total work force those figures represent in each of those years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department does not provide estimates of whole-time equivalents.

  The available information is for Great Britain. Employees in employment data can be obtained from the

  655
  NOMIS database which is accessible from the Library. Historical data for self-employed people is available in the Library on page 54 of Historical Supplement No. 3, issued with the June 1992 edition of Employment Gazette. Recent estimates for the self-employed are as follows:

  Self-employed people—Industrial Analysis: June 1992

  Great Britain

  Thousand

  Construction

  585

  Manufacturing industries

  279

  Banking, Finance and insurance

  416

  Labour Force Survey

  Spring 1992/Summer 1992

  Level of unemployment (thousands)

  Great Britain

  United Kingdom

  Great Britain

  OECD November 1992 United Kingdom

  Unadjusted

  2,649

  2,732

  2,797

  —

  Seasonally adjusted

  2,649

  1—

  2,758

  —

  Unemployment rate (percentage of the labour force)

  Unadjusted (per cent)

  9.6

  9.6

  10.0

  —

  Seasonally adjusted (per cent.)

  9.5

  1—

  9.9

  10.5

  1 LFS figures for United Kingdom compiled at spring of each year only, therefore not seasonally adjusted.

  Industrial Employment
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if she will make a statement outlining those steps which have been taken by her Department since 9 April 1992 specifically to encourage employment in the United Kingdom construction industry; and what future action she intends to take to assist the construction industry;

  (2) if she will make a statement outlining those steps which have been taken by her Department since 9 April 1992 specifically to encourage employment in the United Kingdom manufacturing industry; and what future action she intends to take to assist the manufacturing industry.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The overall policy of the Department is to promote a free and flexible labour market that is designed to help encourage employment in all sectors. In addition, the Department provides a range of employment and training programmes and local initiatives, through the employment service and training and enterprise councils to help people increase their skills, and equip themselves for work in all sectors including manufacturing. From April 1993 this range of measures is being enhanced and expanded.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of people graduating from employment training courses have gone on to full-time work in each year since the scheme was set up.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information required is given in the following table:
  656
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current United Kingdom figure for unemployment on the International Labour Organisation International basis.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Estimates of unemployment on the ILO definition are available from the Department's labour force survey (LFS) which is conducted quarterly for Great Britain and annually for Northern Ireland. In addition the OECD uses the quarterly LFS estimates as benchmarks to calculate a monthly seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for the United Kingdom on the ILO definition. The latest available information is as follows:

  Employment training: Great Britain Full-time work—Three months after leaving Trainees completing agreed training

  Period of leaving

  In full-time work2 Per cent.

  July 19891 to March 1990

  35

  April 1990 to March 1991

  29

  April 1991 to March 1992

  26

  Source: Employment Training National Follow-up Survey.

  1 First month follow-up results available.

  2 Including self-employment.

  Disabled People
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to introduce an employment White Paper in respect of measures to revise and improve employment prospects for disabled people.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A consultation paper will be issued as soon as possible following our review of the funding arrangements for the sheltered employment programme.

  Unemployment Benefit Disqualification
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information is available regarding the lengths of periods of unemployment benefit disqualification imposed by adjudication officers in the area which includes Alyn and Deeside.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. Fogden to Mr. Barry Jones, dated 26 January 1993:

  657
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about the length of periods of unemployment benefit disqualifications in the Alyn and Deeside area. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  All decisions on claims for unemployment benefit are made by the independent adjudicating authorities.
  Information about the length of disqualification periods imposed is not collated or published as each is decided in the light of the circumstances surrounding the individual case. Without knowledge of these circumstances no meaningful interpretation of the information could be made.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to increase the profile and the role of the careers service; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  New legislation which opens up a range of options for management of careers services is proposed in clause 33 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill. These options are intended to make careers services more responsive to local needs and conditions.

  The Government intend to set and ensure the meeting of challenging standards of service. Careful attention is being paid to the issue of quality in the context of the arrangements resulting from the new legislation.

  Fraud
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many people were prosecuted for fraud by her Department in the latest year for which figures are available;

  (2) what is the number of whole time equivalent staff employed by her Department and its agencies to detect and prosecute suspected fraud; and what is the cost of their employment;

  (3) how much her Department has saved from the investigation of fraud in the latest year for which figures are available; and what are the targeted savings for the next financial year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [pursuant to his answer, 28 October 1992, column 716]: The chief executive of the Employment Service has written further to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. Fogden to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 26 February 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Questions about

  (i) how many people were prosecuted for fraud by the Department in the latest year for which figures are available,

  (ii) what is the number of whole time equivalent staff employed to detect and prosecute suspected fraud, and what is the cost of their employment,

  (iii) how much the Department has saved from the investigation of fraud in the latest year for which figures are available, and what are the targeted savings for the next financial year.

  658
  Unfortunately our reply of 28 October contained a factual error about the cost of the fraud operation. The original reply quoted the half yearly cost which was £13.24 million, however, the total yearly cost of the operations was £21.54 million. The following reply now contains the correct information. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this has caused.
  The latest year for which figures are available is that of the financial year ending 31 March 1992 during which a total of 2,265 people were prosecuted for fraud. We currently have 1,300 people, of whom 780 are Inspectors, employed in the detection and prosecution of benefit fraud. The total cost of our fraud operations amounted to £21.54 million. The net savings from our investigations into benefit fraud amounted to £34.34 million. We do not set targets for benefit savings accrued from benefit fraud investigation. Our performance is measured by the number of claims withdrawn following investigation by Inspectors and our target is for 58,000 such claims to be withdrawn by the end of the present financial year.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Community Care
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provisions are made for residential care and treatment for drug and alcohol misuse under the new community care arrangements to be introduced in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  From April 1993 the needs of drug and alcohol misusers in Northern Ireland will be met through revised community care arrangements. Health and social services boards will be responsible for assessing individual needs and for arranging appropriate care, including residential care, to meet that need. All care costs will be met from a board managed budget which will include the social security resources which would have been used to support people entering residential accommodation under existing arrangements. Services available to alcohol and drug misusers will not therefore be diminished as a result of the new arrangements for community care.

  Child Care
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many day nurseries, playgroups or childminders have registered with each of the health and social services boards in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  At 31 March 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, the information requested is as follows:

  Type of Facility

  Number of Premises

  Eastern Board

  Day nursery

  21

  Pre-school play group

  244

  Child minding

  2,231

  Northern Board

  Day nursery

  11

  Pre-school play group

  148

  Childminding

  874

  Southern Board

  Day nursery

  14

  659

  Type of Facility

  Number of Premises

  Pre-school play group

  90

  Child minding

  373

  Western Board

  Day nursery

  9

  Pre-school play group

  102

  Child minding

  381

  Total

  4,498

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how the new grant to support the start-up costs of new day care services for school age children will apply in Northern Ireland; who will be responsible for the administration of the grants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The recently announced arrangements for Great Britain are presently being examined in the light of Northern Ireland's needs.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by area the number of day nurseries, play groups or childminders who have been refused registration by the health and social services boards in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Table 1 Applications and recruits to the Royal Ulster Constabulary from individuals perceived to be Roman Catholic

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage of total applications

  Total applications

  Applications

  1990

  85

  31

  116

  10.42

  1,113

  1991

  128

  63

  191

  11.21

  1,704

  1992

  168

  63

  231

  9.97

  2,316

  Recruits

  1990

  10

  3

  13

  7.14

  182

  1991

  12

  5

  17

  9.44

  180

  1992

  30

  9

  39

  9.26

  421

  Table 2 Applications and recruits to the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve (full-time) from individuals perceived to be Roman Catholic

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage of total applications

  Total applications

  Applications

  1990

  60

  7

  67

  9.01

  744

  1991

  97

  18

  115

  9.58

  1,200

  1992

  140

  35

  175

  9.27

  1,888

  Recruits

  Percentage of overall intake

  Total intake

  1990

  12

  1

  13

  11.40

  114

  1991

  21

  2

  23

  12.30

  187

  1992

  18

  2

  20

  6.7

  296

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what actions have been taken by his Department in relation to the proposed electricity interconnector with Scotland.

  Mr. Atkins
  The decision to sign heads of agreement for an electricity interconnector to Scotland was taken by the board of Northern Ireland Electricity and being a major project the approval of the Department of Economic Development was obtained. NIE and the Department jointly submitted an application to the EC for funding under the structural funds programme.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications from(a) male and (b) female Roman Catholics were made for posts in the RUC and RUC Reserve in each year since1974; what was the percentage figure of all applications; what numbers were recruited; and what percentage this represents of the total recruited.

  Mr. Mates
  Comprehensive statistics about the religious composition of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve, full time and part time, have been collected only since January 1990 when religious monitoring was introduced by the force.

  The information available is set out in the following tables and is derived from information provided by applicants as to which schools they attended. This means that the figures provided are to some extent still based on perceptions. This form of monitoring is consistent with the requirements of the fair employment legislation.
  661

  Table 3 Applications and recruits to the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve (part-time) from individuals perceived to be Roman Catholic

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage of total applications

  Total applications

  Applications

  1990

  16

  18

  34

  6.30

  540

  1991

  15

  8

  23

  5.57

  413

  1992

  23

  7

  30

  5.02

  598

  Recruits

  Percentage of overall intake

  Total intake

  1990

  7

  2

  9

  7.96

  113

  1991

  7

  2

  9

  9.57

  94

  1992

  1

  1

  2

  2.78

  72

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table of all ranks in the RUC and the RUC reserve for each year since 1974 indicating the total number and numbers of males and females in each rank, and the number of Roman Catholics, male and female, in each rank as a percentage and as an absolute figure.

  Table 1—Royal Ulster Constabulary

  Roman Catholics

  Year and rank

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Number

  Percentage

  1974

  ACPO

  9

  0

  9

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  34

  0

  34

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  57

  1

  58

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  89

  3

  92

  —

  —

  Inspector

  248

  5

  253

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  762

  21

  783

  —

  —

  Constable

  3,082

  252

  3,334

  —

  —

  Totals

  4,281

  282

  4,563

  —

  —

  1975

  ACPO

  10

  0

  10

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  35

  0

  35

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  64

  1

  65

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  103

  4

  107

  —

  —

  Inspector

  275

  4

  279

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  799

  22

  821

  —

  —

  Constable

  3,263

  322

  3,585

  —

  —

  Totals

  4,549

  353

  4,902

  —

  —

  1976

  ACPO

  9

  0

  9

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  33

  1

  34

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  70

  1

  71

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  107

  4

  111

  —

  —

  Inspector

  295

  3

  298

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  857

  27

  884

  —

  —

  Constable

  3,442

  406

  3,846

  —

  —

  Totals

  4,813

  442

  5,253

  —

  —

  1977

  ACPO

  10

  0

  10

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  33

  1

  34

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  75

  2

  77

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  121

  4

  125

  —

  —

  Inspector

  319

  4

  323

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  921

  32

  953

  —

  —

  Constable

  3,661

  509

  4,170

  Totals

  5,140

  552

  5,692

  1978

  ACPO

  10

  0

  10

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  34

  1

  35

  —

  —

  662
  Mr. Mates
  Comprehensive statistics about the religious composition of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Royal Ulster reserve, full time and part time, have been collected only since January 1990 when religious monitoring was introduced by the force.

  The information available is as follows:
  663

  Roman Catholics

  Year and rank

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Number

  Percentage

  Superintendent

  93

  2

  95

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  129

  4

  133

  —

  —

  Inspector

  347

  5

  352

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  989

  35

  1,024

  —

  —

  Constable

  3,893

  568

  4,461

  —

  —

  Totals

  5,495

  615

  6,110

  —

  —

  1979

  ACPO

  11

  0

  11

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  36

  1

  37

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  97

  2

  99

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  138

  4

  142

  —

  —

  Inspector

  377

  4

  381

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  1,038

  38

  1,076

  —

  —

  Constable

  4,241

  627

  4,868

  —

  —

  Totals

  5,938

  676

  6,614

  —

  —

  1980

  ACPO

  12

  0

  12

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  36

  1

  37

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  113

  2

  115

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  142

  4

  146

  —

  —

  Inspector

  401

  5

  406

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  1,112

  46

  1,158

  —

  —

  Constable

  4,408

  653

  5,061

  —

  —

  Totals

  6,224

  711

  6,935

  —

  —

  1981

  ACPO

  12

  0

  12

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  34

  1

  35

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  112

  2

  114

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  140

  3

  143

  —

  —

  Inspector

  421

  5

  426

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  1,165

  52

  1,217

  —

  —

  Constable

  4,738

  649

  5,387

  —

  —

  Totals

  6,622

  712

  7,334

  1982

  ACPO

  12

  0

  12

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  39

  1

  40

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  113

  2

  115

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  150

  3

  153

  —

  —

  Inspector

  440

  2

  442

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  1,202

  58

  1,260

  —

  —

  Constable

  5,061

  634

  5,695

  —

  —

  Totals

  7,017

  700

  7,717

  —

  —

  1983

  ACPO

  12

  0

  12

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  38

  1

  39

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  114

  2

  116

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  160

  2

  162

  —

  —

  Inspector

  450

  2

  452

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  1,237

  60

  1,297

  —

  —

  Constable

  5,317

  608

  5,925

  —

  —

  Totals

  7,328

  675

  8,003

  —

  —

  1984

  ACPO

  14

  0

  14

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  40

  1

  41

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  114

  2

  116

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  159

  2

  161

  —

  —

  Inspector

  459

  2

  461

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  1,226

  61

  1,287

  —

  —

  Constable

  5,475

  572

  6,047

  —

  —

  Totals

  7,487

  640

  8,127

  —

  —

  1985

  ACPO

  13

  0

  13

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  40

  1

  41

  —

  —

  664 665

  Roman Catholics

  Year and rank

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Number

  Percentage

  Superintendent

  114

  2

  116

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  161

  1

  162

  —

  —

  Inspector

  479

  2

  481

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  1,235

  69

  1,304

  —

  —

  Constable

  5,568

  574

  6,142

  —

  —

  Totals

  7,610

  649

  8,259

  —

  —

  1986

  ACPO

  13

  0

  13

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  41

  1

  42

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  118

  2

  120

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  160

  1

  161

  —

  —

  Inspector

  472

  4

  476

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  1,237

  74

  1,311

  —

  —

  Constable

  5,540

  571

  6,111

  —

  —

  Totals

  7,581

  653

  8,234

  —

  —

  1987

  ACPO

  13

  0

  13

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  38

  2

  40

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  120

  0

  120

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  160

  2

  162

  —

  —

  Inspector

  465

  9

  474

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  1,250

  73

  1,323

  —

  —

  Constable

  5,545

  559

  6,104

  —

  —

  Totals

  7,591

  645

  8,236

  —

  —

  1988

  ACPO

  14

  0

  14

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  39

  2

  41

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  119

  0

  119

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  160

  2

  162

  —

  —

  Inspector

  473

  11

  484

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  1,251

  72

  1,323

  —

  —

  Constable

  5,516

  572

  6,088

  —

  —

  Totals

  7,572

  659

  8,231

  —

  —

  1989

  ACPO

  13

  0

  13

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  39

  2

  41

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  119

  0

  119

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  159

  2

  161

  —

  —

  Inspector

  468

  14

  482

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  1,299

  72

  1,371

  —

  —

  Constable

  5,474

  598

  6,072

  —

  —

  Totals

  7,571

  688

  8,259

  —

  —

  1990

  ACPO

  14

  0

  14

  3

  21.43

  Chief superintendent

  42

  2

  44

  8

  18.88

  Superintendent

  123

  0

  123

  17

  13.82

  Chief inspector

  159

  2

  161

  22

  13.66

  Inspector

  464

  17

  481

  43

  8.94

  Sergeant

  1,292

  70

  1,362

  119

  8.74

  Constable

  5,441

  617

  6,058

  427

  7.05

  Totals

  7,535

  708

  8,243

  639

  7.75

  1991

  ACPO

  14

  0

  14

  3

  21.43

  Chief superintendent

  43

  1

  44

  7

  15.91

  Superintendent

  119

  0

  119

  16

  13.45

  Chief inspector

  161

  2

  163

  20

  12.27

  Inspector

  461

  21

  482

  42

  8.71

  Sergeant

  1,311

  69

  1,380

  124

  8.99

  Constable

  5,405

  615

  6,020

  423

  7.03

  Totals

  7,514

  708

  8,222

  635

  7.72

  1992

  ACPO

  14

  0

  14

  2

  14.29

  Chief superintendent

  41

  1

  42

  6

  14.29

  666 667

  Roman Catholics

  Year and rank

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Number

  Percentage

  Superintendent

  121

  1

  122

  17

  13.93

  Chief inspector

  161

  2

  163

  20

  12.27

  Inspector

  467

  22

  489

  45

  9.20

  Sergeant

  1,324

  75

  1,399

  125

  8.93

  Constable

  5,500

  661

  6,161

  438

  7.11

  Totals

  7,628

  762

  8,390

  653

  7.78

  Note: ACPO denotes all ranks of Assistant Chief Constable and above.

  Roman Catholics

  Year and rank

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Number

  Percentage

  Superintendent

  93

  2

  95

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  129

  4

  133

  —

  —

  Inspector

  347

  5

  352

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  989

  35

  1,024

  —

  —

  Constable

  3,893

  568

  4,461

  —

  —

  Totals

  5,495

  615

  6,110

  —

  —

  1979

  ACPO

  11

  0

  11

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  36

  1

  37

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  97

  2

  99

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  138

  4

  142

  —

  —

  Inspector

  377

  4

  381

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  1,038

  38

  1,076

  —

  —

  Constable

  4,241

  627

  4,868

  —

  —

  Totals

  5,938

  676

  6,614

  —

  —

  1980

  ACPO

  12

  0

  12

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  36

  1

  37

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  113

  2

  115

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  142

  4

  146

  —

  —

  Inspector

  401

  5

  406

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  1,112

  46

  1,158

  —

  —

  Constable

  4,408

  653

  5,061

  —

  —

  Totals

  6,224

  711

  6,935

  —

  —

  1981

  ACPO

  12

  0

  12

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  34

  1

  35

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  112

  2

  114

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  140

  3

  143

  —

  —

  Inspector

  421

  5

  426

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  1,165

  52

  1,217

  —

  —

  Constable

  4,738

  649

  5,387

  —

  —

  Totals

  6,622

  712

  7,334

  1982

  ACPO

  12

  0

  12

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  39

  1

  40

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  113

  2

  115

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  150

  3

  153

  —

  —

  Inspector

  440

  2

  442

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  1,202

  58

  1,260

  —

  —

  Constable

  5,061

  634

  5,695

  —

  —

  Totals

  7,017

  700

  7,717

  —

  —

  1983

  ACPO

  12

  0

  12

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  38

  1

  39

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  114

  2

  116

  —

  —

  Chief inspector

  160

  2

  162

  —

  —

  Inspector

  450

  2

  452

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  1,237

  60

  1,297

  —

  —

  Constable

  5,317

  608

  5,925

  —

  —

  Totals

  7,328

  675

  8,003

  —

  —

  1984

  ACPO

  14

  0

  14

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  40

  1

  41

  —

  —

  Superintendent

  114

  2

  116

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  159

  2

  161

  —

  —

  Inspector

  459

  2

  461

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  1,226

  61

  1,287

  —

  —

  Constable

  5,475

  572

  6,047

  —

  —

  Totals

  7,487

  640

  8,127

  —

  —

  1985

  ACPO

  13

  0

  13

  —

  —

  Chief superintendent

  40

  1

  41

  —

  —

  668 669

  Disability
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action is currently undertaken by his Department to monitor the application by social services departments of the sections within the Children Act 1989 and the subsequent guidance notes relating to disability issues in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The social services inspectorate, Wales, published in October 1992 the report of a survey conducted in August 1991 "Organisation of Social Services for Children with a Disability", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The inspectorate proposes to hold a follow-up workshop for local authority staff in the early part of this year. Social services departments' reports on inter-agency collaboration under the Children Act, including services to children in need who are disabled, have begun to arrive in the Welsh Office in response to the request for such returns in the Department's circular 26/91. A summary of the information provided by authorities will appear in a future report to Parliament under section 83(6) of the Act.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what level of additional resources have been granted to social services departments in Wales to enable them to carry out obligations relating to disability issues laid out in the Children Act 1989.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Local authorities' responsibilities under the Children Act are taken into account in setting standard spending assessments as part of the annual local government revenue settlement. These resources are not hypothecated to individual services. In addition, a specific grant was introduced to support the training of staff to implement the Act's provisions. Grant available for that purpose was £200,000 in 1990–91 and £240,000 in 1991–92 and is included within the child care staff training grant of £635,000 for 1992–93.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been allocated by his Department to publicise the Children Act 1989 and the relevant guidance notes to organisations of and for disabled people in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Some £70,000 has been spent on guidance about the Children Act—including volume 6 on children with disabilities—which was distributed free of charge to local authorities and relevant voluntary organisations in Wales.

  Oral Hygiene
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to make children aware of the importance of oral hygiene.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The protocol for investment in health gain covering oral health issued in November 1992 contained many challenging targets to secure health gain in this area. One of the targets specifically aimed at children is that:"Family Health Service authorities and health authorities will by 1997 be able to report that at least 50 per cent. of children by the age of 5 have an understanding of basic oral health principles and at least 75 per cent. by 2002."
  This advice is being taken forward in the local strategies for health prepared jointly by those authorities in collaboration with others.
  670
  The Health Promotion Authority for Wales is presently developing a health promotion resource entitled "Cledwyn's Castle" aimed at pre-school children. The package is currently being produced following extensive testing. One module of the programme covers dental health which includes oral hygiene. The authority has also held a symposium on dental health education in the national curriculum. A further symposium is expected to be held in the forthcoming financial year. These aim to ensure that consistent advice is given within the curriculum. A range of dental health promotion literature is available from the authority.

  The Department is also providing financial support for Pembrokeshire NHS trust community dental service to carry out two pilot projects aimed at improving the oral health of children. The first aims to produce cross-curriculum health promotion materials in both English and Welsh for each attainment target group in primary education. The second project aims to produce materials which can be used in each season of the year in playgroups.

  Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of houses built by local authorities, housing associations and the private sector in 1979, 1990, 1991 and 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information is published in "Welsh Housing Statistics Volume 12", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Graduate Engineers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy for funding for postgraduate study for graduate engineers; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The funding that we are making available to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales includes provision for postgraduate study within higher education in Wales. In addition, the Science and Engineering Research Council makes discretionary awards availble to postgraduate students in the engineering field.

  Used Motor Oil
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the waste disposal authorities in Wales which currently provide no facilities for the collection of used motor oil from the public.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not maintained centrally.

  Valleys Initiative
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the design and printing contract for the valleys initiative leaflets was put out to tender; if the tender was advertised as an open competition; how many firms made bids; and if the winning bid was the lowest tender.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Time available for the production of the original publicity material in 1988 for the valleys initiative was very limited. The companies which carried
  671
  out the printing and design work, and which also did subsequent revisions of the publicity material, were not selected by competitive tender.

  Publicity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was his total expenditure on each of(a) exhibitions, (b) leaflet design, production and distribution, (c) stationery supplies and general publicity for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 2 June 1992. Records do not enable expenditure on leaflet design, production and distribution to be separately identified.

  Figures for expenditure on stationery are not available for the years 1981–82 to 1985–86. Figures for expenditure on exhibitions cannot be disaggregated for the years 1981–82 to 1989–90. Expenditure for succeeding years is set out in the following table.

  £000

  Stationery

  Exhibitions

  1986–87

  205.6

  n/a

  1987–88

  260.9

  n/a

  1988–89

  301.9

  n/a

  1989–90

  340.1

  n/a

  1990–91

  353.0

  193.4

  1991–92

  446.0

  96.2

  Mr. Roy Bichen
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 198, if he was aware of the legal action being taken against Mr. Roy Bichen in the United States of America when he appointed him deputy chairman of the Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 19 January at column 198.

  Contracts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the 10 largest design, printing, publicity or stationery supply contracts awarded by his Department since 1 April 1988 and the names and business addresses of the suppliers.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Records are kept in a form which would not enable this information to be extracted except at disproportionate cost.

  People employed full-time on Agricultural holdings in England as at June of each year1

  thousands

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Salaried managers2

  6.6

  6.7

  7.1

  7.1

  7.0

  7.0

  6.9

  7.2

  7.1

  7.0

  Whole-time regular hired workers

  113.0

  108.0

  104.0

  96.6

  91.5

  87.3

  84.1

  81.5

  77.5

  74.2

  Seasonal or casual workers2

  78.4

  75.8

  76.7

  75.7

  74.1

  73.1

  68.6

  70.6

  67.2

  66.8

  TOTAL workers

  198.0

  190.5

  187.8

  179.4

  172.5

  167.4

  159.6

  159.3

  151.9

  148.0

  Charter Contracts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what dates contracts for designing and printing the leaflets for the patients charter and parents charter were put out to tender; on what dates and in which publications the tender was advertised; how many design and printing companies were invited to tender; and if the winning bid was the lowest tender.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  Design work

  Tenders were invited for the parents charter on 23 August 1991 and the specification was revised on 6 September 1991. Three companies submitted prices and work was commissioned from the firm which offered the lowest hourly price. Work for the similarly designed patients charter was undertaken within one month by the same company on the basis of the hourly charge quoted for the parents charter.

  Printing work

  Printing contracts were managed by the Central Office of Information. Quotations were invited for the patients charter on 1 October 1991 and the specification was revised on 2 October 1991 and 21 October 1991. Eleven printing firms were invited to quote and the work was awarded to the company offering the lowest price. Quotations were invited for the parents charter on 12 September 1991. The specification was revised on 19 September 1991 and a revised tender issued on 30 September 1991. Eight printing firms were invited to quote. The company offering the lowest price proposed a printing process which required a "web" or roll of paper which was not immediately available; the tender was awarded to the company offering the lowest price for printing on normal paper sheets.

  It is not normal practice to advertise tenders for work of this type and value.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farm Employees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of people employed full time in the farming industry in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Curry
  The number of people employed full-time on agricultural holdings in England as at June for each of the last 10 years is shown in the table.
  673

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Whole-time farmers, partners, directors (doing farm work)

  132.9

  131.7

  129.8

  128.7

  126.7

  124.5

  122.4

  118.9

  115.0

  113.9

  TOTAL

  330.9

  322.2

  317.6

  308.2

  299.2

  291.2

  282.0

  278.3

  266.9

  261.9

  1 Spouses of farmers, partners, directors are excluded. Family workers without a contract of employment are also excluded.

  2 All salaried managers and seasonal or casual workers are included. The numbers of these which are full-time are not known.

  Inshore Fishing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received, and from whom, against the Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Carriage of Monofilament Gill Nets) (Scotland) Order 1986.

  Mr. Curry
  I received recently representations from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations drawing attention to their continued concern about the effect of the order, which prohibits the carriage or use of monofilament gill nets within six miles of Scotland by any United Kingdom fishing vessel, on the Grimsby gill net fleet. I replied on 15 January 1993.

  £ thousand per year

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–931

  Net farm income on hill and upland livestock farms

  Nominal terms

  England

  12.4

  8.0

  5.9

  10.0

  11.0

  Wales

  14.3

  8.8

  7.6

  11.7

  13.9

  Scotland2

  11.0

  8.9

  8.6

  8.2

  8.9

  Northern Ireland

  5.9

  3.1

  2.9

  3.8

  6.1

  United Kingdom full-time adult manual earnings

  Nominal terms (April each year)

  9.7

  10.6

  11.5

  12.2

  12.9

  Net farm income on hill and upland livestock farms

  Real terms3

  England

  12.4

  7.4

  5.0

  8.0

  8.5

  Wales

  14.3

  8.2

  6.4

  9.4

  10.8

  Scotland2

  11.0

  8.2

  7.3

  6.6

  6.9

  Northern Ireland

  5.9

  2.9

  2.4

  3.0

  47

  United Kingdom full-time adult manual earnings

  Real terms3 (April each year)

  9.7

  9.8

  9.7

  9.8

  10.0

  1 Forecast.

  2 Average for LFA mainly sheep, LFA mainly cattle and LFA mainly cattle and sheep.

  3 Deflated by RPI (March 1988 to February 1989 = 100).

  Hill Farming
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the subsidy and price support available to hill farming enterprises over the last five years for which figures are available; and how they have varied in value at constant prices in relation to farm input costs and retail prices index over the same period.

  Rates of subsidies available to hill farmers—United Kingdom

  £/head

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Current prices

  Sheep

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

  SDA Sheep (higher rate)

  6.75

  6.75

  7.50

  8.75

  8.75

  SDA Sheep (lower rate)

  4.50

  4.50

  4.50

  4.90

  4.90

  DA

  2.25

  2.25

  2.25

  2.45

  2.45

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme1

  6.11

  6.94

  9.88

  12.91

  217.25

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the net farm income figures for(a) English, (b) Welsh, (c) Scottish and (d) Northern Irish hill livestock farm enterprises over the past five years for which figures are available, at constant prices, shown as a percentage of full-time manual earnings for the United Kingdom for the same period.

  Mr. Curry
  Net farm income is not a measure of farmers' cash earnings which in general will be higher. It is not, therefore, comparable with the average earnings of manual workers. The following table shows the latest estimates of the level of farm income for each accounting year since 1988–89 and the average earnings of full-time adult manual workers as at April each year in nominal terms and deflated by the retail prices index.

  Mr. Curry
  The figures on the following table show the information requested for the direct livestock subsidies available to hill farmers. Support for beef producers has also been available through intervention during this period, but it is not possible to apportion this to hill farmers.
  675

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  LFA supplement to SAPS

  —

  —

  —

  3.12

  25.78

  Average Variable Premium—pence/kg (dead weight)1

  58.76

  45.37

  41.39

  63.36

  3—

  Beef

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

  SDA

  54.50

  54.50

  54.50

  63.30

  63.30

  DA

  27.25

  27.25

  27.25

  31.65

  31.65

  Suckler Cow Premium1

  33.40

  47.43

  51.69

  59.64

  59.64

  Beef Special Premium45

  —

  29.19

  31.81

  31.81

  35.90

  Average Variable Premium—pence/kg 16

  Dead weight

  16.09

  18.50

  —

  —

  —

  Live weight

  8.73

  9.95

  —

  —

  —

  1988 prices—deflated by Agricultural Input Prices Index

  Sheep

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

  SDA Sheep (higher rate)

  6.75

  6.36

  6.79

  7.62

  7.44

  SDA Sheep (lower rate)

  4.50

  4.24

  4.07

  4.27

  4.17

  DA

  2.25

  2.12

  2.04

  2.13

  2.08

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme1

  6.11

  6.54

  8.95

  11.24

  214.67

  LFA supplement to SAPS

  —

  —

  —

  2.72

  24.92

  Average Variable Premium—pence/kg (dead weight)1

  58.76

  42.77

  37.48

  55.18

  3—

  Beef

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

  SDA

  54.50

  51.38

  49.35

  55.13

  53.84

  DA

  27.25

  25.69

  24.67

  27.57

  26.92

  Suckler Cow Premium1

  33.40

  44.71

  46.80

  51.94

  50.73

  Beef Special Premium34

  —

  27.52

  28.80

  27.71

  30.54

  Average Variable Premium—pence/kg16

  Dead weight

  16.09

  17.44

  —

  —

  —

  Live weight

  8.73

  9.38

  —

  —

  —

  1988 prices—deflated by Retail Prices Index

  Sheep

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

  SDA Sheep (higher rate)

  6.75

  6.26

  6.36

  7.01

  6.75

  SDA Sheep (lower rate)

  4.50

  4.17

  3.81

  3.92

  3.78

  DA

  2.25

  2.09

  1.91

  1.96

  1.89

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme1

  6.11

  6.44

  8.37

  10.34

  213.31

  LFA supplement to SAPS

  —

  —

  —

  2.50

  24.46

  Average Variable Premium—pence/kg (dead weight)1

  58.76

  42.08

  35.07

  50.74

  —

  Beef

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

  SDA

  54.50

  50.55

  46.18

  50.69

  48.82

  DA

  27.25

  25.27

  23.09

  25.34

  24.41

  Suckler Cow Premium1

  33.40

  43.99

  43.80

  47.76

  46.00

  Beef Special Premium45

  —

  27.07

  26.95

  25.48

  27.69

  Average Variable Premium—pence/kg16

  Dead weight

  16.09

  17.16

  —

  —

  —

  Live weight

  8.73

  9.23

  —

  —

  —

  1 GB figures.

  2 Estimate for 1992. Final instalment to be paid in spring 1993.

  3 Sheep Variable Premium Scheme phased out in 1991.

  4 Figure as at December each year.

  5 Beef Special Premium Scheme started 1st April 1989.

  6 Beef Variable Premium Scheme ended March 1989

  Bananas
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of whether the agreement on bananas reached at the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 17 December 1992 will be carried through and agreed unchanged by the Council by 1 March.

  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking with the Danish Presidency and other Community members to ensure that the agreement on bananas reached in December 1992 676
  should be carried forward along with the new single market regime for bananas; and what representations he had received from Caribbean Governments on this issue.

  Mr. Curry
  I understand that the Danish presidency will invite the Agriculture Council on 9–10 February to consider a complete text of the proposed common regime for bananas which incorporates the external trade provisions agreed by the Council under the United Kingdom presidency. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has had extensive contacts with a wide range of Caribbean interests about bananas.

  School Milk
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the EC subsidy for school milk will continue after March 1994.

  Mr. Curry
  The Commission has indicated that it has no plans to end the EC subsidy on school milk after March 1994.

  Tenant Farmers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to alter the legislation regarding tenant farmers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on 3 December 1992 at column 368.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on farm incomes.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to the reply 5 November 1992, column 340–41]: A brief summary of the provisional estimates of income, output and productivity of United Kingdom agriculture in 1992 is set out in three tables which I have placed in the Library of the House. I am pleased to say that the forecasts of income show a welcome recovery in real terms from the downward trend in recent years.

  Real total income from farming, after declining during the 1980s, rose by more than 10 per cent. in 1992. Moreover, this was from a higher level for 1991 than was predicted this time last year. This has been a difficult period for farmers and we should not overstate this improvement, however welcome. But now that the reform of the CAP has been decided and a number of other uncertainties, such as the future of the agrimonetary system resolved, I believe that farmers will be able to build on these results and plan for the future with more confidence.

  In detail, the figures show the following changes relative to 1991:
  the values of the industry's gross output and gross input at current prices have risen by 2.3 per cent. and 1.4 per cent. respectively, largely as a result of price rises in both cases. The volume of the industry's output, as indicated by gross output at constant prices, has risen by 0.5 per cent. while the volume of the industry's gross input has fallen by 1.0 per cent. These changes have resulted in increases of 3.2 per cent. in gross product and 5.2 per cent. in net product, at current prices;
  with the continued decline in interest rates the industry's interest charges fell by a further 16.1 per cent. However, although the number of farm workers continued to fall, the total cost of hired labour rose by 1.4 per cent.;
  as a result of these changes total income from farming, representing the total income from agriculture of farmers, partners, directors and their spouses and family workers, is forecast to have risen by 15.5 per cent. or by 11.4 per cent. expressed in real terms (deflating by the retail prices index). Farming income, which covers only farmers and their spouses, is forecast to have risen by 23.6 per cent. or by 19.2 per cent. in real terms;
  the two corresponding measures of cash flow, which may reflect more closely the variations perceived by farmers
  678
  and farm households, show much smaller increases between 1991 and 1992. Cash flow for the wider group is forecast to have risen by 3.6 per cent., while that for farmers and their spouses has risen by 3.8 per cent. In real terms however, these measures have remained virtually unchanged since 1991;
  the industry's productivity has continued to rise. The index of gross product per whole-time man equivalent is forecast to have risen by 3.8 per cent. over the last year and by 47.7 per cent. over the last decade. However, this index does not take into account changes in inputs other than labour. An alternative measure, gross output per unit of all inputs, is forecast to have risen by 3.3 per cent. over the last year and by 23.9 per cent. over the last decade;
  Incomes were higher on most types of farm over the last year though, as usual, there was some variation in the fortune of different types of farm throughout the United Kingdom. The net farm income on dairy farms has risen and higher levels of subsidy have contributed to increases on most hill and upland livestock farms over the past two years. However, on lowland livestock farms there is considerable variation between different parts of the country and from year to year, with farms having a higher proportion of cattle than sheep tending to perform better. Cropping farms, particularly those specialising in cereals, have benefited from higher output prices. The intensive livestock sector has been affected by low egg prices and increasing feed costs which have almost offset the effects of higher pigmeat prices.

  The tables also contain revised estimates for 1991. These show that total income from farming rose in 1991 by 4.3 per cent. rather than fell by 6 per cent.—the forecast last year. Similarly, farming income is now estimated to have risen by 1.1 per cent. in 1991, against last year's forecast of a fall of 14 per cent.

  More detailed information will be contained in "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1992" which this year will be available in March. This change in the month of publication is designed to improve the quality of the forecasts for the latest year. "Farm incomes in the United Kingdom 1991–1992", which contains details for individual farm types and aggregate dates for each country of the United Kingdom, will also be available in March.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Service
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the costs incurred in cancelling the contract for the new prison service headquarters in Derby.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It will not be possible to assess the full cost of cancelling the development agreement for the new prison service headquarters until the developer's claim for compensation has been examined and discussed with him. This is likely to take some time. We have spent a little over £11.5 million so far.

  Gambling
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has about the per capita spending on gambling in other EC countries.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No figures on net consumer expenditure on gambling—that is, amount staked less winnings—in other EC countries is held by the
  679
  Department. However, a report published by the European Commission in July 1992, "Gambling in the Single Market—A study of the current legal and market

  Country

  Estimated gross turnover

  ECU (million)

  £ (million)1

  Population2 (million)

  Turnover/ head/year £

  Belgium

  1,032

  693

  9.9

  70.0

  Denmark

  343

  230

  5.1

  45.1

  France

  9,254

  6,217

  56.0

  111.0

  Germany

  9,269

  6,227

  61.7

  100.9

  Greece

  996

  669

  10.0

  66.9

  Ireland

  588

  395

  3.5

  112.9

  Italy

  2,565

  1,723

  57.5

  30.0

  Luxembourg

  78

  52

  0.4

  130.0

  Netherlands

  315

  212

  14.8

  14.3

  Portugal

  525

  353

  10.3

  34.3

  Spain

  7,781

  5,227

  38.9

  134.4

  United Kingdom

  13,111

  8,808

  57.2

  154.0

  1 £1 = 1.4886 ECU (1989 average).

  2 Estimates 1989.

  These figures should be treated with caution for two reasons. First, the authors of the report pointed to the difficulty in obtaining reliable information on gambling turnover. Secondly, it is in the nature of gambling that, because there are winning as well as losing bets, any sum of money may be gambled several times over before it is lost. Consequently, the total amount staked is not a reliable guide to actual consumer expenditure.

  Crime, Northumbria
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many house burglaries were reported in Blyth Valley in(a) 1991 and (b) 1992; and what was the crime detection rate for house burglary in Blyth Valley in each of those years;

  (2) what was the total number of crimes committed in Blyth Valley in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not collected centrally for the Blyth Valley area.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes involving the use of firearms have been committed in Blyth Valley and in the Northumbria police area in the last five years.

  Mr. Jack
  Information is not available centrally on the number of crimes in Blyth Valley. The number of notifiable offences recorded by the Northumbria police in which firearms were reported to have been used was:

  Number

  1987

  387

  1988

  319

  1989

  472

  1990

  447

  1991

  448

  Prevention of Terrorism
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average detention time of persons held without charge in Great Britain under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts in each year since 1974.
  680
  situation", contained estimates for gross expenditure—that is amount staked—in each member state in 1989. The figures expressed on a per capita basis are as follows:

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The information which is readily available dates from 1979 and is as follows:

  Average time for which persons were detained without charge under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Great Britain

  Hours

  1979

  33

  1980

  32

  1981

  37

  1982

  31

  1983

  36

  1984

  37

  1985

  37

  1986

  35

  1987

  34

  1988

  27

  1989

  25

  1990

  24

  1991

  24

  1992

  21

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been(a) charged and (b) detained in Great Britain under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Information on the numbers detained and charged in Great Britain under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act is published quarterly in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin, "Statistics on the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism legislation", copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been excluded from mainland United Kingdom under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Information on the number of exclusion orders made in Great Britain under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act is published quarterly in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin, "Statistics on the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism legislation", copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons are at present excluded from mainland United Kingdom under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts.
  681
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  There are at present 80 individuals excluded from Great Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had with regard to the Prevention of Terrorism Acts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have received representations on this subject on many occasions, both from Members of this House and from the public. On 19 January, column 142, I invited interested parties to submit written observations by 5 February to Viscount Colville of Culross who is currently conducting the annual review of the Act. The House will shortly have the opportunity to debate the Act when it is laid before Parliament for renewal.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to amend the law in potential child abuse cases when it is impossible to determine which parent was responsible; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government have no current plans to amend the law in this area. The privilege against self-incrimination, which may sometimes be a relevant factor in cases of this kind, is, however, a matter within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and the Government will wish to consider carefully any general recommendations the commission may make concerning that privilege.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many records are permanently retained by the security services only for the purpose of resolving complaints, concerning the content of the record, made under the Security Service Act 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It is not the practice to disclose such information which is, in any event, not readily available because of changes in record-keeping procedures by the security service in order to meet the needs of the Complaints Tribunal and the Security Service Act.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) business frauds, (b) cheque, credit and cash card frauds, (c) thefts from companies, (d) thefts from employees, (e) offences of shoplifting, (f) offences of vandalism against business and (g) assaults at the work place were committed (i ) in England and Wales and (ii) in each police force area in 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  The only available information for notifiable offences is contained in the table. The British crime survey provides an estimate of some 350,000 assaults which occurred at the work place in 1991, many of which will have been between co-workers. There were about 80,000 incidents said to be because of the nature of the work being undertaken, most of them perpetrated by clients and customers.
  682

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force area England and Wales 1991

  Police force area

  Theft by an employee

  Theft from shops

  Fraud by a company director

  Avon and Somerset

  641

  6,625

  0

  Bedfordshire

  152

  2,417

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  186

  4,822

  0

  Cheshire

  484

  4,248

  0

  Cleveland

  124

  3,263

  2

  Cumbria

  101

  4,531

  0

  Derbyshire

  207

  3,860

  0

  Devon and Cornwall

  392

  7,087

  0

  Dorset

  381

  2,865

  3

  Durham

  219

  2,683

  0

  Essex

  356

  7,424

  1

  Gloucestershire

  173

  8,320

  0

  Greater Manchester

  708

  18,547

  0

  Hampshire

  750

  8,959

  1

  Hertfordshire

  260

  4,125

  0

  Humberside

  345

  7,729

  0

  Kent

  410

  9,218

  0

  Lancashire

  510

  6,022

  1

  Leicestershire

  233

  3,752

  0

  Lincolnshire

  168

  5,659

  0

  City of London

  76

  281

  0

  Merseyside

  328

  9,351

  0

  Metropolitan Police District

  3,168

  31,765

  10

  Norfolk

  209

  4,616

  1

  Northamptonshire

  174

  2,895

  0

  Northumbria

  411

  10,595

  0

  North Yorkshire

  205

  5,119

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  399

  8,653

  1

  South Yorkshire

  334

  6,382

  0

  Staffordshire

  423

  4,778

  3

  Suffolk

  358

  4,309

  0

  Surrey

  292

  2,280

  0

  Sussex

  699

  7,948

  0

  Thames Valley

  640

  11,009

  1

  Warwickshire

  95

  1,692

  0

  West Mercia

  142

  5,451

  0

  West Midlands

  562

  12,911

  0

  West Yorkshire

  954

  11,335

  0

  Wiltshire

  194

  3,262

  0

  Dyfed-Powys

  103

  2,158

  0

  Gwent

  146

  2,768

  0

  North Wales

  187

  2,478

  0

  South Wales

  365

  7,084

  0

  England and Wales

  17,264

  281,276

  24

  Fines
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the unit fine system introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 1991; if he will list the drawbacks or unfair effects that have been indentified by practical experience of the operation of the Act; and what steps he intends to take to ensure that the system operates with increased fairness and efficiency.

  Mr. Jack
  The unit fine scheme was successfully trailed before its full scale introduction in all magistrates' courts on 1 October 1992. Full details of the pilot project are given in Home Office Research Paper 59 in 1990. It is too early to make any meaningful assessment of its effectiveness nationally, but the scheme is being closely monitored.

  Seized Assets Fund
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on how much money is in the seized assets fund; where the money has been spent to date; and where it will be targeted in future.

  Mr. Jack
  A total of £3.2 million has been distributed from the seized assets fund in 1992–93, the first year of its operation, to enforcement agencies and a variety of individual projects directed against drug misuse. We are considering the possibility of further funding being made available from this source for similar purposes during the next financial year. The final amount available to the fund for distribution will depend on the success of international operations to confiscate the assets of drug traffickers.

  Drug-related Crimes
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of people serving prison sentences for drug-related crimes in total, and as a percentage of all prisoners, at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Figures for the population in Prison Service establishments by offence group are published annually in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales", Table 1.8 of the Volume for 1990 (CM 1800). Provisional figures for 30 June 1991 show that 2,850 prisoners were recorded centrally as being sentenced for drug offences, nearly 10 per cent. of the total sentenced population for which an offence was recorded.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the seizures of class A drugs made in the last full 12-month period for which figures are available by weight and as a percentage increase on the previous year.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is contained in Table 2.4 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Statistics of Drugs Seizures and Offenders Dealt With, United Kingdom, 1991", a copy of which is in the Library. There was a 27 per cent. percentage increase in the weight of class A drugs seized in 1991 over 1990 excluding LSD and MDMA ("Ecstasy"). From 1991 onwards only dosages have been recorded for LSD and MDMA, and thus no comparable figures are available.

  Criminal Justice
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will introduce legislation to amend section 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 to enable judges to direct, where appropriate, that the prosecution's notice to admit facts, and a defendant's response to it, should be put before the jury; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has to allow the prosecution to present the jury with a short document briefly setting out their case before the commencement of a long fraud trial; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office and the legal secretariat to the Law Officers issued a consultation paper on 3 December 1992, seeking 684
  views on a number of proposals for reducing the length of some criminal trials, particularly those involving fraud. These include a proposal that case statements should be provided to the jury, by both the prosecution and the defence. Such case statements would aim to clarify the issues involved before the commencement of a trial. The consultation paper also seeks views on the effectiveness of preparatory hearings in fraud trials and the need to provide greater assistance to the jury in understanding the case.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to create a general fraud offence to cover those types of fraudulent conduct which are not adequately caught by the existing scheme of substantive offences and to replace the existing common law offence of conspiracy to defraud; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We are not aware of deficiencies in the substantive criminal law in this area and as a consequence have no plans to amend it.

HEALTH

  Homerton Hospital, Hackney
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she next plans to visit Homerton hospital, Hackney to discuss health needs in Hackney.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have visited all the main hospitals serving Hackney in recent weeks including two visits to both the Homerton and St. Bartholomew's.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has received of the response of patients to NHS trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A survey of patient satisfaction in eight trust hospitals, commissioned by the Central Office of Information, showed that 96 per cent. of patients were satisfied with the quality of service they had received, 48 per cent. felt that the service had improved and 44 per cent. felt that the service had remained the same.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last met representatives of North East Thames regional health authority to discuss progress in establishing NHS trusts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have regular meetings with all regional health authority chairmen at which many issues, including national health service trusts, are discussed. The last meeting took place on Wednesday 20 January.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the effects on patients of the introduction of national health service trusts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In the first 12 months of the reforms, the number of patients treated in the national health service as a whole increased by 7.2 per cent. In trust units the increase was 8.2 per cent. Waiting time figures for the first wave trusts show that in the six months to March 1992
  685
  trusts reduced their numbers of over one year waiters by nearly 60 per cent. compared with just 50 per cent. in directly managed units.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals or units became national health service trusts in(a) April 1991 and (b) April 1992; how many will become trusts in April 1993; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Fifty-seven national health service trusts became operational from 1 April 1991 and a further 99 from 1 April 1992. The 133 third wave trusts already announced will become operational from 1 April 1993 bringing the total to 289. This confirms that trusts are clearly the right way to manage hospitals and with each successive wave, enthusiasm and support among management, medical staff and patients themselves is increasing.

  Hospitals (Bed Closures)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital beds were temporarily closed in the three months October to December 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  The health service measures performance by patients treated not number of beds. More patients are being treated than ever before and long waiting times are coming down. These are achievements to be proud of.

  Tomlinson Report
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the total cost of implementing the Tomlinson report for(a) the reconfiguration of remaining hospitals, (b) the cost of redundancy payments, (c) the cost of primary care facilities and (d) the cost of retraining and redeployment of staff.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates have been made of the range of possible costs relating to redundancies arising from implementation of all or part of the Tomlinson report.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the total costs of Government proposals for implementing the Tomlinson report for(a) reconfiguration of remaining hospitals, (b) cost of redundancy payments, (c) cost of primary care facilities and (d) cost of retraining and redeployment of staff.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We intend to make a statement on the future of the health service in London shortly. This statement will make clear the Government's response to Tomlinson's proposals and will set out how we wish to see the NHS in London evolve and improve.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the capital sums required by London FHSAs for the number of new primary care facilities required to implement Tomlinson report proposals; and if she will list the number of new facilities required, by FHSA.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) today.

  Post-operative Convalescence
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health districts in London provide beds in the community or attached to hospitals for post-operative convalescence.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not collected centrally. It is up to each health authority to commission appropriate health care for its patients. If necessary that could include post-operative convalescent care.

  Diabetic Insulin
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to ensure that all diabetic insulin delivery systems, including needles, are available free of charge.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Since insulin-dependent diabetics are exempt from prescription charges disposable syringes with needles are available to them on general practitioner prescription free of charge. The inclusion of insulin injection pens and needles in the GP prescribable list must, like other new additions to the list, be subject to the availability of resources.

  Hospital Beds, West Midlands
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of hospital beds in the west midlands(a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Between 1979 and 1991–92 the number of patients treated in hospital in the west midlands increased by 55 per cent.; the number of day cases by 202 per cent. and the number of out-patients treated by 14.9 per cent.

  West Midlands RHA
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make public the reports received by her Department in the last 18 months with respect to the affairs of the South Birmingham and West Midlands regional health authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department frequently receives a wide range of reports on health and management matters from West Midlands regional health authority and districts. Where appropriate these have been made public.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the terms of Sir Donald Wilson's appointment as temporary chair of the West Midlands regional health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appointed Sir Donald Wilson as chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority until 30 April 1993.

  NHS Services
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her plans to improve the quality of NHS services.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government have taken a number of measures designed to improve the quality of services to patients, and this was the driving force behind the reforms.
  687
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced a continuous quality improvement initiative. As part of this we aim to take the very best examples of good quality service and disseminate them widely. The initiative will also incorporate the experiences and perspectives of service users.

  Mentally Handicapped Patients
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement regarding the quality of care given to mentally handicapped patients in mental hospitals and the quality of management in such hospitals.

  Mr. Yeo
  Over the years there has been a significant improvement in standards in the long-stay hospitals, but there is no room for complacency. Guidance issued last October reminded health authorities of the need to ensure that whilst these hospitals remain a satisfactory level of care must be maintained. They should aim to ensure through contracts with providers that the quality of care in these hospitals improves at least in line with improvements in the quality of care generally.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she is monitoring the progress of the regions in implementing the new deal for junior doctors; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing the hours of duty of junior doctors.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The ministerial group on junior doctors' hours, which I chair, receives regular reports from regional task forces which were established to oversee and support implementation of the new deal at local level.

  We have set a target date of 1 April 1993 for eliminating posts with maximum contracted hours of more than 83 per week. The latest reports from task forces show that at 31 August 1992, 3,234 junior hospital doctors and dentists, out of a total of more than 25,000 in England, were contracted for a maximum average of more than 83 hours a week. This represents a fall in the number of doctors contracted for the longest hours of more than 2,000 since last February and more than 10,000 since September 1990.

  We look to authorities and trusts to continue their progress in eliminating these posts and then to deliver the next phase of the hours reduction programme. This involves reducing maximum average contracted hours to no more than 72 per week for those junior doctors working

  1st wave fundholders

  2nd wave fundholders

  Region

  Number of fundholders1

  Number of practices

  Number of GPs

  Number of fundholders1

  Number of practices

  Number of GPs

  3rd wave fundholders (estimate) Number of fundholders1

  Northern

  27

  29

  168

  11

  11

  63

  32

  Yorkshire

  34

  39

  208

  25

  27

  154

  54

  Trent

  28

  28

  155

  28

  32

  157

  83

  East Anglia

  9

  9

  57

  4

  4

  27

  36

  North West Thames

  22

  23

  123

  21

  26

  110

  48

  North East Thames

  13

  13

  73

  8

  8

  43

  29

  South East Thames

  15

  15

  85

  15

  15

  77

  51

  South West Thames

  21

  21

  125

  17

  18

  100

  28

  Wessex

  17

  18

  98

  17

  18

  109

  25

  Oxford

  25

  25

  155

  21

  23

  124

  31

  688
  on on-call rotas in hard-pressed posts—the busiest jobs; 64 per week for juniors working on partial shifts; and 56 per week for juniors working on full shifts.

  We are determined that junior doctors will see real and demonstrable benefits from the new deal and as well as reporting progress in reducing hours I am pleased that task force reports show significant progress in improving the living and working conditions of junior doctors and dentists.

  Beds Shortage (Emergencies)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the yellow bed alert issued in early January in the North East Thames health region because of a shortage of beds for emergency admissions.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies gave the hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on Monday 18 January at columns 85–86.

  Mersey Regional Health Authority
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will hold an urgent inquiry into the running of the Mersey regional health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have no plans to do so.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the implications of the creation of health trusts for the implementation of the community care changes.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  National health service trusts will play their full part in implementing the community care reforms, together with the rest of the NHS.

  GP Fund Holders
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the management fee paid, or estimates thereof, to(a) first, (b) second and (c) third wave GP fundholders per family health service authority/regional health authority and nationally in each year since their establishment up to 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information held centrally is in the table. The number of fourth wave fund holders is not yet available as the application period is still open. Information about numbers at FHSA level is held by regional health authorities.
  689

  1st wave fundholders

  2nd wave fundholders

  Region

  Number of fundholders1

  Number of practices

  Number of GPs

  Number of fundholders1

  Number of practices

  Number of GPs

  3rd wave fundholders (estimate) Number of fundholders1

  South Western

  20

  21

  127

  18

  20

  108

  32

  West Midlands

  26

  26

  144

  31

  33

  178

  75

  Mersey

  20

  21

  107

  24

  30

  121

  60

  North Western

  16

  17

  88

  13

  15

  72

  37

  Totals

  293

  305

  1,713

  253

  280

  1,443

  621

  1 The number of fundholders is less than the number of practices as some have joined together in groups.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many first, second, third and fourth wave fund-holding GPs and GP partnerships there are in each family health service authority and region.

  GP fundholders management allowance payments

  £000s

  FHSA

  1990–91 (1st wave preparatory fundholders)

  1991–92 (2nd wave preparatory and 1st wave full fundholders)

  1992–93 Estimates (2nd wave and 1st wave full fundholders)

  1992–93 Estimates (3rd wave preparatory fundholders)

  Cleveland

  146,685

  189,966

  173,000

  69,000

  Cumbria

  31,999

  115,423

  173,000

  86,000

  Durham

  111,900

  308,000

  380,000

  172,000

  Northumberland

  210,674

  231,010

  236,000

  3,000

  Gateshead

  32,098

  82,498

  103,000

  104,000

  Newcastle

  33,968

  49,500

  69,000

  35,000

  North Tyneside

  16,000

  49,454

  35,000

  35,000

  South Tyneside

  16,000

  33,000

  35,000

  0

  Sunderland

  16,000

  33,000

  52,000

  0

  Northern RHA

  615,324

  1,091,851

  1,256,000

  504,000

  Humberside

  112,000

  339,563

  483,000

  259,000

  North Yorkshire

  65,977

  247,500

  345,000

  207,000

  Bradford

  120,847

  138,182

  207,000

  69,000

  Calderdale

  44,296

  99,000

  102,000

  36,000

  Kirklees

  0

  16,493

  35,000

  86,000

  Leeds

  146,072

  338,273

  483,000

  189,000

  Wakefield

  121,720

  310,578

  414,000

  86,000

  Yorkshire RHA

  610,912

  1,489,589

  2,069,000

  932,000

  Derbyshire

  138,179

  445,500

  656,000

  535,000

  Leicestershire

  85,044

  276,995

  380,000

  127,000

  Lincolnshire

  48,000

  196,449

  310,000

  190,000

  Nottinghamshire

  59,201

  166,179

  217,000

  114,000

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  0

  51,000

  Doncaster

  64,000

  132,000

  109,000

  56,000

  Rotherham

  14,328

  49,500

  56,000

  45,000

  Sheffield

  35,892

  95,829

  101,000

  127,000

  Trent RHA

  444,644

  1,353,452

  1,829,000

  1,245,000

  Cambridgeshire

  37,170

  71,000

  190,000

  69,000

  Norfolk

  75,318

  165,000

  207,000

  276,000

  Suffolk

  42,197

  107,650

  380,000

  0

  East Anglian RHA

  154,685

  343,650

  777,000

  345,000

  Bedfordshire

  76,000

  148,500

  173,000

  155,000

  Hertfordshire

  208,640

  549,754

  872,000

  327,000

  Barnet

  0

  0

  17,000

  70,000

  Brent and Harrow

  16,000

  33,000

  35,000

  155,000

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  46,028

  118,598

  138,000

  52,000

  Hillingdon

  32,000

  99,478

  138,000

  0

  Kensington, Westminster and Chelsea

  16,000

  81,542

  165,000

  50,000

  North West Thames RHA

  394,668

  1,030,872

  1,538,000

  809,000

  Essex

  80,646

  287,164

  449,000

  345,000

  Barking and Havering

  16,000

  49,500

  121,00

  17,000

  690
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information available centrally is in the table.
  691

  FHSA

  1990–91 (1st wave preparatory fundholders)

  1991–92 (2nd wave preparatory and 1st wave full fundholders)

  1992–93 Estimates (2nd wave and 1st wave full fundholders)

  1992–93 Estimates (3rd wave preparatory fundholders)

  Camden and Islington

  19,310

  78,489

  69,000

  0

  City and East London

  32,000

  66,000

  69,000

  17,000

  Enfield and Haringey

  30,812

  75,061

  100,000

  50,000

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  12,241

  33,000

  35,000

  17,000

  North East Thames RHA

  191,009

  589,214

  843,000

  446,000

  East Sussex

  39,197

  126,422

  173,000

  414,000

  Kent

  174,880

  363,000

  552,000

  328,000

  Greenwich and Bexley

  46,699

  82,500

  104,000

  69,000

  Bromley

  32,000

  66,000

  69,000

  0

  Lambeth, Southwark West and Lewisham

  43,346

  99,000

  156,000

  0

  South East Thames RHA

  336,122

  736,922

  1,054,000

  811,000

  Surrey

  226,684

  453,467

  604,000

  224,000

  West Sussex

  97,404

  217,862

  310,000

  138,000

  Croydon

  0

  33,000

  69,000

  35,000

  Kingston and Richmond

  78,274

  143,868

  209,000

  0

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  49,989

  146,286

  173,00

  69,000

  South West Thames RHA

  452,351

  994,483

  1,365,000

  466,000

  Dorset

  18,461

  172,400

  311,000

  86,000

  Hampshire

  443,176

  467,458

  621,000

  242,000

  Wiltshire

  41,195

  49,000

  102,000

  102,000

  Isle of Wight

  46,486

  111,193

  138,000

  0

  Wessex RHA

  549,318

  800,051

  1,172,000

  430,000

  Berkshire

  295,270

  318,394

  380,000

  259,000

  Buckinghamshire

  178,924

  410,731

  552,000

  190,000

  Northamptonshire

  31,371

  205,434

  311,000

  86,000

  Oxfordshire

  194,878

  251,660

  347,000

  33,000

  Oxford RHA

  700,443

  1,186,219

  1,590,000

  568,000

  Avon

  47,998

  165,000

  242,000

  207,000

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  26,221

  97,007

  138,000

  86,000

  Devon

  110,786

  317,783

  449,000

  155,000

  Gloucestershire

  145,071

  142,000

  207,000

  86,000

  Somerset

  63,961

  198,000

  276,000

  17,000

  South Western RHA

  394,037

  919,790

  1,312,000

  551,000

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  130,952

  336,354

  449,000

  259,000

  Shropshire

  17,670

  98,849

  173,000

  138,000

  Staffordshire

  153,279

  282,537

  345,000

  423,000

  Warwickshire

  58,486

  205,740

  311,000

  207,000

  Birmingham

  81,420

  130,734

  207,000

  121,000

  Coventry

  0

  33,000

  69,000

  69,000

  Dudley

  0

  0

  0

  69,000

  Sandwell

  31,981

  117,537

  190,000

  0

  Solihull

  93,991

  169,500

  242,000

  225,000

  Walsall

  16,000

  33,000

  35,000

  86,000

  Wolverhampton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Midlands RHA

  583,779

  1,407,251

  2,021,000

  1,597,000

  Cheshire

  282,834

  604,622

  725,000

  431,000

  Liverpool

  12,220

  124,000

  173,000

  113,000

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  99,140

  172,931

  207,000

  103,000

  Sefton

  131,139

  261,532

  276,000

  86,000

  Wirral

  8,000

  111,897

  138,000

  121,000

  Mersey RHA

  533,333

  1,274,982

  1,519,000

  854,000

  Lancashire

  75,268

  250,259

  276,000

  138,000

  Bolton

  48,000

  115,227

  138,000

  86,000

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  87,000

  Manchester

  22,253

  42,000

  34,000

  35,000

  Oldham

  0

  16,494

  35,000

  17,000

  Rochdale

  25,564

  84,242

  104,000

  17,000

  692 693

  FHSA

  1990–91 (1st wave preparatory fundholders)

  1991–92 (2nd wave preparatory and 1st wave full fundholders)

  1992–93 Estimates (2nd wave and 1st wave full fundholders)

  1992–93 Estimates (3rd wave preparatory fundholders)

  Salford

  5,900

  97,382

  172,000

  0

  Stockport

  32,000

  66,000

  104,000

  115,000

  Tameside

  69,552

  82,500

  103,000

  35,000

  Trafford

  0

  0

  34,000

  69,000

  Wigan

  26,422

  0

  0

  35,000

  North Western RHA

  304,959

  754,104

  1,000,000

  634,000

  England

  6,265,584

  13,972,430

  19,345,000

  10,192,000

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy that the full details of the budget allocations to general practitioner fund holders will be published annually.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The total amount of resources allocated to fund holders forms part of the annual financial statement of each regional health authority and family health services authority, which are public documents.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce legislation to make general practitioner fund holders legally liable in the event of inadequate community care services being provided to their clients after 1 April.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General practitioner fund holders will be responsible for purchasing within the resources available a range of community health services, including district nursing and health visiting. Regional health authorities will be required to set budgets for this purpose and ensure that the level of services purchased is consistent with the level of funding. Local authorities and district health authorities will be responsible for purchasing other community care services.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) of 28 October 1992,Official Report, column 728, what estimate she has made of the direct effect of tobacco advertising on consumption.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department's discussion document on the effect of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption was published on 28 October 1992. Comments on the report have been invited before 29 January 1993. It is unclear whether additional restrictions on tobacco advertising in the United Kingdom would contribute to a further reduction in tobacco consumption given the fall in smoking in the United Kingdom from 45 per cent. of the population in 1974 to 30 per cent. in 1990, and the existing controls on tobacco advertising through the voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising and promotion.

  Smoking
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will introduce legislation to protect non-smokers against passive smoking in public places and at work.
  694
  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. The "Health of the Nation" White Paper sets targets of 80 per cent. of public places being covered by effective no-smoking policies by 1994 and for the large majority of employees to be covered by a no-smoking policy by 1995. Good progress is being made by voluntary means, but, if this does not continue, we will consider taking statutory powers.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many working days are lost to British industry, per year, from smoking-related sick leave; and how much this costs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In its report "Smoking or Health" published in 1977, the Royal College of Physicians estimated that as many as 50 million working days may be lost in industry every year as a consequence of cigarette smoking. No current estimate is available.

  Tuberculosis
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions are made for regional health authorities that have terminated the universal BCG immunisation programme of children to inform parents of their rights to have their children vaccinated against tuberculosis.

  Mr. Sackville
  Local arrangements for childhood immunisations, and for providing information on their availability, are the responsibility of individual health authorities.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many regional health authorities have informed her Department that they have terminated the blanket immunisation programme for children against tuberculosis due to lack of resources; and if she will name those regional health authorities which no longer offer the BCG vaccination to children on a universal basis.

  Mr. Sackville
  No regional health authority has terminated the BCG immunisation for school children although an anonymised study by the public health laboratory service published in the "British Medical Journal" on 29 August 1992, reported that a small number of district health authorities are no longer routinely immunising children.

  Children in Care
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment she has made of the working of the Children Act 1989 as it relates to young persons leaving local authority care;
  695
  (2) what reports she has prepared under section 83(6) of the Children Act 1989 relating to research and returns of information.

  Mr. Yeo
  We are closely monitoring how local authorities are exercising their powers and duties under the Act as a whole, including their responsibilities to young people leaving care. This has been achieved through special commissioned research, new statistical returns and a number of surveys, including a national monitoring survey of all local authorities undertaken by the social services inspectorate. Information derived from these sources will form the basis of the Government's first report to Parliament on the working of the Act in England and Wales. We expect to publish the report next month.

  There will be a further response under section 83(6) later in 1993 which will draw more extensively on the regular statistical sources and provide the first in the statistical abstracts reporting the position after the Act was implemented. These will replace the reports covering children in care of local authorities for periods before the Act was implemented. The report of the year ending 31 March 1990 was published in July 1992 under section 83(6) and the last of these reports, for the year ending 31 March 1991, will be published this week under section 83(6).

  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will take steps to ensure that all young people leaving local authority residential care are monitored until social services departments are confident they are housed and able to manage by themselves.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities have a statutory duty under the Children Act 1989 to prepare all children for the time when they are to leave care, and have a range of powers and duties to provide aftercare support to care leavers who seek their help. Comprehensive guidance has been issued on ways in which these powers and duties might best be exercised. The implementation of the Act will continue to be kept under review.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in care have been child migrants in each year from 1967 up until the present; from which areas of the country they came; and what countries were their destinations.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of recorded(a) perforations and ruptures of the uterus following abortion and (b) ectopic pregnancies for 1967, 1972, 1977, 1982, 1987 and the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures relating to perforation of the uterus following abortion are shown in table 1 for the years 1972, 1977, 1982, 1987 and 1991. Table 2 shows the available data relating to ectopic pregnancies for the years 1982, 1987–88 and 1990–91. The number of ectopic pregnancies increased gradually between 1987–88 and 1990–91 due in part to the improvement in data recording in the hospital episodes statistics (HES) system. Data for 1967, before legal abortions were performed, and the full time series requested for ectopic pregnancies cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.
  696

  Table 1 Recorded cases of perforation of the uterus following abortion England and Wales Residents and non-residents

  Year

  Number

  1972

  226

  1977

  131

  1982

  202

  1987

  186

  1991

  138

  Source: Abortion notifications.

  Figures supplied by OPCS.

  Table 2 Estimated number of episodes where ectopic pregnancy (ICD 633) is the principal diagnosis England

  Year

  Number

  1982

  14,344

  1987–88

  24,941

  1990–91

  27,674

  1 Source: Hospital in-patient enquiry ordinary admissions only.

  2 Source: Hospital episode statistics—ordinary and day case admissions in NHS hospitals. Figures are provisional based on incomplete ungrossed data and may be subject to revision following analysis.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the items listed on schedule 10 which cannot be prescribed on a national health service prescription and the date of which such item was first placed on that schedule.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  These items are listed in schedule 10 to the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992. A copy of this list with the dates on which the relevant entries were made has been placed in the Library.

  Orthopaedic Services
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the total number of people currently on the waiting list for orthopaedic services in the Ashfield area.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the Nottingham health authority for details. Information about waiting times by district health authority and specialty is given in the publication "Hospital Waiting List, In-Patients and Day Cases" (ISBN 1 85839 003 6), a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to compensate patients waiting for admission to hospital until the new financial year, for the pain and suffering which will result from deferral of their treatment.

  Mr. Sackville
  This year some hospitals have exceeded contracted levels of performance. This means patients are being treated earlier than would otherwise have been possible.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to protect those released into the community from psychiatric institutions; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  From 1 April 1991 all district health authorities were required to initiate, in collaboration with local social services departments, explicit individually tailored care programmes for all in-patients about to be discharged from mental illness hospitals and all new patients accepted by the specialist psychiatric services.

  Under this initiative, known as the care programme approach, the needs of each patient should be systematically assessed and the appropriate arrangements made. These include the appointment of a key worker to keep in close touch with the patient and to monitor that the agreed health and social care is given.

  The rescources being devoted to the care of mentally ill people in the community have increased significantly in recent years. Gross spending on local authority social services for mentally ill people increased by 86 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1990–91 to £116.5 million. National health service provision in the community has also increased, for example, the number of community psychiatric nurses rose by 227 per cent. between 1981 and 1991, from 1,100 to 3,600.

  The Royal College of Psychiatrists has recommended that the Mental Health Act 1983 be amended to incorporate a community supervision order. Following discussions with the college and other professional and

  Malaria Plasmodium species

  Year

  Falciparum

  Vivax

  Malariae

  Ovale

  Mixed

  Unstated

  Total

  Deaths

  1972

  134

  167

  12

  13

  2

  8

  336

  ?

  1973

  145

  309

  21

  13

  19

  34

  541

  5

  1974

  138

  434

  29

  14

  25

  21

  661

  2

  1975

  174

  471

  32

  17

  42

  13

  749

  5

  1976

  229

  903

  29

  15

  32

  12

  1,220

  3

  1977

  236

  1,203

  29

  20

  32

  9

  1,529

  7

  1978

  349

  1,370

  19

  42

  14

  115

  1,909

  10

  1979

  435

  1,469

  20

  33

  8

  88

  2,053

  6

  1980

  405

  1,131

  12

  31

  18

  73

  1,670

  9

  1981

  370

  1,110

  13

  21

  18

  44

  1,576

  2

  1982

  442

  931

  20

  24

  26

  28

  1,471

  12

  1983

  535

  937

  22

  30

  17

  170

  1,711

  6

  1984

  680

  943

  20

  42

  43

  206

  1,934

  6

  1985

  654

  1,344

  23

  63

  33

  95

  2,212

  5

  1986

  719

  1,404

  30

  64

  22

  70

  2,309

  4

  1987

  696

  1,005

  13

  64

  29

  9

  1,816

  7

  1988

  1,028

  530

  22

  67

  24

  3

  1,674

  7

  1989

  1,072

  734

  33

  101

  47

  —

  1,987

  4

  1990

  1,057

  831

  17

  149

  41

  1

  2,096

  4

  19911

  1,268

  863

  21

  133

  47

  —

  2,332

  12

  19921

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,630

  11

  1 Provisional figures only.

  Source: Annual tables from the PHLS Malaria Reference Laboratory.

  Revenue and Capital Allocations for RHAs in 1993–94
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the revenue and capital allocations for regional health authorities in 1993–94.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [pursuant to her reply, 8 December 1992, columns 635–36.]: I am pleased to announce how the regional totals for the national health service main capital spending for 1993–94 will be allocated.
  698
  voluntary organisations, we are urgently considering whether new powers are needed to ensure mentally ill people in the community get the care they need. We will also consider whether the present legal powers in the Mental Health Act 1983 are being used as effectively as they can be, and what action could be taken in advance of any new legislation to ensure that they are.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 January

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This morning I had a meeting with ministerial colleagues and others. Later in the morning I launched the patients charter regional health information service at the BT Telecom tower. Earlier this afternoon I answered first order questions and attended Prime Minister's questions. Later today I will be answering an Opposition motion in the House.

  Malaria
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics she has about the incidence of malaria in Britain.

  Mr. Sackville
  Imported malaria cases reported to the public health laboratory service's malaria reference laboratory as occurring in the United Kingdom are shown in the table:

  The main capital planning total of £1,543 million will be deployed as follows: £880 million for spending by national health service trusts; and £663 million for spending by regional health authorities.

  In addition £289 million has been earmarked for central budgets, the majority of which will also be allocated to health authorities and national health service trusts. The central budgets provide for national priorities including regional secure units, day surgery facilities, advanced

  699
  diagnostic equipment, information technology, and community health facilities jointly financed with local government.

  Taking these amounts together, a total of £1,832 million, the highest figure ever, will be allocated in 1993–94 for national health service capital spending. In addition over £150 million of receipts from the disposal of surplus assets will be available to trusts and health authorities.

  The following table shows the main capital allocations for each regional health authority and the regional totals for main capital spending by national health service trusts. Details of the central budget allocations will be announced separately.

  Apportionment of main capital planning total for 1993–94 between RHAs and trusts

  £ millions

  RHA

  NHS trusts

  Total

  Northern

  63.995

  40.751

  104.746

  Yorkshire

  26.869

  94.772

  121.641

  Trent

  45.790

  108.112

  153.902

  East Anglia

  19.472

  47.412

  66.884

  North West Thames

  61.196

  40.958

  102.154

  North East Thames

  43.213

  71.408

  114.621

  South East Thames

  39.327

  79.691

  119.018

  South West Thames

  41.153

  50.232

  91.385

  Wessex

  42.880

  54.167

  97.047

  Oxford

  43.622

  31.408

  75.030

  SouthWest

  13.251

  97.775

  111.026

  West Midlands

  125.281

  44.775

  170.056

  Mersey

  15.891

  64.030

  79.921

  North West

  80.703

  54.731

  135.434

  England

  662.643

  880.222

  1,542.865

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had recently with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils on the new arrangements for providing personal assistance services to people who would previously have been eligible for funding from the independent living fund; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  I last met the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils on 17 December 1992. The subject of the independent living fund was not raised.

  Officials from the Department and the Department of Social Security will be meeting officials of the local authority associations shortly to discuss the new arrangement.

  Neurosurgery
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients underwent neurosurgical operations between 1979 and the change in regulations in 1981 governing the disposal of surgical equipment.

  Mr. Yeo
  Guidance on the disposal of surgical equipment was issued by the Department of Health in 700

  November 1981 and has recently been updated. The figures in the table are for the three years 1979, 1980 and 1981. Parts of years cannot be identified separately.

  Estimated number of neurosurgical operations in NHS hospitals in England

  Year

  Number

  1979

  5,310

  1980

  6,510

  1981

  6,330

  Source: Hospital In-Patient Enquiry 1979, 1980, 1981.

  The data refer to all skull and closed brain operations listed in the 3rd revision of the Classification of Surgical Operations (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys) 1975.

  EC Funding
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support she expects to receive from EC institutions, including finance, under the proposed article 129 of the treaty of Rome, in respect of public health, including finance; whether private or national health service trust hospitals in the United Kingdom will be eligible; and what benefits over existing arrangements she has assessed as, accruing from paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of article 129, respectively.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We expect the benefits to be greater co-operation between member states and between the community and competent international organisations in the sphere of public health.

  Budget lines already exist for particular programme areas within public health, but it is too early to predict the extent to which any funding from the EC would flow into the United Kingdom as a result of this new article.

  Dentistry
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies her Department has conducted into the role of dentists in the detection and prevention of oral cancer, thyroid-related illness, gum disease and other health problems.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 22 January 1993]: The Department provides funding for studies relating to oral cancer. The Eastman dental hospital is currently in the second year of a three-year research programme examining the validity of screeing for oral cancers and pre-cancers. The United Kingdom working group on screening for oral cancers and pre-cancers, also based at the hospital, has been reviewing the literature and examining the feasibility of national screening. Its report is expected before Easter.

  Dentists are fully trained in the detection and treatment of gum diseases. They are also trained in the recognition of oral manifestations of systemic diseases and other health problems.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

Organophosphate Sheep Dip: Safety
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will fund a further research programme by the poisons unit of Guy's Hospital during the summer dipping period into the effects upon humans of organophosphates used in sheep dip.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, in October 1992 a report was published by the national poisons unit at Guy's Hospital on work funded by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate into the effects on human health of exposure to sheep dips. The report recommended that further work was necessary to enable an assessment of risk to be made. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate has agreed to fund that additional work, which is expected to be completed by the summer. It is premature at this stage to consider whether it will be necessary to carry out further studies.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that full Answer to my Question. Does he agree that there is still insufficient evidence about the long-term effects of organophosphate poisoning? Does he also agree that the Guy's Hospital poisons unit needs extra funding so that it can continue its work and follow-up existing patients and also cover a wider spectrum of people who dip sheep during the summer period? Few people were dipping sheep in the autumn because it was no longer compulsory at that stage.
Earl Howe: My Lords, there is no conclusive evidence to show that organophosphate sheep dips, if used in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions, are hazardous to human health. However, we are happy to look at any proposal to extend the research programme. If the national poisons unit wishes to make such a proposal, it should contact the Veterinary Medicines Directorate.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if there is no evidence concerning the dangers to human health, can the Minister explain to the House why, as I understand, a number of products have been withdrawn on the ostensible grounds that testing was too expensive? Within the industry there is a strong belief that withdrawal was because of the danger to human health. If the Minister agrees that the work of the poisons unit at Guy's into such poisoning is so valuable, will he protect the future funding of its work rather than merely the current funding?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is misinformed about the withdrawal of the products. As I understand it, all of the products which have been withdrawn contained phenols, and the companies concerned concluded that the cost of generating the data they were asked to provide was uneconomic. That was an economic decision. The companies therefore decided either to withdraw the products or to remove the phenols from the formulation.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is it not the case that if the Government take note of the Tomlinson Report, the poisons unit at Guy's Hospital, which is a national unit serving the whole country, might be under threat of closure?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health is currently considering Sir Bernard Tomlinson's report and will make an announcement about all the institutions involved in the near future.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the study includes spraying, which also appears to be a hazardous procedure for some people?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the national poisons unit study is based on follow-up work on individual case histories. The noble Viscount may be interested to know that two projects specific to sheep dips are under way. One is an occupational health assessment of dipping practices undertaken by the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh. That will finish by 30th June this year. The other is an investigation into the possible chronic effects on farmers of occupational exposure to organophosphorous dips. That will finish on 30th September next year.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if Guy's Hospital were to be closed, what would happen to the national poisons unit?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I said, that is a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if, as the Minister said, the products were withdrawn because of the cost of testing, is there any connection with the fact that there is now some evidence to show that the reaction of the product on rubber protective clothing is dangerous?
Earl Howe: My Lords, there is evidence to suggest that when phenols are in contact with natural rubber, they penetrate the rubber. It is therefore recommended that artificial rubber is used instead of the natural product.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, in order to satisfy Members of this House, will the Minister ask what the exact cost of the investigations would have been?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not have the precise cost in front of me. I shall write to the noble Lord.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Earl explain why the Government have taken so long to start to investigate the long-term toxic effects of

1131
organophosphates? In his report on Toxic Chemicals in Agriculture in 1951—that is 40 years ago—the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, stated:
"The chief danger lies in the chronic effects which result from frequent exposure to these chemicals".
Earl Howe: My Lords, anxiety has been expressed most especially in recent years. The Government are doing everything possible to ensure that those anxieties are addressed.

Iraq: Action against Missiles
2.45 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
What words in what resolution of the UN Security Council authorised the United Kingdom to bomb ground to air missiles in southern Iraq on the night of 11th January.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, action was taken against Iraqi ground missiles in southern Iraq on 13th and 18th January to ensure the safety of coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. It was fully justified in international law.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Answer that the Government have given previously in both Houses. However, my Question was specific. It was to ask the Government whether they could quote the words in the UN resolution which they believed justified that action. Being justified in international law is one thing; being justified by a UN resolution is another —and the Government have claimed that.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I regret that I believe the noble Lord to be mistaken. The Security Council determined in its statements of 8th and 11th January that Iraq was in material breach of Resolution 687 and its related resolutions. It warned Iraq that serious consequences would ensue from continued failure to comply with its obligations. Resolution 687 lays down the terms of the formal ceasefire between the coalition states and Iraq at the end of the hostilities mandated by the Security Council in Resolution 678. Those terms are binding in themselves. However, they have also been specifically accepted by Iraq as a condition for the formal ceasefire to come into effect.
In the light of Iraq's continued breaches of Resolution 687, and thus of the ceasefire terms, and of the reported warnings given by the Security Council and members of the coalition, their forces were entitled to take necessary and proportionate action in order to ensure that Iraq complies with those terms.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some on this side of the House fully support any action against Saddam Hussein? While he is in power, there will never be any hope of unification. Will somebody please do something about it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for the sensible
1132
support which he so often gives. I share many of his sentiments. However, we must work this issue out with extreme care.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was glad to hear the Minister state that we should work matters out with extreme care. Does she agree that any further coalition action should have the complete backing and authority of the United Nations Security Council? Will she tell the House when the Security Council will next discuss the situation in Iraq?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can tell the noble Baroness that we certainly act with complete backing. The actions of 13th January, 17th January, 18th January and the recent skirmishes on 21st, 22nd and 24th January were all justified either following Iraqi breaches of Resolution 687 or in self-defence. I can assure the noble Baroness that should further action be necessary, then the Security Council, if necessary, will meet again. It tends to discuss these issues each day for a short while. I cannot give her its specific timetable.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many people believe it was unfortunate that Saddam Hussein was not dealt with when the opportunity was ripe? Is she further aware that the description of actions by the allied forces, or the coalition forces, is leading people to believe that those actions are not on behalf of the United Nations but of the United States? Can we have different descriptions of the forces used? Can we go back to the United Nations and have a proper and clear mandate?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, each time we sit together in the Security Council to review what is going on, we come to the same conclusion. We are not relying on old decisions. As I said to the noble Baroness, there are repeated discussions. I do not believe that the noble Lord is right. There has been a clear statement each time Iraq has been in breach of its obligations under Resolution 687. It was that resolution that established the ceasefire and provided the conditions essential to the restoration of peace and security in the region in a number of ways. There has been the refusal by Iraq to allow the special commission inspectors and the observation mission to use their own aircraft to fly to and from, and within, Iraq. There has been the failure to provide declarations of the weapons of mass destruction, the concealment of the capabilities, and so on. I can list to your Lordships' House reason after reason as to why all the actions have been justified.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is necessary to have the support of Arab and other nations in this matter if the Western group is not to be seen to be apart from the others? Is it not the case that this matter does not go from the Security Council back to the General Assembly because it is widely believed that the General Assembly would not now give its support?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I regret to say it, but I think that the noble Lord is wrong. Most Arab states understand the reasons for action,

1133
whatever they say in public. Frankly, the military actions carried out by the United States, the United Kingdom and France could not have been carried out without close collaboration from states in the region.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may I invite the noble Baroness to note that my Question was not addressed to whether the action was well judged but whether it was endorsed by a Security Council resolution? May I ask the noble Baroness and all Members of the House in a quiet moment to compare the wording which the noble Baroness read out—and which is impressive—with the wording used in the United Nations resolution, inviting all members of the United Nations to drive Iraq out of Kuwait in the first place? Is it not the case that that was, if not a mandatory, at any rate an expressly permissive resolution to take warlike action? Such wording is missing from the resolution cited just now by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, briefly, not only did Resolution 687, passed on 3rd April 1991, set out the formal ceasefire and demands for Iraqi compliance on a range of issues; it also referred to the monitoring and destruction of weapons of mass destruction and the demarcation of the border. That is quite explicit.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware and will she agree that the exchanges that have taken place this afternoon in your Lordships' House on all sides emphasise the necessity for the United Kingdom to retain its membership of the Security Council? That membership should not be placed under the competence of the Commission of the European Communities.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, knows that I wholeheartedly agree with him.

Licensed Trade: Competition
2.52 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the state of the licensed trade following the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, it is far too soon to make a considered assessment of the impact of the beer orders on competition in the beer market. The main requirement of the orders—namely, that the national brewers should free pubs from ties—has only just come fully into force. The overriding need now is for a period of stability in which brewers can get on with running their businesses and licensees their pubs.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. While it may be early days, may I ask whether she is able to give the House
1134
an assurance that this upheaval has led to more competition and greater freedom of choice to consumers?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to reassure the noble Lord that although it is indeed too soon to assess the full effects of the order on competition in the beer market, that market has already become more competitive in certain significant respects. There has been a marked reduction in the proportion of beers sold through brewers' tied estates, the enforced divestment of pubs has led to the emergence of independent pub chains and the wholesale price of beer has fallen.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that after the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and since its recommendations on beer supplies have been carried out, there has been a state of turbulence in the industry? Is she aware that many licensees have suffered under new contracts and public house closures and there seems to be no established procedure for appeal? Alongside that, is the noble Baroness aware that there are constant complaints from consumers of short measures and high prices on wines and beers? Is there not now a case for an ombudsman in the trade?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I shall try to cover all the noble Lord's questions. I agree wholeheartedly with him that there has been turbulence. That is why we believe that there is a need for stability, for people to focus on their businesses. We understand from the tenants' organisations that rents being sought by the brewers have been more modest in the past 12 months. As a result of pressure put on the brewers by the Government, arbitration is available if it is not possible to reach agreement on the rent. I also remind the noble Lord that, of course, the Director General of Fair Trading can examine such matters.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, is it not regrettable that it appears that since the Monopolies and Mergers Commission intervened, umpteen pubs, particularly in the rural areas, have either closed or are up for sale? The price of beer has increased from about 90 pence in the rural areas to £1.50 or £1.80 a pint. That does not seem to be a satisfactory situation.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it has been difficult in recent years to look at the closures of public houses in small communities and see whether they were due to the recession or the effect of the beer orders. Certainly the availability of more public houses to independent brewers has brought a difference.
On the price of beer, the wholesale price has been reduced. Retail prices are a matter for market competition. If we were to relocate the House of Lords to the north of England, prices would be better.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that despite her answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mason, tens of thousands of licensees and their wives have lost their living in the past three years because of the appalling increase in rates and charges levied on

1135
them by the brewers, after greater profits? What can be done to give redress to these people? Tens of thousands of tenants and their wives have lost their living due to the action of the brewers and no one else.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I must query the noble Lord's figures. I have no figures at the moment but I understand the arguments which he puts. I point out that the Government have brought considerable pressure to bear on the brewers to bring in the arbitration system which I understand is already working well with one large company.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the initial impact of the implementation of the report has not been a happy experience for those anywhere in the trade—the wholesalers, retailers and perhaps, above all, the customers who at retail level have suffered substantially increased prices?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there has been much change in the area. However, there has also been change to the benefit of customers with greater choice in some cases and also investment in the industry.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that if their Lordships were relocated to the north of England, so long as I am chairman of the Refreshment Committee, prices would certainly not decrease?
Reverting to the Question on the Order Paper, does the noble Baroness remember that all this derives from a Monopolies Commission report, accepted by the Government, which said that the brewing industry engaged in cartel activity and anti-competitive practices? Does she recall that it was her noble friend Lord Young of Graffham who, with not a lot of support from his own noble friends but strong support from me, introduced the orders so as to achieve a change? There was then a commitment to a review in 1993 of what was happening. Can the noble Baroness tell your Lordships what has happened that now causes the Government not to have the review? It seemed to me at the time that there was a definite commitment to a review to see whether competition had improved, in the hope that the consumer would be better served. Why is that not happening? What has changed?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his commitment to market forces. Concerning the commitment to a review, the Director General of Fair Trading will keep the beer orders under review, to ensure that the national brewers comply fully with the requirements. He will also continue to monitor the market generally and will investigate any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour by the brewers.
However, we have decided that a full review of the effects of the orders could not be justified, given the need, which noble Lords on both sides of the House have identified, for a period of stability.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while we congratulate her upon the
1136
skill of her answers, this is a theory from the Monopolies Commission which in practice has not come off? Something ought to be done about it, like looking at it again.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am afraid I must disagree with my noble friend. As I said in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, there has been evidence that competition is beginning to work in this market.

Legal Aid: Eligibility
3 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider the proposed reductions in eligibility for legal aid in the light of the widespread concern expressed by the legal profession and caring agencies.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, legal aid expenditure is expected to reach £1.1 billion in the current financial year, an increase of 130 per cent. over the past four years. Steps must be taken to contain that growth. I carefully considered the options which are available before arriving at the package of eligibility changes which I have announced. I believe that this package represents the most certain means of achieving the necessary control while at the same time protecting the position of the poorest in society. Even with these measures, legal aid expenditure will continue to rise by about 10 per cent. per year, reaching £1,528 million in 1995–96.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that response. Does he accept that examples such as that of the single parent with two children and an income of £8,000 a year who will have to make a contribution of £468 if his proposals are accepted have led to concern that access to justice will be denied to many in our society? Does he also accept that in criticising what they have described as "a lack of strategic vision" in the proposals, the legal profession and consumer and advice agencies are concerned that they will not be cost-effective? For instance, the green form scheme, which many regard as a useful preventive measure enabling disputes to be resolved more quickly, will be available only to those on income support—those with the very lowest incomes. Does he further accept that there will be a strain on agencies such as the citizens advice bureaux which are concerned for their own clients and for their own operations?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that in looking at particular examples, as the noble Baroness has sought to do, one has to take account of the allowances which are available to be set against income. One cannot determine the matter simply by looking at a household's gross income.
I am anxious to develop other ways of providing legal services, and the Legal Aid Board is in consultation with the law centre movement in the

1137
hope that we may in future be able to develop a better way of handling the type of advice which is presently covered by the green form.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that most people feel that the rapid increase in the cost of legal aid requires to be checked, and they therefore very much commend his proposals?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The rise, as I said, is very considerable, and I believe that rise has to be restrained. There is no question, as I made clear in my opening Answer, of cutting the amount of legal aid. The figures to be expended in the years to come are still rising. But I believe that it is right, having regard to all the commitments that the taxpayer has these days, to restrain the growth.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that he has received from the Law Society a set of constructive proposals for the way forward and for economies in his own field? Can he confirm that he has received that report, and has he sent a reply to the Law Society?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I confirm that I have received certain proposals from the Law Society and that I have sent a response to the president of the Law Society. I have carried out some examination of these proposals and I believe it is fair to say that they are not very new. They are proposals that I have seen in one shape or form over quite a long time. However, we are still considering them. I received a letter from the president of the Law Society shortly before I came to the House in which he asked to come and see me to consider the proposals further once more detailed costings of them have been carried out. I shall arrange to see him as soon as convenient thereafter.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that we are very pleased to hear that he is talking to the Law Society about the law centres? But will he remember that a lot of litigation never reaches litigation stage through the help of the citizens advice bureaux and other legal centres? All those voluntary bodies, given a little help, would expand and would deal with the question in a much more constructive way than by just reducing the opportunity to complain. I hope that the noble Lord will introduce changes and assistance to all those voluntary bodies, not after a long time but as part of his present work.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am the first to acknowledge the great help given by a number of voluntary bodies. The citizens advice bureaux have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and I heartily endorse what he says about the value of the help that they give. So far as legal advice and assistance are concerned, that is rather a specialist area. What I am seeking to do at the moment is to develop between the Legal Aid Board and the law centres means of handling these matters
1138
which not only give the clients who require advice a good deal but which at the same time give the taxpayer a reasonable deal.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, bearing in mind that the noble and learned Lord has courteously agreed to receive a deputation from the legal profession in a couple of days' time, and that there is an Unstarred Question in the name of my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg for next Wednesday, would he keep his outstanding legal mind open in the meantime?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am looking forward to receiving a deputation from the legal profession, including the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in the immediate future. I am not sure that I necessarily share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in distinguishing between the legal profession and the caring agencies as she did in her Questions. But I shall certainly keep my mind open to any suggestions, as indeed I have done for a long time. My mind has been very open to realistic ways proposed by the legal profession for helping to restrain the rise in costs. The noble Lord will appreciate from the figures I have given that so far the suggestions that my mind has received have not been particularly effective in that direction.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that it is strongly arguable that he has chosen quite the worse way of making savings in the legal aid budget? Eligibility cuts, combined with contributions from those who are near to the income support level, are well calculated to take almost 40 per cent. of households out of legal aid altogether. Will he look with very great care at the alternative savings package proposed by the Law Society and the Bar Council, and meanwhile postpone his cuts?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I intend to lay the necessary regulations in order to give proper time for them to be considered before they come into effect. In the meantime I am happy to consider carefully any proposals that are made. I certainly accept that these proposals should be looked at. But I have already indicated that, so far as I can judge, none of the proposals in the package to which the noble Lord referred is particularly new. I am therefore doubtful whether they by themselves will achieve the necessary restraint.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have now reached not only the 30th but the 31st minute of Questions. I suggest that this is an appropriate moment to move on to the Statement.

Nimmo Smith-Friel Report
3.10 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement about an allegation of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in Scotland.
In September of last year I asked Mr. William Nimmo Smith, QC and Mr. James Friel, Regional Procurator Fiscal of North Strathclyde, to inquire

1139
into certain allegations suggesting that there had been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in Scotland. The report of their inquiry has today been published as a return to an Address of another place.
The inquiry was set up following the leaking to the press of an internal police report about allegations that decisions in relation to five criminal cases had been taken for improper reasons; namely, to prevent disclosure of information said to identify certain individuals in the legal profession as homosexuals. The allegations relating to the decisions were therefore allegations of possible criminal conduct. Mr. Friel and Mr. Nimmo Smith were asked to report to me. When I received their report, it was my duty to consider whether there was any basis for criminal proceedings.
I have now studied their full and detailed report. It concludes that the decisions in each of the five cases were taken on a proper basis. In particular, it finds that there is no evidence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, or that the course of justice has been perverted or that the alleged motive for such a conspiracy has ever existed. On the basis of the report I have decided that no criminal proceedings fall to be instructed. Further, the report makes it clear that there is no evidence of irregularity in the conduct of business in the Crown Office or procurator fiscal service.
On a wider front, in order to allay public anxiety, it was my intention when I established the inquiry that subject to any restriction necessary for the purposes of possible criminal proceedings, the report would be published in full. Since no question of criminal proceedings arises, the report has been published in full.
The allegations in the police report appear to have been more readily believed because of certain rumours which were circulating among police officers and others about members of the Scottish legal profession. Mr. Nimmo Smith and Mr. Friel have investigated these rumours and have concluded that they are without foundation. To appreciate the force of its conclusions, the report requires to be read as a whole. Those who wish to form a considered view on the matters covered by the report will therefore wish to study and reflect upon the whole text.
The report contains criticisms of certain officers in the Lothian and Borders police force. These are matters for the chief constable and not for me. There are, however, two matters emerging from the report which relate to the police and which I wish to address. The first is the failure of certain officers to understand the role of the independent prosecution authorities in Scotland. The second is that officers may misunderstand the decisions properly taken by those prosecution authorities in particular cases. I intend therefore to pursue with the chief constable what can be done, having regard to the principles which guide the relationship between the police and prosecution authorities in Scotland, to prevent such misunderstandings in future.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.14 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, the publication of the report is welcomed by this side of the House. Before I comment perhaps I may make one observation. This report was made on 15th December, 1992. I do not criticise the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, in any way, but I was handed a copy of the 101-page report only 20 minutes ago. That being so, it seems a negation of the democratic process that I am asked to stand up and comment on the Statement made by the noble and learned Lord. For that reason I cannot respond positively to the content of the report. I have no intention of trying to read it in 20 minutes. I could not do so.
Conclusions are contained in the final two pages of the report but I have always taken the view that it is dangerous to look at conclusions before one sees the basis for them. Your Lordships' House may wish to consider whether a change could be made in the rules of the House so that people who are asked to comment upon matters of such importance have a reasonable chance to consider the content of reports.
As far as I understand the position, the issues involved were initiated by the actions of certain police officers whose views of the prosecution system in Scotland were less than charitable. It is of course right that should police officers or anyone else form the view that justice has been perverted by any influence—homosexual, financial or otherwise—such allegations should be investigated thoroughly.
It would appear that the report arose out of an attempt by some police officers of the Lothian and Borders police to undermine the administration of justice in Scotland for reasons which were, to say the least, dubious. No police officer has been positively identified as the officer who leaked the initial report which sparked off the inquiry, despite the intense police investigation. It therefore follows that some police officer has breached the rules of his service by leaking a confidential police document, yet he remains in service at some level.
Certain changes have been made within the structure of the police force within the Lothian and Borders region and it is not for me to draw conclusions as to why certain officers are not still in the position that they held when the report was leaked to a member of the press. Whoever was responsible for the leaking of the confidential report, which would have been consigned to the bucket by any responsible prosecutor, has not had the courage to come forward and say: "Yes, it was me. I did it in the public interest." Had the officer had a genuine concern for the administration of justice in Scotland then he or she would have come forward and justified what was done.
The lesson to be learned from this unfortunate event—perhaps the one good thing arising from the situation—is that the police must realise that their function is one of investigation and reporting to the authorities. No officer, however well intentioned, should purport to represent the social conscience of

1141
Scotland. It is not their function to spread rumours which inevitably undermine public confidence of the administration of justice in Scotland.
Decision-making in the criminal law, as the noble and learned Lord observed, is the function of the Lord Advocate and his officers. That office has a proud and well justified tradition of independence in making such decisions. Should a police officer have a complaint or a doubt in regard to the administration of justice in any inquiry in which he or she is involved, then that should be communicated to a superior officer. It may be that the officer cannot trust his superior, in which case he should go directly to the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate. If he does not trust the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate—I cast no aspersions on the present holder of the office—he should go to his Member of Parliament and raise the matter in the public domain. He should not go to other sources.
It is no part of the duty of a serving police officer to go into the gutter of rumour-mongering, as has happened in Scotland, and undermine the system of justice. The administration of justice in Scotland has for some time operated under a cloud of suspicion and of "Nudge-nudge, wink-wink; who was the homosexual judge? Who was the homosexual sheriff?" and so forth. That has done no one any good. The officers responsible for sparking off the inquiry should take a close look at themselves in the mirror in the morning and ask why they did it in the first place. It is to be hoped that the findings of the inquiry—subject to my reading the whole report having only read the conclusions —will lay to rest the "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" approach to justice in Scotland.
It would be wrong to conclude without paying tribute to the authors of the report—Mr. James Friel, the Senior Procurator Fiscal, and Mr. Nimmo Smith, Queen's Counsel, for the investigation which they carried out and reported upon. I must be honest—I have already spoken about this to my noble and learned friend—and say that I would not have chosen Mr. Nimmo Smith to lead the inquiry or adopted the same form of inquiry. But it must be said and should be widely recognised that Mr. Nimmo Smith in his approach to this inquiry was open to anyone who wanted to know what it was about. He and Mr. Friel conducted the inquiry with great zeal and dedication. Unfortunately, Mr. Nimmo Smith paid a penalty healthwise, having been conned by a person purporting to represent a well-known national newspaper. He had an interview with him in his house, and certain newspapers then sought to destroy not only Mr. Nimmo Smith but the basis of his report. If you can show me the man or woman who has not been conned in one realm of life I will show you either a liar or a very fortunate person.
It is right that the House should say to Mr. Nimmo Smith that it hopes that his health will improve and that he makes a full recovery from the unfortunate incident that he underwent. It was unfortunate that no shorthand notes were taken at that very important inquiry. I will look at the report closely. As I said, I refuse to make any detailed comment but I thank the
1142
noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for keeping me informed and giving me a briefing yesterday.
In conclusion, I hope that the Scottish legal system can now get on with the administration of justice clear of any suspicion at whatever level of corruption or any other influence.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, we should all like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his Statement today. I believe that the Statement will reassure all reasonable people. The noble and learned Lord said that the report required to be read as a whole, and all of us look forward to having the opportunity of so doing. Nevertheless, we are reassured that the conspiracy theory, which has received an immense amount of attention in the Scottish media and elsewhere, appears to have absolutely no substance. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that we very much hope that the chief constable will now look at the general questions raised in the report with a view to taking disciplinary action against any officer who is found to have behaved unprofessionally?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, let me say straight away that I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, about the work done on this report in a comparatively short time by Mr. Friel and Mr. Nimmo Smith. It was difficult work which they carried out with great acumen over the months they were engaged upon it. I am sure that we all wish to join in his congratulations to them on that matter. I am happy to say that according to my understanding Mr. Nimmo Smith's illness was very brief and he is now fully restored to health.
I am sure that your Lordships had some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said about the short amount of time he had in which to study the report. It did not lie in my hands to assist him further. The requirements of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 were such that it was not possible to let him have a copy earlier than was actually done.
As to the leaking of the report, that was looked into by the chief constable in an entirely separate inquiry. As I understand it, he was not able to determine who had leaked the report. That and indeed all matters relating to the discipline of the force are for the chief constable. I am sure that he has had these matters in mind.
Perhaps the most important matter that emerges is the relationship between the prosecution and the police in Scotland. We have a very old system of separate public prosecution. It is very important that the police bear in mind the principle that decisions on prosecution are matters for the independent judgment of the prosecution system rather than the police. As I indicated in the Statement, that is a matter I wish to pursue with the chief constable to make sure that these principles are well understood by members of his force.
With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, I join with him in saying that it is reassuring to find that there was no substance in the

1143
conspiracy theory as to what had happened in these cases. I believe that when noble Lords have an opportunity to read the report they will see from the detailed way in which it is examined that there is no ground for suspicion on that count. As to the question of disciplining the officers involved, I simply say that that is a matter for the chief constable, which I am sure he has had very much in mind.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend realise that the report by Mr. Nimmo Smith and Mr. Friel will be warmly welcomed not only by the legal profession but by the law-abiding population of Scotland? I wonder whether I can tempt him into agreeing with me that the press ought to review the kind of coverage they have given to this issue over the past many months. At least to my outside view, they appear to have been giving uncritical coverage to innuendo and rumour which have turned out to be totally without foundation. Lastly, I wonder whether he would further agree with me that it is very worrying that the police, who ought to know better, seem to have lost sight of the independence of the procurator fiscal service and the Crown Office in Scotland. Perhaps the police themselves ought to be asked to sit down and watch the well-known television series "Sutherland's Law" of some years ago which clearly indicates the important and independent role of the procurator fiscal service.
Lord Roger of Earlsferry: My Lords, referring to the first point raised by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I think it is true to say that as a result of the report many people may have to learn that there is a difference between fact or justified inference and matters of conclusion which are reached simply on the basis of rumour and speculation. I believe that that is a matter which will have to be reflected upon in all quarters, including the press. As for the independence of the prosecution service, I have already stressed that that is a fundamental part of the system. It is a part which we consider to lie at the heart of the system of criminal law in Scotland, and it is one that it is absolutely essential that the police as well as the prosecution understand.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, far be it from me to introduce a note of discord into the views that have been expressed with regard to the report. I have been in correspondence with the Lord Advocate about the matter since September. From beginning to end I never had any doubt that the more bizarre suggestions in the press were entirely without substance, but I and many others in the Press and the media felt that the committee that was set up did not have the clout which the circumstances required. There was widespread feeling among the public that something was badly wrong. I expressed the view to the Lord Advocate that the committee should have had more clout. Suggestions from the other place were that it should be a judicial inquiry. He replied to my first letter with indignation—which intrigued me—saying that Mr.
1144
Nimmo Smith was a man who possessed all of the qualities required for the inquiry. That was a view which I and many others did not hold at all. However, after further correspondence, the incident to which the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has referred took place. Mr. Nimmo Smith was tricked into an interview before the report was published.
I wish that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could have sent me a copy in view of our lengthy correspondence. Mr. Nimmo Smith allowed himself to be tricked into an interview with someone purporting to be a reporter from, of all papers, the Daily Telegraph. In fact he was one who had been involved in some of the misdeeds that had been complained about. That made me think that my original view that the report would not adequately allay suspicions was correct. I am not suggesting that there were miscarriages of justice. My complaint was that the Lord Advocate's department did not get on to it at an earlier stage.
I shall read the report with interest. I am sorry that Mr. Nimmo Smith has been stricken by illness in consequence of this, but I do not think that people who are entrusted with such inquiries should be conned. I have been conned many a time. As a matter of fact, it was a great con that brought me into this House. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, on that point. I do not think that someone who, in the face of hostile criticism, has been appointed to conduct an inquiry like this should have let himself be tricked in that way. It must raise doubts about his judgment, and it was his judgment that was being put to the test.
That is all I want to say. If I had not said it I would have felt—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Wilson of Langside: Yes, but it is all very relevant to a matter which was causing great concern in Scotland and in the legal profession.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, am I right in understanding that a Statement is not meant to be the subject of a debate? A number of us who are based in Scotland are extremely interested in this subject but wish to read the report before we have a debate. I wonder whether right from the start many of the questions to the Lord Advocate have gone beyond just questions on the Statement. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord would agree with me that we have to avoid a debate at this point.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I sense that I have said enough.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, perhaps I may help the House over this matter because I think that my noble friend Lady Carnegy has a point. The Companion to the Standing Orders states:
"Ministerial statements are made for the information of the House, and although brief comments and questions for clarification from all quarters of the House are allowed, such statements should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate".

1145
I think that we might possibly be falling into the latter category.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I apologise to the House and to the Lord Advocate.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, with regard to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, said, first, I would point out that it was not a discourtesy which led me not to send him a copy of the report but the simple fact that for legal reasons it was absolutely impossible for me to supply a copy of the report to any person until shortly before the Statement was made this afternoon. It was for that reason, and no other, that he did not receive a copy of the report.
As for the comments which he has made about Mr. Nimmo Smith, as he said, he made some of them in correspondence to me during the autumn of last year. I believe that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If your Lordships wish to see whether Mr. Friel and Mr. Nimmo Smith were a team who were properly appointed to carry out an independent inquiry of clout, your Lordships will find the answer by reading the report.
As to the noble and learned Lord's other comments, particularly with regard to the incident of the bogus reporter, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has said all that needs to be said on that matter. If the judgment of Mr. Nimmo Smith is to be examined, again I would say that one finds the answer to that when one looks at the nature of the report.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not possible that this interesting and important Statement to which we have listened raises a question which is not confined to the law of Scotland? When matters of allegation of this kind are made, the inquiries set up should have the power to compel witnesses both to give evidence and to answer questions. If I am not mistaken, the inquiry which was set up—my point is not confined to Scotland in this respect—was not able to compel witnesses to give evidence or to ask them to answer questions under compulsion.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the point raised by my noble and learned friend is one which has been raised on other occasions. There is a general point of importance underlying it. When the inquiry was set up I was conscious of the very point which my noble and learned friend makes. It was for that reason that I indicated to those whom I had asked to conduct the inquiry that if they felt that their powers were not adequate and that they were not getting adequate co-operation they should come back to me. However, in the event, with the exception of two persons only, everyone agreed to be interviewed by the inquiry, and the members of the inquiry were themselves satisfied that they had obtained by the methods which they had all the evidence which they required from it.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, while it is impossible for us to comment on the report—no doubt the usual channels will look at the situation, some of us will read the report, and we may have a debate at a later stage
1146
—we have had the Statement. It is right that we should be able to make short comments and ask questions on the Statement. That is what I am trying to do.
The question was raised in the Statement about the independence and objectivity of the procurator fiscal's department. That was in connection with the views within the police force. If those views are held within the police force, we can presume that those views are also held by a significant number of members of the public who will see the police force as an authoritative body. I am not sure that it will be enough just to advise the police force of the independence of the procurator fiscal's office on the basis of this report. Will the Government take on board the idea of a more substantive look at the problem that appears to have manifested itself with a view to reassuring members of the community in Scotland and also in England about the independence of the procurator fiscal's office.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, it would be fair to say that the report indicates that among a certain number of officers in a particular police force in Scotland there was a less than satisfactory understanding of the position between the prosecution and the police force. I have no reason to think that that misunderstanding of the situation is widespread among other forces or among the populace in Scotland. But it is exactly to discover what is the best way forward that I intend to pursue the matter with the chief constable. I would simply add that to a good extent the relationship between the procurator fiscal service and the police is indeed governed by statute, in particular by the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. So Parliament has indeed put that on the statute book.

Business of the House: Debates, 27th January
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Viscount of Oxfuird set down for 27th January shall be limited to 3 hours and that in the name of the Lord Pearson of Rannoch set down for the same day to 2 hours.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill: Select Committee
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee to consider the Bill—

L. Addington,

V. Allenby of Megiddo,

L. Brabazon of Tara (Chairman),

L. Holderness,

L. Merlyn-Rees.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;

1147
That the Committee do meet on Wednesday 17th February next at ten O'clock in Committee Room 3.—(Viscount St. Davids.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill
3.39 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill be now read a second time.
Your Lordships will remember that a similar Bill came before your Lordships' House almost a year ago, but that it did not get beyond its Second Reading before the dissolution of the last Parliament. The Bill which is before your Lordships today reintroduces the main provisions of last year's Asylum Bill. It also contains new provisions to make the immigration appeals system more efficient.
The main aim of the Bill is to improve the efficiency and the speed of operation of the immigration system. It seeks to ensure that resources are used more effectively in deciding the questions which really matter.
In relation to asylum, the main aim of the Bill is to allow applications for asylum in the United Kingdom to be dealt with more speedily than they are at present but, nevertheless, still fairly. The Government remain committed to meeting their obligations under the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees.
Like many other countries in western Europe, we have in recent years seen a massive rise in the number of applications for asylum. But again, like most other countries in western Europe, we have found that most of the applicants are not genuine refugees. There has, therefore, been a marked fall in the proportion of applicants who prove, on examination, to have a "well-founded fear of persecution" within the terms of the 1951 convention.
It is clear, therefore, that many people are now using the asylum process simply as an attempt to circumvent the normal immigration controls. That is a misuse of the process, and it is one which the Government consider should be stopped. An important objective of the Bill is, therefore, to discourage the non-genuine applicant for asylum from trying his or her luck.
The main weakness of the present system is the long delays which leave the genuine applicant uncertain about the final outcome of his application for far too long. And it is the genuine applicant whom we all wish to help. At the same time, those delays give many applicants who are not genuine refugees the opportunity to stay on here for so long that it becomes virtually impracticable to remove them.
It would be quite unrealistic, of course, to try to exempt from the normal immigration controls any person who simply declares himself to be a refugee. By the nature of things, many people who are not refugees would simply just take advantage of such a loophole. The Government's aim is, therefore, to create a system which can speedily and fairly identify
1148
which applicants are genuinely in need of the country's protection, and then to help them. But at the same time, we must ensure that those who do not need our protection, or who simply set out to abuse the system, do not succeed in staying on here. I find it hard to believe that your Lordships would disagree with such a principle.
When I introduced the Asylum Bill to your Lordships last year, I said that asylum applications had increased tenfold, from about 4,000 in 1989 to nearly 45,000 in 1991. Those are figures for principal applicants. They exclude dependants.
I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that, in 1992, the number of new applicants fell from 45,000 to about 24,600. Although that figure is nearly half what it was the year before, it is still six times what it was three years ago. It certainly does not mean, as I believe some have suggested, that the Bill is now therefore no longer required.
We are not introducing this Bill because we have some predetermined figure for the number of refugees which we believe should be accepted in any one year. The enormous increase in recent years cannot, though, be explained by world events, and the fact is that the great majority of applicants prove, when their case is examined, not to be genuine refugees. The need for a speedy and effective determination system is, therefore, just as strong now as it ever was.
In order to achieve that situation, the recruitment and training of staff for the Asylum Division of the Home Office has continued throughout the last year. Since April 1991 (and that is less than two years ago) the number of staff in the division has risen from 120 to 530. I suggest that to recruit and train those numbers of staff represents a considerable achievement and it underlines our intention to see that the whole system functions better. And we are beginning to see the results.
The number of cases which were decided in 1992 was almost 35,000. Of those, just over 15,000 were refused simply because the applicants repeatedly failed to attend interviews or to provide information. That leaves 20,000. Of that remaining 20,000, only 1,000, which is just over 5 per cent., were found to be genuine refugees and were therefore granted asylum. But over 15,000 (that is, nearly 80 per cent. of that remaining 20,000) were granted exceptional leave to remain.
Some of that category—those who were granted exceptional leave to remain—were people who did not qualify as refugees under the United Nations Convention but who were, nevertheless, allowed to stay for genuine humanitarian or compassionate reasons. A great many more, though, had to be given exceptional leave to remain simply because by the time that their case was decided, it was far too late to try to return them to the countries from which they had come. So by any standards I do not think that we can be accused of being harsh. In fact, we have been enormously understanding and conciliatory.
Perhaps I may briefly describe the main provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 defines a claim for asylum in terms of a potential breach of the United Kingdom's obligations under the 1951 Convention on Refugees. Clause 2 ensures that the provisions of the convention

1149
will prevail over any potentially inconsistent provisions of the immigration rules. This means that the rules, which prescribe the procedures in more detail, will always be consistent with the conventions.
Clause 3 provides powers to fingerprint asylum seekers and their dependants. At present there is a problem in identifying asylum seekers, as many of them present themselves without the proper documentation. There is evidence which shows that people have been claiming asylum in a whole host of different names so that they can fraudulently obtain social security benefits.
When we debated the Asylum Bill last year, I mentioned to your Lordships that one person had made 34 applications for asylum, all in different names. One asylum applicant had even applied for social security benefit under 50 different names. He has, I am glad to say, been prosecuted. Abuses of the system like this are quite intolerable and must be stopped.
A comprehensive record of the fingerprints of those who are seeking asylum will enable the Home Office to be sure that an applicant has not made a previous application. It has been suggested by some, I know, that the reduction in the numbers of new applications since the adoption in November 1991 of a standard acknowledgment form bearing the applicant's photograph, and the fact that convictions for social security fraud have already been obtained, show that the fingerprinting power is not necessary.
That is a view with which I am afraid I cannot agree. The fact is that no-one knows the scale of multiple applications, and systematic fingerprinting is the only way in which multiple applicants can be reliably identified. There is no question, as some people have suggested, that this precaution will somehow criminalise asylum seekers. It will not do anything of the sort.
The system will be operated by the Immigration Department, and it will be entirely separate from police records. It will not operate because an individual asylum seeker is believed to have committed or is considered likely to commit an offence. It will be a routine part of the administrative process of handling an asylum claim. Every other country of the European Community, except Ireland, makes use of fingerprinting in their asylum systems. I suggest that it is right that we should.
Clauses 4 and 5, and the first schedule, contain provisions which would modify the duties of local authorities under the homelessness legislation in relation to asylum seekers' and their dependants. It makes no sense—and it is unfair to people on local authority housing waiting lists—if asylum seekers, whose claims have not yet been decided, were able to secure permanent accommodation in this country. The provisions in the Bill would allow local authorities to take into account the availability to the asylum seeker of other reasonable accommodation. They would also limit the duty on the local authority, so that, until the application is decided, the local authority would have to provide only temporary accommodation which is suitable for the asylum seekers' needs.
1150
Clause 6 prohibits the removal from the United Kingdom of a person who has an outstanding claim for asylum. This clause, which simply confirms our existing policy and practice, was added during the Report stage of this Bill in another place. It complements provisions which were already in the second schedule to the Bill and which prohibit the removal of a person who has a pending asylum appeal.
Clause 7 provides for the curtailment of an existing leave to remain in this country when an asylum application is refused. The curtailment power is not in fact new, since it exists under the 1971 Immigration Act and the current immigration rules. It is, though, a cumbersome and protracted way of requiring a person's departure, as it involves successive rights of appeal—first against the curtailment of the existing leave and then, if the person refuses to go voluntarily, against a decision to deport him.
We do not intend to curtail the leave of all unsuccessful asylum seekers as a matter of routine but, in many cases, the asylum application will have cast serious doubts on the entitlement of a person to continue to remain here in the capacity for which he was admitted—for example, a person who claims to be a tourist but who plainly has no intention of leaving at the end of his purported visit. In these cases, we need to be able to move quickly in order to require a person's departure, subject to a single right of appeal on which the merits of the asylum claim can be investigated.
Clause 8 and Schedule 2 provide for a right of appeal to a special adjudicator for all unsuccessful asylum applicants. Your Lordships may remember that, in last year's Asylum Bill, there was a requirement to obtain leave from a special adjudicator before an asylum appeal could proceed to a hearing. We have changed this, having taken full account of your Lordships' observations on the previous Bill, and the present Bill dispenses with the need to obtain leave before an appeal proceeds. All asylum applicants will now, under this Bill, have a right to an oral hearing.
There is, though, still a need for a filter in order to prevent applicants, who have quite obviously unfounded claims, from "working the system" in order to delay their departure. Such a filter is now provided for in Schedule 2, by means of a special, quick system for claims which are certified by the Secretary of State to be without foundation.
Clause 9 provides a right in asylum cases to appeal, by leave, to the Court of Appeal, on a point of law about a determination of the tribunal.
Clauses 10 and 11 are new provisions which were not in the previous Bill. They remove the right to appeal under the 1971 Immigration Act against certain immigration decisions. Clause 10 removes the right of appeal against the refusal of entry clearance, or against the refusal of leave to enter, as a visitor, as a short-term student, or as a prospective student. Clause 11 removes the right of appeal against decisions which are taken on the ground that certain specified mandatory requirements of the immigration rules have not been met—in other words, where the law has not been adhered to.

1151
These proposals have understandably aroused a degree of controversy in another place, but the Government remain of the view that these changes are necessary in order to provide a fair and speedy solution to all those applicants who are seeking to challenge decisions which have a fundamental impact on their future lives. I really do not believe that these people should have their cases delayed because the system has been clogged up by a whole host of cases which are for visits of a duration of less than six months. Decisions on these short-term cases, however important personally they may be, are simply not in the same category as a decision on whether or not to let someone stay permanently in this country.
Clause 12 amends the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 and puts on a statutory basis the existing administrative arrangements for requiring passengers who pass in transit through a United Kingdom airport to be in possession of visas.
The provisions in this Bill reaffirm the Government's commitment both to protect the genuine refugees and to maintain a firm and fair immigration control to deter and to deal with those who are unscrupulous. We have no intention of sending refugees who enjoy the protection of the 1951 Convention back to countries in which they would have a well-founded fear of persecution. We need, therefore, to prevent the abuser from "working the system". We need, in short, to have a system of considering applications which is both fast and fair, and which also commands respect and confidence. That is the system which the Bill seeks to create. I hope that it does so, and that it has your Lordships' approval. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Earl Ferrers.)
3.56 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for the very clear way in which he introduced the provisions of the Bill. I note that he managed to do it in six minutes less than he took last year on the previous Bill although the present Bill is slightly longer. However, he presented the Bill rather as if this was the end of a process of legislation lasting a number of years—as though this were some kind of tidying-up measure and that, when this legislation has been passed, there will be no need for further reforms. I fear that he is wrong.
I fear that in the 1990s we are entering a period in which, throughout the world, the issues of migration, especially between third-world countries and first-world countries, and, sadly, the issue of those who are in fear of their lives, in fear of torture and in fear of severe discrimination in their own countries, will not go away. I fear that this is an issue which will become of increasing importance in our political life not only in this country and not only in Europe, but throughout the world.
We can already see how this issue is affecting our fellow members of the European Community. Germany has an immigration problem which is very much greater than ours. It has, for example, a border
1152
with Poland—the Oder-Neisse border, which is as open as the Rio Grande is between the United States and Mexico. The effect of that has been, to the horror of decent German people, that there has been an upsurge of racist violence within Germany—racist violence against Romanian gypsies, against many people who are not ethnic Germans and even against those ethnic Germans who are guaranteed a right of return by the German constitution.
Britain is a country which can deal with a very large number of the problems faced by our European partners by denying access to determination to would-be entrants to this country. And that, of course, is what we do. The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill is dealing only with the tip of the iceberg of those who would like to enter this country. Those people never reach the determination procedure. They never reach the appeals procedure. They never reach any of the procedures (however good or bad they may be) which are described in the Bill because they cannot get here in the first place. As soon as there appears to be a situation that might result in people wishing to flee to this country as refugees, we immediately slap on visa requirements for them. We have slapped on visa requirements in relation to Yugoslavia in particular and have made sure that visas are available only in cities which the applicants most in need cannot reach. Therefore, we are dealing with only a small part of a world-wide problem. I should not like it to be thought that consideration of the Bill by Members on these Benches will be conducted in ignorance of the nature of the world-wide problem that we face.
Neither should I like it to be thought that Members on these Benches can see a possibility of the unrestricted entry of economic refugees into this country, into any European country or into any first-world country. The problems created by the different levels of standards of living and of poverty in third-world countries will not be dealt with by border controls. They must be dealt with by concerted efforts as discussed at the Rio de Janeiro Conference last year. Concerted efforts must be made to deal with poverty where it arises rather than shutting it off, putting it into a large ghetto and dealing with it by immigration controls. That is not to say that the problems with which the Bill is concerned are not real. They are the problems of those who achieve entry into our ports and airports and claim to be what the Bill calls "asylum seekers" but who we ought honestly to call "refugees" because that is what they are recognised to be. We shall have many disagreements about the provisions of the Bill but I wished first to put the matter into context and to indicate the seriousness with which we view it.
As the Minister has said, the Bill deals with the definition of asylum and uses the 1951 convention. We welcome the fact that that convention is declared to be superior to any provision of legislation in this country. Unfortunately, when we look at the draft immigration rules published by the Home Office it appears that that is not the case. We shall propose an amendment to insert into the Bill as a new schedule the draft immigration rules which were previously published on 22nd October last year. We propose to put them onto

1153
the face of the Bill in order to deal in detail with the rules, which are the subject of a great deal of disquiet in this country.
Those draft rules are not on the face of the Bill but amendments will be debated in Committee. I hope therefore that the House will allow me to comment briefly on them. Rule 2 deals with removals to and from third safe countries. Rule 11 provides that the Secretary of State does not need to consult those third countries in order to be satisfied that they are safe countries. That is an extraordinary provision. It implies that the Secretary of State will have the opportunity to return people to a third country but no ability to satisfy himself that it is a third safe country. For geographical reasons the concept of a third safe country is of importance to us.
Rule 7 provides that it shall be a presumption against asylum that false representations have been made and that there has been disposal of documents. In other words any of the actions which a refugee escaping probably illegally from a country would have to take will be a presumption against granting asylum. I suggest that that is directly in contravention of Article 31 of the 1951 convention. It is certainly in defiance of the common sense of anyone who can conceive the conditions under which people must sometime make representations to escape from discrimination, torture, imprisonment or, even worse, for political reasons.
Rule 6 refers to the necessity for a prompt application to be made. Let us imagine the conditions under which some people reach this country having effected an escape from their own country and the difficulty which they might have in making a prompt and full disclosure of their circumstances. By far the most tempting thing will be to describe immediately how they arrived. They might not think it relevant to describe the long periods of imprisonment or the discrimination which they and their families previously suffered. Rule 7 refers to the necessity to make that application forthwith, which is another way of saying the same thing.
In general, Rules 6 to 10 refer to the decision-making criteria which will be used in determining the application. The significance is that they are directly against the good practice set out in the handbook issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. At page 2, paragraph 4, his position statement declares that:
"any selection of factors which should be given special consideration when assessing a claim will necessarily be arbitrary".
If, in addition, the selection is made with the declared aim of providing the Home Office with a list of reasons to refuse applications the impression conveyed is one of bias against asylum-seekers. Our case against those draft rules is that they have the impaired declared aim of providing the Home Office with a list of reasons for refusing applications and they are, therefore, biased against asylum-seekers. We shall be seeking to correct that position.
I shall spend only a short time on fingerprinting and the issue of unaccompanied minors entering this country. I know that many of my noble friends are better informed than I and that noble Lords
1154
throughout the House will wish to deal with that. The use of fingerprinting in anything other than criminal cases is an innovation in this country and that is a little extraordinary. The Minister has told us that there is no way of knowing how many multiple applications there are. In Committee in the other place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary stated that he knew of only 27 prosecutions for multiple application. Under those circumstances, and bearing in mind the fall-off of applications after the introduction of the standard acknowledgment letter, it is difficult to see the case that is being made for the serious new extension of fingerprinting, in particular of children who will be well aware of the suffering that their families have undergone and the powers of an uncontrolled autocracy in their own countries.
I am sorry to say that Clauses 4 and 5 which deal with housing are equally objectionable. The principle that we have always had in our housing policy, and to which local authorities have rightly been required to adhere, is that housing should be allocated in accordance with need rather than status. They are now being told that the status of an applicant for housing is more important than need. "Need" has been perfectly well defined; it is priority need or vulnerability. The local authorities are being required to satisfy themselves of the status of such applicants. Local authorities are not members of the Home Office and they do not know the rules for defining status. Their job is to deal with housing need and it is a distortion of that job to turn the problem over to them.
The problem is of course local because only 1 per cent. of applications for housing on the grounds of homelessness come from refugees. The burden is unevenly spread and occurs in only a few local authorities. It so happens that it occurs in my local authority of Haringey. That appeared to be the first place to which people went from Kurdistan in 1989, from Eritrea in 1990, from Somalia in 1991 and 1992 and from who knows where in 1993. That should be dealt with positively by special grants to those authorities which are in difficulty and by a policy of using national resources to relieve the burden rather than by a distortion of housing policies which are well established and well justified.
I pause briefly to welcome Clause 6 and then turn to the issue of curtailment of leave to enter or remain in this country. The curtailment of leave to enter or remain imposes a kind of catch-22 situation. If somebody who is here for another reason applies early for asylum, then he or she is likely to find, if leave is refused, that their legitimate accepted reason for staying no longer exists and their visit is curtailed. If they apply late, they will be caught under the draft immigration rules which say that an application must be made forthwith.
The lack of an appeal is the most serious element. Judicial review is no substitute for that. On Second Reading last year the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, warned about the dangers of relying on judicial review as an alternative to proper appeals procedures. He used the phrase "forensic myopia" about it. Judicial review not only costs more but it is

1155
increasing. It is in danger of taking over from the proper formulation of primary legislation. I am not reassured by what the Minister said about curtailment not being done as a matter of routine.
In Clause 8 there are improvements as regards dealing with the right of appeal. Certainly it is right that Clause 6 should have been introduced. It is right that there should be oral hearings. Of course it is right that there should be a speed up of the time in which appeals are considered. We welcome the target of 28 days for the consideration of appeals.
As regards Clauses 8 and 9, which deal with the rules of procedure, many of the matters which are objectionable about the Bill are not to be found on the face of the Bill. Therefore, we shall take the rules of procedure, which have been published by the Lord Chancellor's department, and we shall move an amendment to insert them into the Bill as a schedule so that they can be criticised in detail and can be subject to amendment when the Bill is considered in Committee. That is the only way in which we can deal directly with the most objectionable of the rules of procedure; namely, the fast-track, two-day system.
Clause 10 refers to visitors and short-term students. It is here that we begin to be concerned with wider issues. We are concerned almost entirely with ethnic minorities because those are the people whom it affects. There may be a funeral, a wedding or some occasion when the visitor may need or wish to come from Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, the Caribbean or wherever it may be, to visit a person who is legitimately in this country. According to Clause 10, such visitors can be turned away by an immigration officer at the frontier with no right of appeal.
It is not just an issue of whether or not appeals are successful. The experience of the Immigrants Advisory Service shows that 40 per cent. of appeals against refusal to visit and 30 per cent. of appeals against the right to enter as a student are successful. Therefore, the appeals procedure is clearly doing something. However, immigration officers will surely behave differently if they know that there is to be no appeal against their decisions. If they know that there is a right of appeal, they must behave with more circumspection and care. It is not satisfactory to say that there will be detailed refusal notice and that there can be a second application.
Clause 10 and Clause 11, which is related to it, as the CAB evidence has clearly shown, eat into the heart of the family and community life of a large number of the people of this country—those not of white, UK origin. Those clauses are deeply objectionable to us and we shall try to take out the whole of Clause 10 as well as seeking to amend it.
I shall not spend time on carriers' liability, but clearly this is a particularly objectionable attempt by the Government not to have a determination process which is fair but to deny as many people as possible access to that determination process. That is the Government's aim.
This piece of legislation has far wider implications than the length of the Bill and the acknowledged welcome clarity of its language suggest. We are
1156
dealing with a definition of refugees which is 40 years old and which is, frankly, inadequate at present. We are dealing with issues which are being treated negatively by border control procedures rather than positively: first, by taking international action to remove the causes of migration between countries; and secondly, by providing internally for a positive settlement policy for those who are allowed into this country.
Had we been in government, we should have been looking to those positive aspects of international migration rather than to this footling, unnecessary and rather damaging piece of legislation which is before us now.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for the very clear exposition which he gave of the Bill. I do not propose to go through it clause by clause, which has already been done twice, but I shall touch on certain aspects of the Bill which seem to me to be objectionable.
I express some surprise at the noble Earl's description of the Government's attitude as being "enormously understanding". That is an extraordinary description of certain elements of the Bill to which I shall refer later.
I share the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and in particular his reference to the rules and the need to look at them very carefully, as they seem to me to be, on the whole, thoroughly undesirable. I agree also with the noble Lord when he says that this Bill tries to tackle a problem which is real, worldwide and will not go away. At present it is estimated that there are 18 million refugees in the world, mainly from what is called the third world and mainly settled in other third world countries. As the noble Earl told us, we had 44,000 applications last year, dropping to 22,000 or 24,000 this year. One cannot draw any firm conclusions from those variations but it is clearly the case that the numbers of refugees have greatly increased.
It is equally the case that we are living in an age of migration of which refugees are a part. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he says that this Bill is part of a wider picture and cannot be considered in isolation from the huge migratory movements which are taking place today. In the 1990s migration will remain very high on the agenda. Potential migration from Maghreb in the southern Mediterranean is put potentially at 1.25 million per annum. Potential migration from the ex-Soviet Union countries and from central and eastern European is even more difficult to estimate, depending as it does on political and economic factors. It is substantial already, and could become huge.
I conclude from this—and it seems self-evident—that no single country can meet this problem acting on its own. A European response at least is required, probably a world-wide response to a world-wide problem, whereby some kind of agreed quotas are allocated to those countries able to receive asylum seekers. I do not see much sign of any such response

1157
in the Bill or in the Government's response to the free movement of labour enjoined by the Treaty of Rome, reinforced by the single market. I see all too many signs of a somewhat insular approach based on the proposition that we in this country are different, that our borders are defined by the white cliffs of Dover, and that being fixed in that way we can continue to rely on border checks to an extent which no continental country does.
As the Economist pointed out in an article last August, that is becoming an increasingly anachronistic view of the situation. Most people who come to this country come by air. Very few, relatively speaking, come by ship, and when the Channel Tunnel is open that view will become even more anachronistic.
Although Ministers will no doubt resist furiously any denial or qualification of our special position, I doubt whether they will be able to maintain it in the long run, both because the free movement of labour is intrinsic to the single market and because if we have benefits within the Community we must also share burdens. Also, I suspect that in due course the European Court will not uphold the position which we have maintained.
In my view it is not good enough to insist that refugees should settle in the country nearest to them, resulting in Germany receiving in 1991 256,000 asylum seekers as against the United Kingdom and France with 47,000 each. The consequences of that situation were described very accurately by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as outbreaks of wholly undesirable manifestations of racism. We must aim to provide, for those who are genuine refugees, havens which satisfy their needs and wishes as far as possible, and we must share the burden equitably within the Community as a whole.
I should like to support and draw your Lordships' attention to a proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, which he would have made had he been here—unfortunately he is not—which seems to me constructive and sensible. In a letter which I think others of your Lordships will have received, he suggested that we should remember the Evian Conference called by President Roosevelt in 1938. In the event it was not very successful, but that does not mean that the idea was not one which we might consider. He called it under the aegis of the Refugee Committee of the League of Nations, and in it the United States undertook to take in 27,000 to 30,000 refugees per annum, which was about a quarter of the number of projected emigrants at that time, provided that other powers followed suit according to their population and capacity. It was estimated that this would have meant that 100,000 people a year would have come out of Europe at that time. Regrettably, very few powers responded to that idea, and in the event millions of people died in the holocaust.
I do not see why this country should not call an international conference, a new Evian, to deal with this international problem under the auspices of the Community or the United Nations or both. It is far preferable that this should be done openly, and that we should try to allocate rationally and answer the needs humanely of the large numbers of people whom
1158
we know exist, than that there should be hole-incorner confabulations of the Ad Hoc Group, as it is called, which meets every six months, the discussions of which are secret and outside parliamentary scrutiny. It has nothing to do with the Commission, and is one of those examples of that concept of political co-operation which is so beloved of our present Government. Political co-operation of this sort ends in a compromise, in a bargain, and nearly always in the lowest common denominator. We have seen political co-operation at work throughout the Yugoslav crisis, and we have seen how badly it works.
In my view, what is wrong with the Bill is the attitude that underlies it, expressed by the noble Earl when he emphasised almost throughout his speech the need to deal with those who set out to abuse the system. It seems that those who drafted the Bill would prefer to keep someone out who ought to be allowed in rather than let someone in who perhaps ought to be kept out. Rather than allow someone to manipulate their system, they are prepared to consign others, it seems, to imprisonment, to the possibility of torture and of death. That is what makes the whole Bill so thoroughly negative and unpleasant in its content and in the impression which it gives to anyone who examines it.
The people who drafted the Bill seem to think that people become refugees for fun or profit. That is a very unlikely idea. By far the greatest number of people who become refugees, who leave hearth and home, their family and their culture, moving to a country the language of which they probably cannot speak, the customs of which they do not know, do not do that for fun. They do it from despair, from fear of persecution. That is the main motive driving people to become refugees and to seek asylum.
I find it depressing to see this country forget its own traditions in this matter, and forget that from 1823 to the end of the 19th century we did not refuse the entry of a single refugee; nor did we expel a single refugee. I know that conditions have changed since then, but that does not mean that we should forget the spirit of generosity which that tradition embodies. The spirit of generosity is singularly absent in the terms of this Bill.
In that respect I should like to point to the way in which the Bill treats children. Can one really say that the terms of this Bill in the treatment of children are, in the words of the noble Earl, enormously understanding? The fact of the matter is that children are not treated as such at all. The United Kingdom law does not distinguish between adults and children seeking asylum. Children are expected to negotiate the asylum procedures as though they are adults. It seems self-evident that special provision should be made for dealing with children, as is recommended by the Select Committee which has just reported on migration, and as has been recommended by almost all the bodies concerned with children and the reception of children under the Bill.
That is particularly relevant to unaccompanied children. The fact that there are very few unaccompanied children—only 128 in 1992—does not invalidate the argument. One has only to think of the predicament of the unaccompanied child, who,

1159
probably in a terrified and traumatised condition, has been thrust onto an aeroplane by terrified parents. It has probably never been on an aeroplane before and does not speak the language of the people on the aeroplane. It is dumped from the aeroplane at the other end and is met by no one who has any idea of its background, circumstances or needs. It seems to me that the Children's Legal Centre which, backed by Save the Children, has proposed a system of special advocates to look after children who arrive in that position, has made a case which cannot be denied.
The needs of refugee children coincide with the needs of large numbers of other vulnerable people which are not met or even addressed in the Bill. Nothing demonstrates that more clearly than the rules. That point was illustrated clearly in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I do not need to dwell on it.
I was interested by the noble Earl's discussion of multiple and concurrent applications. How many multiple applications have been made by children? What is wrong with concurrent applications? It seems perfectly sensible to make concurrent applications. If I were a refugee and wanted to settle somewhere I would try at least two countries in case one of them turned me down. I do not see anything wicked about that. However, it is referred to as though it were a dishonest and sinful procedure. I should like to be told why it is not just common sense.
The rules relating to children show a total lack of understanding. How can a child be expected to apply for asylum forthwith on arrival? Is it possible or likely that a child from Somalia who lands at Heathrow will immediately say in perfect English that he wants to give a full account of why he wants to settle here? That is beyond comprehension. The rules as they stand need totally redrafting and I hope that that will be done.
It is no good saying that fingerprinting does not criminalise. In this country at present the only people who are fingerprinted are criminals. Therefore, to say that it is not a sign of being a criminal is contrary to common sense. To fingerprint children would be a monstrous act.
The application of carrier liability, to which the noble Earl referred, to children is also shocking. Some children have not been allowed to land here and have been sent back by the airline because of carrier liability. Do the Government think that that is enormously understanding?
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, dealt with the subject of housing very fully and I need not repeat what he said.
While we welcome the automatic right to appeal, which is indeed a great step forward, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, we greatly regret Clause 10 under which short-term visitors and students who are refused asylum can be deported and have no right of appeal. That is a matter which must be contested, particularly in the light of the number of appeals in the last year which have been successful, which has also been mentioned.
I conclude by saying that I thought that the Bill
1160
which we considered last summer was a thoroughly bad Bill and I think that the Bill which we have this winter is also a bad Bill. I hope that it will emerge from your Lordships' House improved. There is certainly room for improvement. Its blemishes derive from a fundamental lack of generosity, a lack of imagination and a basic hostility to the idea of the refugee. Yet it is a truism that this country has been largely populated by waves of immigrants. I ask your Lordships to consider your Lordships' House. How many distinguished Members of your Lordships' House arrived here as refugees? How many as immigrants? How many are the children of refugees or the children of immigrants? In some ways this House is a living demonstration of the benefits of accepting and welcoming refugees and immigrants. It is proof of a law which I have invented and which I am afraid is true: all immigration in the past is good and all immigration in the present is seen to be bad.
4.35 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for introducing this Bill with his customary blend of courtesy and robust argument.
Those of us fortunate enough to live in a stable and relatively prosperous society have little understanding of what it means to live in a society which is unstable and violent, where power is exercised arbitrarily, brutally and viciously and where the normal expectations of settled home and livelihood are absent. We find it difficult to imagine the apprehension, fear and trauma induced by such experiences. Perhaps the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia has to some extent sharpened our sympathies and deepened our compassion. Many of us knew that country, only as visitors or tourists, and now reflect that the neighbourhoods that we knew as settled, welcoming places have become battlegrounds. The situation is replicated in country after country. We have been set free from major world confrontation between East and West only to find that a multitude of lesser hostilities besets our world. Each one brings its share of suffering, misery and destruction.
I hope that I shall be forgiven for telling a short story which has nothing to mark it except perhaps its ordinariness. It is the account of a journey by bus to the city of Jaffna in the North of Sri Lanka. It was written by a young woman doctor who was going to visit her parents. She described the frequent military checkpoints. She was particularly aware of an elderly man and his grandson who were the object of suspicion from the military. Finally, the grandson was separated at one checkpoint and the military threatened to take him into detention. All Tamil young people in Sri Lanka are suspected of belonging to an anti-government group. The old man fell to his knees, wept and pleaded, and finally his grandson was restored to him. The doctor commented on the extreme range of emotions which the grandfather endured, a range of emotions commonplace in Sri Lanka and many other countries. Other stories of

1161
course have a different outcome. In a country like Sri Lanka disappearances and deaths are frequent. Behind each story is a suffering family.
It is no surprise therefore that in such circumstances the number of asylum seekers is high. The noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Bonham-Carter, spoke of migration. A substantial part of that migration is due to the unstable nature of many countries. I find it curious that those who deny that seem unable to relate what I find to be a very high correlation between numbers of people seeking asylum from a country and the state of unrest in that country. As a statistician it seems to me quite clear that that correlation is high.
Each unstable country has its own statistics. In Sri Lanka it is estimated that over 1 million people are refugees in a population of some 15 million. Mostly, they remain in their own country. Those who flee to another country do so mostly to a neighbouring one. The vast majority of Asian refugees are still in Asia.
It is in that setting of a world in which internal strife is increasingly rampant that we face the situation of those who seek asylum in a more distant country. The moral basis of our response to them is compassion for those of our fellow humans whose suffering we can help to alleviate. Those who have a well-founded fear of persecution in their own lands need a refuge. It is the responsibility of those who are privileged to live in stable societies to offer that refuge, which is embodied in the United Nations convention.
In a world where such strife is increasing, the need for asylum is also likely to increase. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. As he said, no single country can be expected to cope with the response on its own. Should there not be agreed action and a coherent policy which enables countries not only to agree internationally how they will handle the issue but which also enables any single country to have within its own structures ways of handling those who seek refuge and asylum? Would that not be better than the piecemeal response both internationally and within our own country which at present seems to be the rule?
It is my belief (and others have echoed it) that the liberal attitude and policies of a former generation which gave this country a fine reputation are now steadily being eroded. I speak first of attitudes. There is much use of the term "bogus asylum seeker" with the implication that the majority of those who arrive here have no genuine case. We know of course that they can arrive here only with great difficulty. Yet when they arrive they are greeted by an inhospitable climate, a climate clouded by the implication that they are frauds. I accept that some of them will be frauds. However, there is a great difference between presuming that such asylum seekers are genuine until proven not so, and presuming that they are bogus until they have established a claim. That difference in attitude is bound to affect the way in which immigration officials and others carry out their work. It seems to us that the presumption that they are a fraud until proven not so, lies at the heart of the
1162
present immigration rules. I hope that we shall be able to debate those rules in Committee in your Lordships' House.
I now turn to the Bill. I wish to refer to only one or two points within the Bill. It is intended to speed up the system by which the status of an asylum seeker is determined. As such it is a Bill which in principle should be welcomed. If it achieves that aim, I welcome it. There is a backlog of about 47,000 undetermined cases. Each year thousands of further cases are added —about 24,000 in 1992. Will the provisions reduce that number, as the Government hope? I suggest—it may be somewhat naively in your Lordships' House—that possibly the most effective way to reduce that backlog is to give an amnesty to all those whose cases are being considered. I have heard that suggestion made by those who work in the field; perhaps it is not so naive as it seems. Some of them suggest that that is the only realistic way of getting rid of the great backlog. It would then enable us to deal more expeditiously with the cases of those entering the country at present.
With reference to the notion that many who come to this country are frauds, I put a question to the Minister on his comments that the majority of those whose cases are determined are found not to be genuine asylum seekers. It is indeed the case that only a small proportion of those are given asylum status. A much larger proportion are given exceptional leave to remain. Did the Minister base his statement on the figures given? Is it not the case that many in the category given exceptional leave to remain are very close to the borderline, if not within the status of those who ought properly to receive asylum?
I instance one example: those from China who, at the time of the Tiananmen disaster were all given exceptional leave to remain although it is possible that among them there were a number who should have been granted asylum. Among those given exceptional leave to remain, are there a large number whose cases are more genuine than is being suggested?
I welcome the granting of appeal rights in the revised Bill. I continue to believe that the chief requirement of the legislation should be not rapidity but justice. If any of the provisions of the Bill increase in any way the likelihood of an asylum seeker being returned to a situation about which he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution, such provisions should be altered.
Other noble Lords will speak on a variety of worries. I wish to address only one or two. I refer first to the 48-hour time limit. A number of persons to whom I have spoken who work in this field seriously question whether the time limit is workable. Indeed, they believe that it will not be. I understand that the clock will not begin to tick until the moment at which a document is given into the hands of an asylum seeker. Nevertheless such a person surely needs access to legal advice. If legal advice is not provided with thoroughness and care, are there not likely to be more appeals made frivolously? Will not the system work more expeditiously if proper time is allowed for access

1163
to legal advice? Has the appellate authority been invited to give a view on the workability of the 48-hour regulation? If so, what was its view?
Other noble Lords will speak, as has the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, about the clauses for unaccompanied child asylum seekers. As has been pointed out, our legislation does not at present distinguish between adults and children seeking asylum. Although small in number, those children represent a vulnerable group. The Children Act 1989 gave special consideration to the needs of children. The United Nations convention on the rights of the child stated that in all matters affecting a child the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration. Given the fact that children arriving in this country are an exceptionally fragile and vulnerable group, should not provision be made especially for them under the legislation? Should there not be the provision of a child-advocate, as was suggested in another place? Such an advocate would be responsible both for the child's welfare during the determination of the asylum case and also in relation to statutory services. The provision of such an advocate would be a substantial step forward.
Fingerprinting is surely an unnecessary provision. I make that comment from two angles. First, it is well known that in some countries children and young people are fingerprinted, interrogated and perhaps tortured. Inevitably for them fingerprinting will be associated with that kind of activity. The children arrive in this country believing that they are reaching a safe haven. The first thing that happens is that they are fingerprinted. Surely the trauma associated with that is considerable. It is easy for us to say that there is no difficulty in fingerprinting, and to point out that it happens in other countries in Europe. But we are not in the situation of those children. For them it is a difficult and possibly traumatising event with which they have to cope. I question whether it is necessary.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, talked about the statutory acknowledgment letter. Perhaps he will explain in greater detail why that letter is not effective in preventing multiple applications. A photograph is required. Such evidence as is available indicates that the letter is achieving its aim. Surely it is unwise to introduce legislation which will arouse feeling both in this country and among asylum seekers and which is also unnecessary.
The clause requiring a visa for transit passengers produces considerable difficulties for children. It will make it extremely unlikely that they will be able to reach this country. It is often difficult for many refugees to obtain the documents they need; but especially difficult for children. They are effectively being prevented from exercising their right under the Geneva Convention to seek asylum.
That brings me back to the thesis with which I began: far from being a defended fortress, keeping at bay all those who seek asylum from unstable areas, we should acknowledge and accept our responsibility.
I have other anxieties to which I know other noble Lords will speak. I finish by saying that we shall be concerned in Committee to address those anxieties
1164
and bring forward amendments which will make the Bill a more compassionate piece of legislation, as well as a fair one. In doing so, we seek to sustain the reputation of this country as a place where human dignity is maintained and human rights are secure.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that I am typical of most people in this country when I say that when I examine the question of asylum and immigration I am torn in two directions. One direction very much follows that which the right reverend Prelate has just been discussing: we, with our civilised values, ought to give succour to those people who suffer from political persecution, wherever it is in the world. As the three previous speakers indicated, we have a long tradition of that and most people in this country would wish that tradition to be maintained.
On the other hand, we are aware—especially in the modern world with communications being so easy, with people seemingly able to move from one continent to another with great rapidity via aircraft and the like—that many people would quite happily move to this country simply to get away from the misery of their own country. That misery may be brought about by the political system, but usually it arises because the political system brings economic chaos in its wake. It is from that economic chaos—whether it be direct or the indirect economic chaos which we see in some parts of Africa with famine and disaster—that they wish to escape. We understand that, but I believe that most of us feel that as a small country with a large population in a small island we are quite unable to run the kind of open-door policy to which our sympathy might well tempt us. We simply cannot do it and we must have some controls. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, admitted as much in his speech. However, I did not notice that admission in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and I was not surprised at it.
When granting political asylum we must try to distinguish between those people who, if they stayed in their country of origin, would be persecuted for their political views and others who would not. I believe that we should treat the former sympathetically and speedily. However, those people who want to come here as economic migrants are, I am afraid, quite a different kettle of fish. If we had plenty of room and a vibrant and growing economy, then perhaps we might be able to be much more sympathetic. But I believe that we have neither of those advantages.
When, day after day in your Lordships' House, I hear the parties opposite complain of unemployment and housing problems, I find it difficult to square that with the desire to be fairly uncritical when it comes to allowing people into the country for reasons other than those which I mentioned of persecution and political asylum. I therefore believe that the Bill will be welcomed by most people in the country if it attempts to draw a clear and fair line between those two kinds of people who wish to join us in this island.
On the question of asylum, there is absolutely no doubt, as my noble friend said, that the figures have greatly increased in the past few years. I am interested

1165
that between 1991 and 1992, as he indicated, there was a fall in applicants for asylum. I wonder whether that had something to do with the existence of the Bill which fell at the general election.
What worries me more than that fall and the reason it should have come about is that many people, when investigated, are found to be fraudulent in the claim they make for asylum. I found it interesting that the two speakers from the parties opposite did not argue with the figures that my noble friend put forward. If I remember them, he said that of 35,000 people considered, only 1,000 were found to be genuine. I had thought that we had reached a stage where only about 10 per cent. were found to be genuine, a decrease in about five years from 60 per cent. which appeared to he genuine.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I may intervene, the noble Lord appears to be saying—and I hope I am misinterpreting him—that those people who do not achieve asylum under the rules must be making a fraudulent application. Surely that is not the case. There are those who apply genuinely and are not granted asylum, but that does not mean that the applications are fraudulent.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I should not have used the word "fraudulent" but the applicants certainly did not obey the rules for being genuine seekers after political asylum. Otherwise we should have let them in.
What my noble friend said—and perhaps it answered one of the points mentioned by the right reverend Prelate—is that most of the other 34,000 were allowed to stay under exceptional leave or simply because so much time had elapsed. If I wanted to enter this country and realised that the system was so clogged up that if I applied and sat in the waiting room long enough, the British Government would allow me in under exceptional leave, then I should be tempted to do that, if the country from which I came was a pretty miserable one. However, that is not fair on those people who wish to come here and genuinely seek asylum because of persecution.
What concerns me is that if too many people try to use the asylum procedure to enter the country when they are not genuine, it will damage those people whom we wish to allow in as quickly and expeditiously as possible because they are fleeing from political persecution. I do not believe that anyone can argue with the need laid out in the Bill for the speediest possible resolution of the cases of those people who apply for political asylum and their right to come and live here to escape the persecution which they suffered in their own country.
The same has to be said as regards immigration. The speediest possible way to resolve the applications must be provided for in the legislation. In my capacity in the other place I had little experience of immigration partly, I suppose, because not many people thought that the West Highlands of Scotland —especially in a January such as we have had—was exactly the place where they wished to settle.
1166
Interestingly enough, when I had cases and had to apply to Ministers, I found them extremely sympathetic, understanding and careful.
One could never extrapolate from the couple of cases which came to me, but I point out that one of them was genuine and the Home Office quickly agreed that in the exceptional circumstances the person should stay. In the other case—the only one in my history to date—I ended by receiving an apology from a lawyer because he had been hoodwinked, as I had. We were assured by an Indian restaurant owner in Oban that the individual was absolutely essential; for the whole edifice to continue, it required him to cook for them. He had come to the country specifically to do so and was being held at Heathrow, etc. I wrote to the Minister and, after a fairly short time, he replied. He said that it was funny because the gentleman at Heathrow had never mentioned that he wished to go to Oban, in fact he wanted to go to a restaurant in London. The Minister had also received a letter from that restaurant along similar lines. The lawyer sent me a profuse apology that he had misled me and I sent a similar apology to the Minister.
Thus I am afraid that with 50 per cent. of people being genuine and well treated by the Home Office and 50 per cent. not genuine at all, that is perhaps not a good start from which to extrapolate. But I fear that it may be a reasonable picture of the total.
Therefore, I believe that we must be fair both to the people of our own country and to those who over the years have come from abroad to our country. We must ensure that everyone realises that we have firm and fair immigration rules. If we do not ensure that, then I believe that our own racial harmony within the country will be damaged. Certainly, when we look at other countries with freer immigration policies, we realise that that is something we do not want.
I very much welcome the Bill. If it manages to speed up dealing with applicants both as political refugees and for immigration, then it will have served a useful purpose. My noble friend says that there is nothing in the Bill and nothing in the Government's intentions to prevent those people who are genuinely being persecuted in their country of origin from seeking the asylum which they and many people over hundreds of years have found in this country. I am sure that that ought to be more than enough for noble Lords to support the Government and vote for the Bill to receive a Second Reading this evening.
5 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, some of the finest speeches have been delivered in Parliament over the last century on the subject of this country and its tradition in admitting refugees. Most of the finest speeches have been brief. I cannot try to imitate the first category, but I can try to imitate the second.
Noble Lords have already heard criticisms and praise of the Bill in a detailed fashion. I would especially like to commend those who have delivered merciful speeches this afternoon and speeches in the great tradition of this country.
Following the point of the last speaker, I think one ought to try to get this matter into some sort of

1167
perspective. The perspective that I try to adopt, knowing your Lordships' good hearts, is: how would you feel if you were leading a refugee family? I do so because of the use of adjectives such as "fraudulent", "wicked" or "wrong" in regard to people who have come here knowing of the hospitality of our shores and fearful of the conditions in the country from which they have come. Many of them have to be turned away. They do not come within our definition of refugees. But is this House or any Member of it going to regard as criminals those who seek a place on God's earth—it is all God's earth—merely because they have come to better themselves and the conditions of their families?
They are not criminals. They are not wicked people. That is the way I would act had I not had the great benefit and blessing of being born a British subject. Had I been in Somaliland, or in many of the countries ravaged by hatred, war, bestiality and torture, I would try to get my family away. Were I merely in an impoverished country and could see no chance of my children having a proper education, even of getting proper food, would I not try to lead them to a kindlier shore? So, may we get that situation into perspective? When we have it in perspective, perhaps we may look at some of the remarks that were made, for example, by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
Indeed, I had to cross out from my memory some of the things I had intended to say because he has said them so well. When will the Government Front Bench come forward with a proposition to the effect that, although we have to bring in a Bill which of necessity must discipline the entry for asylum into this country of refugees, we intend to lead a campaign? This is a rather wicked world. There are all too many people who will have the designation of refugee. We intend to lead a plan for Europe. We are going to make it fair. We are going to see that each country takes the quota that is possible. We will see that regulations are fair. We are going to adopt them, if we can, nation by nation, internationally. If we cannot do it, as I said, on a world scene, perhaps we can do it on a European scene. Surely that is an excellent reason for the EC. It is perhaps far better than some of those that have been given of late.
We hear that it is a blessing that in the Maastricht Treaty each country is able to make its own policy for immigration and refugees. I do not regard that as a blessing for Europe. I would have thought it was quite the opposite. I would have thought that hands would go out from one country to the other, offering to combine all this, so that none takes an unfair share but all take a fair share.
I look at the detail of the Bill. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is right. There has to be a limitation. The gates may be open but they cannot be stretched so open that it becomes an absolute evil. It can become an evil if gates are stretched too wide. I acknowledge that, and so do my friends. Nothing that my noble friend Lord McIntosh said contradicts that —in fact, he said it quite expressly. But when we have limitations, ought we not to imagine for a moment that we are subject to those regulations?
1168
I listened to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, as I and all Members of this House do, with the greatest possible respect. I say it openly of him, that there is not a better hearted man in this House. But when he talks, for example, in terms of taking fingerprints and says that every other country in Europe has done it so why should not we not do it, I am ashamed of those countries. I am proud of my country that does not.
Are we to take people who have come here in misery, wanting our help, and say to them—we do not say it to anyone else at all except those who are charged with a criminal offence —"We want your fingerprints taken"? What reason is given? There could be duplication of applicants and presumably we must have somebody examining thousands of fingerprints to see if they happen to be duplicated.
When Members of another place were faced with the fact of children under 16 having their fingerprints taken, the Government were moved. They were hugely moved. They put in an amendment to the effect that that the child had to be accompanied by an adult. What mercy was shown!
There is then the question of housing somebody who is in this country. Normally, as your Lordships know, it is the duty of the local authority to house the homeless. What do we do in our good-heartedness and sagacity? Do we say to the local authority that if they have found temporary accommodation—in other words, if a church institution, or any body, has housed them for a little while, or some family has taken them in—it has no obligation at all to house them? No assistance to local authorities is spoken of by the Government; nor any idea for settlement and education of the refugee children. We just say: do not house them; you do not have to.
I know that we have to pass a Bill of this kind. It is inevitable. According to our tradition we will pass the Second Reading of this Bill. But when it comes to the other stages, can we keep to our tradition?
5.10 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, following the advice to be brief of my noble friend Lord Mishcon, I shall confine myself to commenting on Clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill. I do so in the belief that they raise issues of principle.
As your Lordships will know and as can be seen from the Bill, Clauses 10 and 11 contain restrictions on existing rights of appeal. What the Bill does not bring out is how limited are even the existing rights of appeal. They are contained in Section 13 of the 1971 Act. Section 13(1) provides the basic right, namely, that,
"a person who is refused leave to enter the United Kingdom under this Act may appeal to an adjudicator against the decision that he requires leave or against the refusal".
Subsection (2) provides somewhat similarly for certificates of entitlement or entry clearance which, as your Lordships will know, is a procedure which can be gone through abroad, in effect giving one a personal visa to assist one's entry into this country.
One reaches the snag in subsection (3). After dealing with people who have a right of abode in this country—that is not the category being dealt with in the Bill—subsection (3) states,

1169
"and a person shall not be entitled to appeal against a refusal of leave to enter so long as he is in the United Kingdom, unless he was refused leave at a port of entry and at a time when he held a current entry clearance or was a person named in a current work permit".
In other words, unless he has some form of official approval before he arrives here, he cannot appeal without first leaving the country. That has been brought to the attention of the courts on more than one occasion. As judges we were unable to say that it was wrong. We must respect the law as laid down whatever we may think of it. But many learned judges said that it works extreme hardship, and indeed it does.
The Government now propose to cut down even that right of appeal. As I understand it from the speech of the noble Earl, they do so in the interests of efficiency. I am bound to say that that reason had not occurred to me. It has a certain brilliance based upon its sheer simplicity. Some noble Lords may be aware that for 10 years I was Master of the Rolls and striving in every way to make the Court of Appeal civil division more efficient. It never occurred to me that one of the simplest and best ways would be to abolish certain categories of appeal or, if possible, all categories of appeal. But that is what is proposed in this instance.
Therefore I look at Clause 10. I am told by the noble Earl that it does not matter greatly because it is all concerned with applicants who merely want to spend a short time in this country. What is wrong with the draconian limited right of appeal which exists at present? For those people and indeed for others, it says, "You cannot appeal unless you go away." What is wrong with that? I cannot imagine that many people were able to make use of that right of appeal if they were coming for a short visit which, in the circumstances of their case, probably had to occur at a specific time or not at all.
However, Clause 11 is the really vicious clause—I use the word advisedly. It is not limited to short-term applicants. It provides that to Section 13 (the primary right of appeal section) we are to add subsection (3B), which states:
"A person shall not be entitled to appeal against a refusal of an entry clearance if the refusal is on the ground that",
and there follow three grounds.
At the end of the clause appear the words:
"a person shall not be entitled to appeal against a refusal of leave to enter if the refusal is on any of those grounds".
Let us look at the words. Subsection (3B) says,
"if the refusal is on the ground that".
Those of us who have dealt with immigration cases know that the proposed immigrant is given a piece of paper on which there is a blank to be filled in by the immigration officer. I imagine that there is an equivalent one for entry clearance certificates. It says, "I have refused leave to enter on the grounds that". There then appears a colon, a dash and a blank where he inserts in manuscript whatever is the reason.
Is the Minister seriously saying that if the immigration officer fills in that blank saying that the applicant or his dependant does not hold a relevant document required by the immigration rules, then that is an end of the matter? Is he seriously saying that if the applicant or a person whose dependant he is has
1170
not satisfied me of some requirement of the immigration rules, or as to his age, nationality or citizenship, then that is an end of the matter? There is either a naivety or an arrogance in the attitude of the Home Office that its immigration officers must inevitably be right. Yet if they are not right, what is to happen?
I hope that the answer, if the applicant is properly advised, is that he should immediately apply to the High Court for judicial review on the ground that Parliament never intended to take away an existing right of appeal on the footing that it had gone whether the decision-maker was right or wrong. That was explored in this House in its judicial capacity in a case called Kwaja. It was laid down that in cases where a jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction depends on what is described as a precedent fact, the courts will entertain a challenge to the existence or non-existence of that precedent fact and the burden of proof will be on the Home Office to prove or disprove it.
If the Bill should go through in this form and if, as I hope, disappointed applicants, who are not only disappointed but who know that they were right and that the immigration officer was wrong, are properly advised, the courts will have added to their already far too long judicial review lists an additional number of immigration appeals or applications. If the choice is between allowing injustices and errors by immigration officers—they are not infallible—to go unremedied or seeing the courts become clogged up, then the courts must follow their traditional role of accepting an undue burden in the interests of justice.
I hope that the noble Earl and the Government will think again about a clause which, as phrased, must remind every judge and lawyer of the great battles fought some years ago in the case of Anisnimic.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, a situation has arisen which the Bill seeks to address and which any responsible government were bound to have to do something about sooner or later. The number of those seeking asylum in this country, as in other European Community countries, has risen vastly in recent years, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers explained. At the same time the proportion of those found eligible and whose applications are found to be genuine under the 1951 Geneva criteria has steadily dropped until it now represents only 10 per cent. or less of all applications. That was a point made by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
Why should increasing numbers of those who are ineligible nevertheless apply for asylum? Surely it is because cumbrous appeal procedures allow temporary rights of stay with a good chance that a temporary stay, or in many cases a further temporary stay, may produce the right to a permanent one on other grounds. To such an extent had this developed that the Secretary of State was able to tell another place that up to 60 per cent. of those whose applications for asylum were rejected under the Geneva criteria were nonetheless ultimately admitted into the United Kingdom on other grounds—for example, because they had acquired British husbands or wives. My

1171
noble friend Lord Ferrers gave similar figures this afternoon. What at first looks like a 10 per cent. success rate among those applying for asylum is more like a 70 or 80 per cent. success rate but largely on grounds that have nothing to do with those originally purported. It is no wonder that the numbers have continued to swell, as my noble friend, Lord Mackay, suggested. Our asylum law and in particular its appeals procedures have been used as a means of bypassing our immigration law. As my noble friend said, it has been misused; it has been clogging up the system for those truly entitled to asylum, who may have to wait years for the decision to be allowed to settle. And it has been imposing an increasing administrative burden on this country.
I firmly believe that to allow such a disparity to persist between what the law is intended for and what in practice is permitted to take place is dangerous. In this country we have been fortunate to enjoy broad public support for our immigration policy. What happens when the public cease to have confidence in a country's immigration laws has recently been demonstrated all too clearly in France and Germany. I have no doubt that there is a direct link between the difficulty that Germany has in acting to stem the flood of asylum seekers and the re-emergence of manifestations of fascism in that country. The public in all countries expect governments to act to protect their way of life and standards of life from assault from outside in whatever guise that may come.
Having earlier increased the number of Home Office staff dealing with asylum cases from 120 to 500 and still finding themselves unable to reduce the backlog of 64,000-odd, the Government are now sensibly seeking to streamline the appeals procedures. As I understand it, the aim is to establish a timetable to enable the appeals process to be completed within three months. Clearly, unfounded cases will be dealt with more quickly. To deal with the problem of multiple applications and the apparently prevalent practice of applicants arriving at ports of entry with their papers destroyed, the Government will introduce fingerprinting to assist in identification—a power now held by virtually all our EC partners. Asylum seekers may continue to have the right to temporary local authority housing but no longer (as at present) permanent local authority housing. Surely, on the face of it that is a justified proposal, although I note the objections made to it by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
What the Government have to do and will be doing under the Bill is to reduce the advantages of unjustified asylum applications. Too many advantages attach to the making of an appeal irrespective of its chance of success. It must be emphasised that no asylum seeker will have his right of appeal removed under the Bill; indeed, that right is extended. Further, almost alone in Europe, free legal representation will continue to be provided. The Government have also taken the opportunity presented by the reintroduction of the Bill to attack the parallel backlog of immigration appeals currently running about a year in arrears. Large numbers of immigration appeals
1172
(over 10,000 a year) are appeals by prospective visitors and short-term students or pointless appeals against mandatory refusals where the applications do not meet the basic requirement of the immigration rules. The purpose, presumably, is to procure an extension by taking advantage of the law's delay. Here the Government propose to remove the right of appeal. Those who fail to satisfy the authorities that they are bona fide visitors may be greatly disappointed. But, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State justly said on Second Reading in another place:
"If I were to be turned down on a request to visit another country, I would no doubt be annoyed, but I would not expect full judicial procedures to be invoked in my appeal against that decision". [Official Report, Commons, 2/11/92; col. 33.]
Nothing will prevent an unsuccessful applicant making another application at a later date.
However, cases of greater importance—for example, applications for settlement on grounds of marriage—will continue to enjoy full rights of appeal and, almost uniquely in Europe, will have the cost of those appeals met from public funds. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, at col. 34, put it:
"There are few countries where taxpayers pay for legal representation to allow people who have never previously set foot in that country to challenge the decisions of the authorities".
We will remain just such a country.
We have an open country where people come and go as they please in large numbers. Last year 8 million people came to this country from outside the EC. We must also preserve our ancient tradition of offering asylum to victims of political persecution in other parts of the world. No doubt in an ideal world we should like to welcome to these shores all who seek to come here in order to make a better life for themselves. There is nothing reprehensible in such ambitions. In that respect I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, had to say. But no country—not even the United States—can today afford to welcome all-comers on a permanent basis. The more crowded and more accessible countries of Europe certainly cannot afford to do so.
What we need to do is use our influence by means of aid policy and other measures—here I echo and expand upon what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said—to further the growth of democracy and free enterprise in other parts of the world and permit the spread of the prosperity which we enjoy to other parts of the world by the adoption of liberal trading policies. By such means we can hope eventually to act on the numbers desperately seeking to come here.
The Government and the Secretary of State are to be congratulated on having had the courage to grasp a difficult nettle in an intelligent and moderate manner. I do not know whether the Bill is perfect in all respects. We will have an opportunity to examine it more closely in Committee. Several noble Lords have already laid down markers as to the ways in which they will seek to change it. But I believe that the Bill should be given a chance to succeed in its primary purpose of addressing a problem whose existence, I suggest, is by now obvious to everyone.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, I should like to feel that this debate on our attitude to refugees can be lifted into the real world of experience and away from the atmosphere of the fraudulent and bogus.
Recently I had the privilege of being in one of the last outposts of the British Commonwealth in Central America: Belize. There I witnessed the arrival of the victims of persecution in Guatemala and Nicaragua. They had been wandering through the forests for days eating whatever they could gather with their families, including young children. They arrived at the immigration procedures.
I am happy to say that the attitude of that outpost of the British Commonwealth to the arrival of refugees was rather more liberal than that evidenced in this Bill. Those poor people were welcomed with the assistance of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and cared for. Today 20 per cent. of the population of Belize is an immigrant population speaking Spanish whereas the existing language in Belize is English, which they are learning. My point is that this brought home to me the reality of the refugee problem. These are not bogus or fraudulent people; these are not dodgers. They are people. At the latest count there are 20 million people who have been uprooted from their homes, uprooted from their families, and uprooted from their languages and their traditions. They are wandering around the world at this moment. And so we should be sensitive to the needs of these poor, rejected and miserable people.
I attended a meeting in Westminster last night presided over by the right reverend David Sheppard. Speaking at that meeting were representatives of the Jewish community and the Church of England race relations committee and representatives of some of the black Churches. In addition there were representatives of the Roman Catholic Church and so on. It was a broadly ecumenical affair. I only regret that I cannot match the eloquence of the indignation that was expressed by those representatives last night in examining the impact of the Bill.
In addition to their respective criticism on various aspects of the Bill, I have never received so much briefing material as I have received in connection with this Bill. This includes material from the Association of Local Authorities, dealing with housing. The Commission for Racial Equality is a government appointed body responsible for looking at the provisions for racial harmony in our midst. It is alarmed at the impact of the Bill on race relations in the United Kingdom because it appears to be a Bill prejudiced against ethnic minorities. I have received material from the British Refugee Council, dealing with the question of fingerprinting, and from the Churches Commission for Racial Justice. I have received material from Shelter, dealing with housing and the effect of the Bill on family life in the United Kingdom. I hope the Minister will realise that this is not a small party issue of the Opposition fighting the Government. We will try to improve the Bill. I would hope that we might command some Cross-Bench support, which has been evidenced by some of the
1174
speeches made today. Let us try as a House to be committed to doing our best to respond to the great moral challenge of the refugees.
My experience with refugees goes back a long way. I worked on relief and rehabilitation in Europe after the last war. I try to compare the attitudes today to the refugees with the attitude of this country to the problem of refugees at the end of the last war. The problem of the refugee is not a new one. At the end of the last war 21.5 million people had been removed from their homes one way or another. The Germans had brought them into Germany for the war factories and so on. There were 21.5 million footloose people at the end of the war in 1945. If we look simply at Europe, in 1946 there were more than 1 million displaced persons. By 1945 the United States had taken the large majority of 195,000 refugees from Europe into the United States. It was reported in a Foreign Office report in 1945 that Britain had taken 60,000 immigrants from Europe.
This whole exercise was organised by the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, of which I was an official. This corresponds to the proposition by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and by my noble friend Lord Mishcon that this is an international problem and has increasingly to he dealt with at a European and international level. So great was the problem recognised in those days that a minute of the time stated—I regret to say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, is not in his seat—that:
"On Jan. 11 Mr. Eden received a deputation from both Houses of Parliament led by Mr. David Grenfell and including Lord Horder, Lord Lytton, Lord Melchett, Lord Perth, Sir Percy Harris, Mr. Quintin Hogg … and Miss Eleanor Rathbone, who urged, in view of the continuing German atrocities in occupied countries, the greatest possible activity and speed in rescuing as many persons as possible".
That was our response to the refugee problem that emerged at the end of the war.
I sometimes wonder whether our society has changed dramatically when we were able to respond with such generosity at the end of the war to nations which had suffered even more than we had. We were a poor country at the end of the war. We had been bombed. We had soldiers coming back from the front. We had all kinds of economic problems at that time. We were not the affluent society of today. Yet at that time Britain responded generously to the demands and needs of refugees. Not only did we do that but in order to finance the international operations of the United Nations in this field, this country, despite its relative poverty at the time—we had suffered and we knew what suffering was—responded by giving 1 per cent and not 0.3 per cent. of our GDP to the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration in order that it might carry out its obligations and assist people who were less fortunate than we were at that time. What kind of society have we become? Why are the virtues of caring and compassion becoming devalued? We were a better people when we were able to respond to these demands.
I shall not deal with all the details of these clauses which have been so adequately dealt with already by my noble friend Lord McIntosh and others. What

1175
worries me is our attitudes and whether in our society we should be examining our responses to these great needs. In this global village of ours there are allegedly 20 million refugees. Are we responding to the moral challenge that is involved in that? I hope that we will do so in the course of our consideration of the Bill.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I propose to start my submissions to your Lordships on a harmonious note, to end on a similar note and in between to venture a few slightly critical observations. I start by paying a tribute to the Government for accepting the criticisms which were made about the inadequate appeal procedure and granting to applicants who fail in their applications a full right of oral appeal. That is a great step forward. But I think it resulted in the Government, having experienced this degree of generosity, then taking fright; and like most actions dictated by fright, they tend to have a measure of irrationality about them.
I refer to the 48-hour time limit which is imposed by the appeal procedure rules, I understand, on port applicants who are in detention. That is both wrong in principle and in practice. In principle it goes quite against the keynote as adumbrated by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, when he moved the Courts and Legal Services Bill, that we are all anxious to improve access to justice. If one grants a right and then makes it impossible to exercise it, one grants nothing. That is the point of principle.
Perhaps I may now turn to the question of its practicability. It will be wholly counterproductive. A person who has no time to consult an adviser or an adviser who has no time to make the necessary inquiries of a safe third country, Amnesty International or elsewhere, will automatically put in an appeal notice. With thought and consideration, no notice of appeal might have gone in at all.
It is forensically myopic to think that a rushed procedure is in effect going to produce efficiency. It is not going to produce—although I wholly sympathise with the Government's aim—a quicker method of dealing with appeals. Perhaps I may take a rather poignant example in relation to a judge now sadly deceased, Lord Justice James, known to many practitioners here. He was a great friend of mine but, unlike myself, he was a workaholic. It is generally thought that he brought about his early demise by an excess of work. There was a very long list at Birmingham Assizes. He said, "I will seek to crack it"; that is a forensic phrase which some noble Lords may have heard before. To do that he decided that he would sit a nine o'clock every morning instead of at 10.30 throughout the six-weeks assize. The net result was that he achieved a performance of about one-half of what an average judge would have achieved sitting at 10.30, for the very simple reason that he deprived the litigants of the opportunity to discuss their litigation between 9 and 10.30 which so frequently leads to door-of-the-court settlements.
That is precisely what will happen with the proposal for the 48-hour notice. There will be an
1176
automatic entry of appeal and, so far from unclogging the system, the system will be more clogged; whereas 10 days to consider the validity of an appeal by sensible advisers, would produce a substantial reduction in the number of such appeals. I therefore urge on the Government to be realistic and to realise that sound advice is the way to cut down the number of appeals. That is something that we have been unsuccessfully urging on the Lord Chancellor in legal aid debates; namely, that if only people had proper access to advice they would either not exercise bad, non-existent claims or they would exercise sound ones which would settle quickly.
My second point is the withdrawal of the right of appeal to visitors and students who seek only temporary leave. They have a present right of appeal and it is now decided to withdraw it. As has been previously said, they should not —because it is not so serious as an application for asylum —receive the full judicial process. Again, I sympathise with that.
But there is always a via media in these matters. Having had their application rejected, why should they not have a right to apply to a special adjudicator for leave to appeal? That is a well-known sieve which is operated throughout the county court in relation to the Court of Appeal and from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). If the special adjudicator then says "No, I have considered the merits of the decision. There should be no leave", then there is an end of the matter. The strain on the resources will be negligible. One has only to consider the list of 40 or 50 cases which the average stipendiary magistrate gets through every day, to realise that one could double or treble that figure with a special adjudicator who is dealing with cases of comparative simplicity.
I suggest that there are the following grounds to justify what I have submitted. First, the record to date of the fallibility of decisions on this subject. Out of 8,000 cases, I am told that there have been 1,700 successful appeals, which is one in five. Does not that justify a further step? Secondly, if one removes any appeal then one can expect the fallibility to rise. The check that a possible appeal has, not only on the behaviour of a judge or adjudicator, but on the merits of his decision, requires no further explanation by me. Thirdly, if one removes the right of appeal it will give rise to inconsistent practices. By the absence of any ability to have an appellate process you cannot in any way control the vagaries, inconsistencies and the eccentricities of decisions. Fourthly, a person who has been wrongly refused leave will have a taint as a result. He will be tainted in relation to future applications to this country whatever the protest may be to the contrary. But more serious still, he may be tainted as a result of this refusal when applying to another country. It may be said, "You have not been acceptable to the United Kingdom—and we know what a sound system they have—and so we do not look at you". Of course, there is no right of appeal. Those are my grounds.
My third point relates to the designation of so-called unfounded cases by the Minister. It is no doubt a characteristic of my profession that we do not

1177
like entrusting judicial decisions to the Executive. That is precisely what is being done. It will inevitably give rise to an increased incidence of judicial review because that is the only remedy. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice recently addressed this House and said that the present position as regards judicial review is little short of disastrous. There is a two-year wait to get on before the single judge and there are only two judges trying to run a list where five or six are necessary.
Since I cannot state it as well as Mr. Justice Megarry (as he then was) in 1970 in the case of John v. Rees, perhaps I may read out very shortly what he said:
"As everybody who has anything to do with the law well knows, the path of the law is strewn with examples of open and shut cases which somehow were not; of unanswerable charges which, in the event, were completely answered; of inexplicable conduct which was fully explained; of fixed and unalterable determinations that, by discussion, suffered a change". [Official Report, Commons, 21/1/92; col. 244.]
I return to my note of harmony—certainly, harmony in relation to the Government. I refuse to get emotionally involved in this question of fingerprinting. I observed that in another place it reached the crescendo of being said to be an infringement of some fundamental human right. I suggest that that is nonsense. Only today I heard on the wireless at about 8 a.m. the suggestion that, to avoid the errors of misidentification in newborn children, there was a proposal that newborn children should be fingerprinted. I assume that there will be an outcry from those anxious to preserve human rights. But it is a nonsense when identification is so important, as in this field. Documents may not exist because they may have been destroyed quite innocently or were never issued. There is also the risk of fraud. I cannot understand why a person who is anxious not to have unfounded allegations thrown at him should be reluctant to go through the simple process of being fingerprinted.
My second note of harmony vis à vis the Government relates to the housing legislation. A great benefit is conferred by the Housing Act 1985 on one category of the homeless—those in priority need. They jump the queue (usually a vast queue) of those who are building up priority points in order to get housing. Why should an applicant for asylum, who has not yet had that application granted and who, on the statistics, stands a one-in-ten chance of being successful, jump the queue until he is found to be a valid applicant? What is the matter with such an applicant being housed in temporary accommodation, which has to be satisfactory in all the circumstances relating to that particular individual?
I end with two questions which I hope are not disharmonious. First, is any provision to be made for the unaccompanied child? With respect, I should have thought that that was essential. Secondly, what is the position to be with regard to legal assistance (in particular, legal advice), for those seeking to make their applications?
5.53 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, as a child immigrant among those to whom the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred, I am obviously sensitive to Bills of this nature. I have therefore listened with great attention to all the speeches that have been made and have even tried to read the mass of briefing which, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, reported to your Lordships, has reached all of us.
I was particularly struck by one remark in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who introduced the Bill. He said that in the interim, since this subject was last discussed by your Lordships, the Home Office has recruited and trained several hundred new officers for the duty of looking after these problems. The question that struck me was: what is the training? What does it consist of, and does it include some moral exhortations to those officers not to think themselves too clever? That is to say, finality does not exist—or should not exist—in agents of the Executive. For that reason, the fact that successive noble and learned Lords on the Cross-Benches have referred to the importance of a proper appeal procedure seems to me one of the most relevant points that has so far come out of our discussions.
Beyond adjuring those officers to be modest, I wonder what they are told about the background to this problem. It was referred to in passing—naturally, only in passing—by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Bonham-Carter. The more one thinks of it, the more one can see that one of the problems—and none of us would deny that the Government have genuine problems—is that the world scene has changed totally in respect of, among other things, why people emigrate, where they emigrate from, and what we now mean by a "refugee".
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to the welcome which this country gave without question to all political refugees from the continent of Europe throughout almost the whole of this century. But, of course, those political refugees differed to one very considerable extent from many of those who now seek refugee status in that they hoped that they were coming here for a temporary stay. They hoped to use this country as a base—and sometimes they did—for intriguing or plotting against the despotic regimes they had fled in the hope that they would then return and perhaps replace those regimes with themselves and their friends.
We are not in that position now. Indeed, one of the problems that we face is that not only do many people now hope to make this country their permanent home —and that is understandable—but we must also worry about whether that kind of thing, which we thought was all right when it was a question of King "Bomba" of Naples or even Napoleon III, is conducive to our relations with some third world countries. This has been brought to our attention by the security problems that are currently attending the Prime Minister. It was also brought to our attention by the disturbances, luckily on a fairly small scale, involving ethnic minority communities in this country after the destruction of the mosque at Ayodhya in India. So, the position is different.

1179
It is difficult to use the term "a fear of persecution", which no doubt seemed perfectly obvious to the United Nations at the time of the governing convention, because "a fear of persecution" suggests that an individual is singled out for his religion, race or whatever, and that he is an identifiable individual who is seeking refuge. However, although most of the cases that we now see in the world involve people whom we would broadly call refugees—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, would agree with me—it is not individuals who are being singled out. We are talking about whole groups of people—indeed, whole nationalities.
Many noble Lords—certainly on this side of the House—have heard my noble friend Lady Cox talk about the suffering of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh. If those people could go to any country outside the former Soviet Union, they, as a whole, would be refugees because they are living under the threat of death through starvation or military action, but not as individuals. The Azerbaijanis do not pick out a particular Armenian—at least, not in most cases —and say, "We are going to torture you or persecute you." They are trying to eliminate an entire people. Yugoslavia, an area which is more frequently in the press, reproduces aspects of that. In such a country the definition of a refugee, which enables people to talk about bogus or pretended refugees, is largely beside the point.
We may have to build upon existing legislation and do what we can with it. However, we must face the fact that we live in a world where people migrate not only for economic reasons and in order to seek a better life —I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that that has always been possible and desirable, although there are problems for the host communities—and that we live in a world of extreme violence. That violence produces groups, among other things. However, the whole thrust of the legislation before us is to try to fix upon the case of an individual and to eliminate almost specifically the case of a group of people arriving because all, by virtue of their origin, race or religion, are under threat.
It is necessary that we should take up the challenge flung at us by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, as to whether this country is less civilised than it was at the end of the Second World War. The noble Lord may exaggerate that to the extent that the attitudes of countries towards immigration have varied according to their need for labour in particular. After all, we had to explore the circumstances in which some immigrants reached this country. They later turned out to be undesirable citizens, to put it no higher. But there was then a feeling that we could find jobs and we did so.
A similar reason explains why at different times countries have been more or less generous to immigration. For instance, we all know about the migration to the Americas and to Australia in which the inhabitants of this country took a great part. Approximately 40 million people emigrated there during the middle decades of the 19th century. Between 1870 and 1914 three million people emigrated
1180
from eastern to western Europe because jobs in mining, construction and agriculture could easily be supplied. I suggest that the anxiety which understandably leads a government to say, "Clearly, the doors cannot be flung open excessively", arises in part because of the inevitable connection between the figures of unemployment and the feelings towards extra people coming in. Indeed, Germany and France have already illustrated that. Although one would like to say, "But, of course, immigrants have in the past created great opportunities for employment" and, in the various sectors of our national economic life, one can think of huge firms, giving employment to hundreds of thousands of people, which were created by immigrants during the last century, that argument does not, and should not, go down with people looking at their immediate circumstances.
Therefore, there are limits to the extent to which we can at present vary to a considerable degree our general view of the possibilities which are open in this country to asylum seekers or to immigrants. However, one hopes for a better and more realistic appraisal of the problem before we find a better solution. What we can do—and it is the lesson in the speeches made by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Donaldson—is to ensure that in the course of tackling the problem we do not retreat from the ordinary principles of British justice and of the British legal system. We should not say, "There is a particular class of case in which the right of appeal is withdrawn." Either it is a right or it is not a right.
Similarly, in regard to the issues relating to children, if we pass a Children Act because we believe that children have special needs and rights, ought not any Bill henceforth, including a Bill dealing with asylum and immigration, to take note of the fact that Parliament has decided that children are a special case?
I do not believe that we shall change the world by what we do. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that enormous changes can be made by somehow pushing the responsibility on to Europe. Each country is so different as are the problems that they confront, the psychology of the people and so forth. Therefore, each country must take the responsibility for doing the best that it can for the people for whom it is a natural recourse. Given those aspects it is probable that we can improve the Bill while recognising that it is by no means the end of the story, as did the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
6.7 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I intend to confine myself to two aspects of this ungenerous Bill; namely, its effect on children, in particular unaccompanied children, and on students. I shall deal first with students. Clauses 10 and 11 of the new Bill contain completely new provisions restricting the rights of would-be visitors, short-term students and their dependants to appeal against a refusal of leave to enter or of entry clearance. There is no rational justification for that proposal. The removal of a right of appeal against an administrative decision, thus giving

1181
unfettered powers to civil servants or immigration officers, can only lead to worse decision making because they know that the decision will not be reviewed by any independent authority.
There is ample evidence of that in the immigration field. For instance, when the Immigration Act 1988 removed from people who had been in the United Kingdom for less than seven years the right of appeal against deportation for any reason other than the facts of the case, the number of deportations shot up from 863 in 1987 to 3,440 in 1991. Many young people want to finish their education in the UK perhaps in order to take courses not available in their own country. The qualifications that they gain will not only benefit them as individuals but will increase the pool of skills available in their own country. Time spent enjoyably in the UK when they are young will encourage contacts between the two countries in the future, in particular in respect of trade. The provision means that fewer overseas students will be able to come to the UK. Others enter as prospective students in order to attend interviews or to settle their final choice of course because some colleges will not offer definite places to students before interviewing them. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to their case.
Clause 7 ensures that there is no right of appeal against curtailment of leave on some other basis if an asylum application is refused. Thus, a student who might have applied in panic after a coup or change of government in his own country whose application is refused and whose leave to remain as a student is curtailed, will have no right of appeal on grounds of continuing to be a student. It is unjust that people should have no chance of explaining why they should be able to continue their stay on its original basis.
Curtailment of leave to remain may well deter people such as overseas students from applying for asylum, even though their home circumstances may have changed to the extent of making it dangerous for them to return home. That deterrent effect remains in spite of the Government's assurance in Committee in another place that leave to remain will not necessarily be curtailed following refusal of an asylum claim. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred to that in his opening speech. However, if that is so, why was the amendment proposed by Sir Timothy Raison, a former immigration Minister, that the curtailment provisions should not apply to students on recognised courses, not accepted by the Government? We shall try for that again here.
The Churches Refugee Network with its large and very wide membership says in its excellent briefing that it fears that Clauses 10 and 11 will be particularly damaging. Visitors and students from abroad who come into contact with the immigration services are mainly people from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. Therefore, there could be a great danger that those clauses will appear to be blatant discrimination against black people with alarming consequences for community relations in this country.
It is important to point out that the UK Immigrants Advisory Service's success rate for student appeals in 1987–88 was 31 per cent., in 1988–89 it was 56 per cent., in 1990 it was 27 per cent., and in
1182
1991 it was 21 per cent. That surely proves that there would be miscarriages of justice if the right of appeal were removed. I hope that the Home Secretary's excuse that those appeals would clog-up the appeals system will not be accepted. Some extra resources to the appellate authorities and to the agencies dealing with advice and representatives in matters of immigration could rectify that.
I turn to the position of children. The Bill does not address the particular situation of children who apply for asylum in their own right, but it has serious implications for the children of asylum applicants. I agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said about that. Unaccompanied refugee children who apply for asylum are treated in the same manner as adults. No special provisions are made for the determination of their cases and the UNHCR's guidelines on that subject are not applied in the United Kingdom.
Those unaccompanied children are without the support of an adult who is legally responsible for them. Some are accommodated by local authorities which do not have parental responsibility and may have no expertise on asylum issues. Others live in the community with compatriot families who are themselves dealing with the difficulties of refugee life. They may be completely unaware of services that are available for children. Others are being cared for by older siblings who are barely grown up and who are struggling to keep the family together, often with no support.
The Children's Legal Centre proposes that an advocacy system should be established so that each unaccompanied child will have a person whose duty, as defined under statute, will be to ensure the child's welfare in both the asylum procedure and in relation to statutory services and—this is very important—to ensure that the child's views and feelings are taken into account. I support that and I am glad that that has received support from other noble Lords who have spoken.
The introduction of new immigration rules setting out negative criteria whereby an asylum application may be refused and the limited time available to lodge an appeal against refusal, increases the need for child asylum-seekers to be helped with their applications. The guidelines on unaccompanied children contained in the UNHCR handbook on procedure and criteria for determining refugee status under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees should be implemented. Are the Government prepared to do that?
There are a number of particular anxieties with regard to children in several clauses. First, as regards fingerprinting, the Bill provides that both the dependants of applicants and unaccompanied children will be fingerprinted. They can be arrested without a warrant for failure to comply with that requirement. The Government have not declared whether there will be any lower age limit on fingerprinting. No evidence has been presented that children have been involved in any multiple applications. The implications of criminality are inescapable. Children may previously have had experience of fingerprinting as a prelude to torture and interrogation. Their feelings of fear can be

1183
imagined. In Committee in another place the Government agreed to an amendment to provide for the presence of an adult when a child under the age of 16 is fingerprinted. However, there is no requirement that that person should be known to the child or what kind of person would be suitable to give the child the support, confidence and understanding that is needed.
The housing clauses—Clauses 4 and 5—could mean that refugee children and their families are on the street before a local authority has a duty to house them. The time spent in poor quality bed and breakfast will be extended. The effect of that kind of accommodation on the child's health and education is very well documented.
As regards the appeal clauses—Clauses 8 and 9—unlike the Children Act, which in Section 1(1) makes the best interests of the child paramount, there is no formal consideration under immigration rules of the effect of any ruling on children's welfare. However, the function of the special adjudicator is subject to judicial review by the High Court which is bound by Section 1(1), as is the Court of Appeal. Therefore, it follows that the special adjudicator and immigration appeals tribunals should also be subject to the application of Section 1(1).
Article III of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child also states that:
"In all matters affecting a child … the best interests of a child shall be a primary consideration".
The Bill appears to ignore that and should certainly be amended to deal with that problem.
As regards carrier liability in Clause 11, children have been prevented from disembarking and claiming asylum and have been returned by airlines to avoid the fine. The Bill places an additional requirement on transit passengers to obtain a visa solely for the purpose of passing through the UK. It is often dangerous and impossible for many refugees, let alone children, to obtain adequate travel documents. Thus, refugee children can be prevented from claiming asylum (their rights under the Geneva Convention) either in the United Kingdom or in another country to which they are travelling.
I shall end with a quotation from an EC Select Committee report on community policy on migration. I was a member of that committee. It said on unaccompanied minors:
"Although not a large problem in terms of numbers, it causes great distress for the children involved, for whose welfare we are concerned. The proposal for reception centres appears a possible contribution to addressing the problems encountered in all Member States".
It goes on:
"We recognise that there are considerable resource costs involved in a humane and adequate immigration policy, particularly at the point of reception and that these may be particularly high in the case of unaccompanied children. But the manner of first reception is so crucial to the image which strangers form of a country and the Community that we believe that these costs are unavoidable for a country which respects and wishes to be seen to respect human rights".
I hope that the Government will take note of those points made by the committee.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, although criticism from the Labour Front Bench is significantly more muted than it was last time round, before the General Election, nevertheless the Government are taking quite a lot of flak today. However the Government are in a difficult position, as would be any government in the circumstances of the 1990s. One wonders whether the Opposition parties would be taking quite the same line if they were in power. I rather suspect not.
In April 1977, having recently returned from a trip to Thailand where I had been moved, after witnessing accidentally the plight of Vietnamese boat people huddled behind barbed wire in an internment camp outside Songkhla in Southern Thailand, I asked, in an oral Question, whether the government of the day would consider admitting 750 south east Asian refugees, as an addition to the score or two who were already in this country. The Government were distinctly unenthusiastic. Indeed, the answer was a flat "no". In fairness, it must be said that there was no more enthusiasm shown by the then Opposition parties either.
Ironically, it was Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, as she then was, who in 1981 or 1982, after there had been massive harrowing media coverage of the plight of the Vietnamese boat people, agreed to admit 20 times the number that the then Labour Government had turned down four or five years earlier. This merely proves that parties in power often behave differently from what they may suggest they will do when in opposition.
In these matters it is often a question of choosing between the lesser of two evils, of striking the right balance between the heart, as epitomised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the head. Thinking of recent events, it is a question of deciding on the one hand to what extent to react to spasms of short-term sympathy —often highly selective sympathy, depending on whether or not a press photographer has been around to record the agony of a sobbing child or a distraught mother—and on the other hand of evaluating coolly the long-term interests of the British people, as well as paying proper democratic attention to the wishes of the British people as a whole in these matters, which was so cavalierly dismissed by the Government, and far more so by the Opposition, in the 1950s and early 1960s.
There are five developments which those who framed the 1951 United Nations convention could not have dreamed of at the time: the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, alluded to one or two of them. Those who drafted the convention would have found it hard to believe that a generation later hundreds of millions of people throughout the world would still be living under varying degrees of tyranny—the entire population of China and of Tibet is a case in point —to the extent that they could all legitimately claim that they had well-founded fears of being persecuted; secondly, that the world population would have more than doubled from 2.6 to 5.6 billion, with the populations of East Africa, West Africa and Central America having more than trebled in the period, with South America coming up fast behind, as its

1185
population will have trebled by 1995 at the latest; thirdly, that the standard of living in many already poor countries and regions, mainly but not exclusively in Africa, would fall to very much lower levels after decolonisation because of over-population, mistaken political ideologies and maladministration; fourthly, that there would be a revolution in telecommunications technology which would allow almost every town and village in the poorer countries to have access to a television set from which townspeople and villagers would get the overwhelming impression that the streets of the Western world were paved with gold; and fifthly, that a similar technological revolution in the field of aviation would slash the cost of long-distance air travel in real terms. It is now possible to cross the Atlantic and return for well under £15 in 1951 money.
If those factors are added together the situation is volatile, to say the least. That is why Bills such as this one are necessary. Indeed, setting aside for now the problem of the wholly bogus asylum-seekers, one wonders whether the definition of persecution itself needs to be tightened up, and whether the 1951 convention is not in some respects slightly outmoded and should be redrafted to confine the definition of the persecuted to those who are really seriously at risk. We can all agree that people who risk being murdered, tortured or unjustly sent to prison for a long period should be given asylum, but what about milder forms of persecution?
Many groups of people are, quite unfairly, not allowed to have their children educated in their own language, such as the Kurds in Turkey, or the Hungarian speakers and the small number of German speakers in Romanian Transylvania. These people would be quite entitled to claim that in consequence they are being persecuted, and in a sense they are, but is that a good enough reason for western Europe, North America and Australia to have an open-ended commitment to admit every one of them, bearing in mind in particular that those who arrive are not necessarily always the most deserving? It is much easier to escape from mild tyrannies than from really brutal tyrannies, and those who arrive on our shores are often the richer, more astute people, and not necessarily the most deserving, who might be poorer and less worldly wise. That is for the future of course—this Bill does not concern that matter—but one cannot leave the problem too long before it is addressed.
Far more worrying, and what the Bill is directed at, is the problem of what might be described as purely economic migrants who disguise themselves as asylum-seekers. Some of your Lordships may have seen a riveting programme, the first of a series on Europe, presented by Francine Stock about a fortnight ago. One horrifying scene that sticks in the memory showed a beach in southern Spain near Tarifa littered with the bodies of young men, economic migrants not only from North Africa but as far south as Senegal, who had drowned while trying to enter western Europe illegally. Significantly, they were not the emaciated bodies of starving people but were well-muscled and obviously adequately fed: the
1186
extended family system ensures that people do not starve in Africa except in the most drought-stricken regions. They were also well educated, which did not surprise me. I had toured Morocco in 1984 in local buses and trains and spoken to many people, and had been astonished to learn that graduate unemployment was as high as 90 per cent: I cannot imagine what the level of unemployment among less well qualified people was. The interview with the survivors in detention in Spain revealed that they were well educated, and nearly all of them spoke good French.
It was striking that almost all survivors claimed an unqualified moral right to come to Europe in search of work and accommodation. In justice, they were not claiming the right to unemployment benefit, but they did claim the absolute right to come and search for work and the right to be housed, whether Europeans wanted them or not. If one genuinely believes one has just such a moral right, clearly one will feel totally morally justified in lying, exaggerating and using every form of subterfuge in order to achieve one's objectives. I think most of us would do the same in similar circumstances. Hence the need for laws such as this.
Certain organisations, for example the Society of Friends, claim that this Bill infringes human rights. If those trying to enter were British subjects by birth or by naturalisation, there might be some merit in the claims, but they are not. I do not think there is anywhere in the world where aliens have exactly the same rights as citizens. For example, if any of us went to the United States, Japan, Egypt or Brazil and were refused admission, we would be extremely angry and annoyed, particularly if we had paid our own fares, but setting aside the special case of the EC we would not think that we had a God-given right to enter anybody else's country. They have the right to refuse us for the most capricious reasons, which is undesirable and annoying, but we do not have an absolute unqualified right of entry.
Finally, switching briefly from the general to the specific, I think the fuss over fingerprinting is without foundation. I say that even though many libertarian colleagues of mine strongly disagree. In my opinion, they have not thought the matter through thoroughly.
Unlike photographs which can easily be doctored, and unlike DNA testing which is by no means 100 per cent. perfect we now read, I have always been brought up to understand that fingerprinting cannot lie. In the free countries of western Europe only those contemplating a life of crime could reasonably object to being fingerprinted. I would happily put mine on file tomorrow, for what it is worth.
In the United States students and other young people who hire cars often have to have their fingerprints taken before they hire the car. They are then returned to them when the car is returned safely and can be destroyed. Nobody worries about this procedure very much. Therefore, unless someone can prove that one's normal assumptions about fingerprinting are wrong and that prints can be tampered with by the police or security services, I believe that the issue is a red herring and the clause should remain unaltered.

1187
I am sure that the British people support the broad aims of the Bill. I do not know, like the noble Lord, Lord Reay, whether the Government and the other place, who have given it much attention, have got it 100 per cent. right but I am convinced that they have got it at least 98 per cent. right, and I congratulate the Government on bringing the Bill forward.
6.31 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I must apologise to the Minister and your Lordships' House because I may not be able to remain in my place until the end of the debate. Some friends of mine are flying in from America this evening; I arranged to meet them.
Four noble Lords and one noble and learned Lord have spoken about children. The noble Baroness, Lady David, made clear the feelings of those of us who are involved in work with children and with children's societies. As the noble Baroness said, both the Children's Legal Centre and the Children's Society recommend that there should be a panel of advisers who can speak the languages spoken by children coming to this country.
I speak from a personal point of view. I have had to deal with children who have arrived in this country unaccompanied. In such cases the child is put on a plane, perhaps by the mother who knows that the father has been killed and that she is being sought. She asks someone on the plane to keep an eye on the child and they do so. The child lands at London airport and those people leave the plane with the child. At immigration the couple say goodbye to the child, thinking that someone will meet it. When the child reaches the immigration desk, the immigration officers find themselves in a difficult position because there may be a crowd of people.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman and I visited London airport and spoke to immigration officers. They told us how difficult it is to deal with an unaccompanied child who is unable to speak English and is miserable, lonely and distressed. All that can be done is to have the child taken to a little room adjoining the immigration offices and to telephone the social services asking them to come and meet the child.
The social worker who is called to London airport to take care of such a child has a problem. The child cannot speak English and the social worker does not speak the child's language or may not even know what that language is at that stage. Nor does the social worker know what food the child likes. On one occasion I gave a child a bar of Cadbury's milk chocolate. The child took one bite and spat it out saying, "Ugh!" I did not know that he did not like chocolate; he did not know that I was offering him something which was good to eat. If it was possible to call on someone who could speak the language spoken by that child —and usually the child can say where it comes from—one would be able to communicate with the child. One might also be able to place the child in a foster home with someone who comes from its own country.
I cannot say how difficult that situation is and how distressing it is for the child. Furthermore, it is very
1188
distressing for the children's home to which one takes the child. The people at the home cannot speak to the child. They do not know how to feed it or clothe it. I know of one case in which a child would not sleep on the bed because she had never slept on a bed but always slept on the floor. The other children said, "Isn't it funny, that little black girl won't sleep on her bed?"
I know that those are anecdotal stories. However, I press the Government to think again about the proposal for a panel to be appointed by the Secretary of State put forward by the British Refugee Council. That would be of enormous value but would not be costly in view of the fact that there are few cases of children in those circumstances.
I ask my noble friend the Minister whether, in the drafting of the Bill, account has been taken of Section 1 of the Children Act whereby the welfare of the child is paramount. That was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady David. In the present circumstances, the welfare of the child is not paramount. Furthermore, under that Act the views of the child must be taken into account. If one cannot communicate with the child, how can its views be taken into account? In one case, I subsequently found that a child wanted to go back to his country of origin; but how was I to know, if I could not speak his language?
There is also the question of the responsibility of parents, which is also covered in the Act. Every social worker will try to find who the parents are, where they are, and whether it is possible to reunite the child with them or, if that is not possible, with relatives. Therefore, I suggest that this Bill contravenes the Children Act 1989 of which we are so proud.
I should like to mention housing. At the time of Idi Amin this country was flooded with refugees from Kenya. The government of the day arranged for every local authority to take a certain number of refugees and find them accommodation. Without meaning any disrespect or to make accusations, I should mention that there was great resentment on the part of a number of people who had been on the housing list for years and perhaps had three or four children who would have found themselves supplanted in order for a family coming to this country to be given accommodation. It was recognised that those families must be housed.
I was made responsible for housing 15 such families in my area. We did not give them council accommodation or bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We raised the money to buy a house for a family. We then mortgaged that house and were able to house two families. In the end, we mortgaged 15 houses. Ultimately the families found work and were able to pay for the accommodation.
The housing issue may lead to real difficulties for refugees coming to this country, particularly if they are given accommodation from the housing list thus pushing a number of people—who may themselves be from ethnic groups—down the list. Therefore, we have to be careful to ensure that we do not displace people

1189
in this country; and, secondly, that we house refugees. There are ways of doing that, and that was done when refugees came to this country from Uganda.
I urge my noble friend the Minister to think very seriously about how children are dealt with, and to rethink the position regarding housing.
6.39 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the noble Earl, with his reasonable and convincing tones, is frequently called upon to place before your Lordships' House provisions which are intrinsically flawed. He does it so well. But there are parts of this uncharitable and unimaginative Bill which lie beyond even his powers of advocacy to commend to this House.
Of course, the scale of refugees worldwide is now such that on all sides of this House the need for some controls is recognised where people seek asylum. The advocates of the open door are very hard to find. Huguenot families such as the one from which I come would have found things very much more difficult if the Edict of Nantes had been repealed in the 1990s. I doubt whether any voice would have been found in this House to oppose legislation which did no more than try to curb misuse of our asylum and immigration processes by people who are fraudulent refugees, fraudulent students or fraudulent visitors. Yet the Government have managed to produce a piece of legislation which has drawn criticisms from, among many others, organisations which range from Amnesty International, Shelter, the Catholic Bishops Conference, the Refugee Council, law centres, the Council for Churches for Britain and Ireland, the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, Save the Children and even the Royal College of Nursing. That is a not inconsiderable achievement.
The Government have placed before your Lordships' House the second generation of a Bill to which there have been relatively minor concessions made since the original reared its head, not I think coincidentally, before the 1992 election. Unfortunately, this child has most of the unsavoury characteristics which rendered its parent objectionable.
Reading through the Bill, it is unfortunately not possible to agree with the Minister in his description of it as a measure which seeks to tackle only the bogus and fraudulent while enshrining satisfactory safeguards for the genuine refugee visitor or student. It is a measure which, very simply stripped of the cosmetics, apparently seeks to keep out as many people as possible.
The casualties of this piece of unsatisfactory legislation will be many. Let us take a few examples. Nurses from outside this country come here to study on adaption courses which usually last under six months. There would be a consequent loss to this country of a wealth of overseas experience and to their home countries of additional knowledge and experience from our health service. There are those who are fleeing from civil war and danger in such places as Bosnia or Angola whose claims for asylum would not fit the grounds listed in the convention and who, it seems, may no longer be granted by the Home
1190
Office exceptional leave to remain. There are students, part way through a course in this country, who, because of changed circumstances in their home country, make an asylum application, rendering themselves liable to deportation in the middle of their studies if that application is refused. The noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to that. There are children of British citizens but themselves foreign nationals who are refused entry here by a single entry clearance officer. That officer, however fair-minded, is not likely to be an infallible individual. Such persons would not now have any right of appeal.
Not surprisingly, many noble Lords from all sides of the House have spoken in the debate. Many have yet to speak; many have specialist knowledge. For that reason, I confine my specific criticisms of the Bill to a very few of the more objectionable features which strike me, as a practising lawyer. The Bill will apply, among others, to unaccompanied children, to men and women who speak little or no English and to those who have recently suffered severe traumas. In other words it will apply to those about whom the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, spoke so movingly.
In common sense and fairness it is essential that legal aid and legal representation for advice and assistance, initially, continue; that representation is extended, at appeal if necessary; and that those provisions should be enshrined within the Bill. The Planning Group of the Refugee Legal Centre, appointed by the Home Office, make the point forcefully in proposals published last October for the functions of the new refugee legal centre office. It is argued that legal representation at an early stage is not only right in principle but is the most effective use of resources. A well presented application by an experienced practitioner is likely to produce solid, first instance, decisions, and so avoid the time and expense involved in unnecessary appeals.
The provisions in relation to appeals have requirements which are of some complexity and of a technical nature. They are full of pitfalls and difficulties for the genuine refugee. In the light of the way in which legal advice is being withdrawn in certain areas, it is surely crucial that the Bill provide that those who will need that advice in the future shall have it.
I wish to support what has been stated by many noble Lords, in particular by the noble Baronesses, Lady Faithfull and Lady David, about the essential need for children to have an independent advocate or representative who can assist them from the time that they arrive unaccompanied in this country.
The fingerprint provisions—hitherto the exclusive province of the criminal law in England—are, I understand from what the Minister told us, intended to prevent multiple applications and benefit frauds. However, I understand that multiple applications were effectively dealt with as long ago as November, 1991, through the provision of immediate screening interviews and a new secure identification form. The noble Earl has not given figures that enable us to judge the impact of those changes in relation to multiple applications. However, unless it is proposed to

1191
fingerprint those from overseas who apply for benefit also, it is hard to see how the prints on file with the Home Office could be used to prevent benefit fraud.
The practical use of those provisions seems negligible. The objections are many and the implications are worrying. The Bill provides no lower age limit in relation to the fingerprinting of children. That seems to run counter not only to decency but also to the spirit of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which requires states to act positively towards vulnerable refugee children.
Whoever drafted the appeal time limits cannot have been someone with experience at the sharp end of immigration appeals. The 48-hour rule for those who apply at the port, and 10 days in other circumstances, will effectively render it impossible for many to use the right which the Bill purports to give. To obtain a legal visit to see a detainee may take many days or even weeks. It currently takes over two weeks in the case of Pentonville where many of those detained are currently held. The period is not unusual. Language difficulties and the need for interpreters add to delay. Documents and evidence will often need to be obtained from overseas. That is all at a time when an applicant is likely to be frightened and distressed, in many cases having fled from his or her home in real fear of his or her life. Of course I welcome the right of appeal given by Clause 8 of the Bill. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, it is of very little use if those entitled to that right cannot hope to meet the provisions. I hope and trust that that was not the draftsman's or the Government's intention. I hope that the provision can be corrected in Committee.
It is impossible to find anything good to say about Clause 10. Frankly, it is extraordinary. It withdraws any right of appeal from many visitors and students to this country. The Government have given their reason for the provision as the clogging up of the present system with visitors' appeals, a substantial proportion of which, I observe, now succeed. What a precedent!—And not one, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, indicated that he had thought of as Master of the Rolls. Let us hope that it is not one which occurs to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor because the Court of Criminal Appeal is currently clogged up too. There are long delays in the hearing of appeals because of a shortage of High Court judges. This Government have not, as yet, suggested that the solution there is to remove any right of appeal from those convicted of crime, but with provisions like the one in Clause 10, who can tell what we may be in for?
If the system is clogged up with appeals, many of which have merit, surely the proper course is to provide sufficient resources to deal with those appeals or to streamline the process effectively and not to remove the right of appeal from many of those who have good grounds.
Time and again in this Parliament and in its predecessor we have seen legislation introduced in the House by the Government in response to some perceived public demand which is ill-conceived in its
1192
philosophy and inappropriate in its application. Sometimes, when it has been bitterly fought through both Houses of Parliament and reaches the statute book, it has proved to be unworkable and has had to be scrapped, at goodness knows what public expense. Sometimes, the resulting legislation which we were told in this House —and, more often than not, by the Minister—was urgent and necessary for the maintenance of law and order, lies unused, or virtually unused, on the statute book. We can think of many measures ranging from war crimes to dangerous dogs and aggravated vehicle taking.
This piece of legislation, if passed in its present form, is likely to cause real hardship and injustice as voices from all sides of the House have testified today. The time is surely ripe for a government with vision to take an initiative in the field of refugees and to turn to international co-operation. I do not believe that the people of this country want to see genuine refugees, genuine students and genuine visitors turned away. I wish that I were confident that that was not the Government's intention but merely an unfortunate by-product of this unsatisfactory draft legislation. As the Bill passes through the House and we see what changes the Government are prepared to make to it, so we shall see whether or not my fears are justified.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Woolf: My Lords, when I made my maiden speech last week, I did not anticipate addressing your Lordships again so quickly. I am conscious that perhaps it is "unmaidenlike" and precocious to do so. However, last week I was not aware—and perhaps I should have been—that this Bill would come before your Lordships' House today for its Second Reading. As a result of my experience both at the Bar and on the bench, I thought that it was possible that I might be able to make a useful contribution.
As to the Bar, I should perhaps explain that during my last five years at the Bar, I had not the same role as the noble Earl but a similar one, to the extent that one of my tasks as Treasury junior was to defend the Home Office before the courts. I am afraid that I did not perform that task with the same elegance or indeed the same success as the noble Earl, but I sometimes found it uncomfortable having to do so.
I was also not unfamiliar with immigration issues when I went on to the bench because I was one of the judges who initially had to deal with judicial review applications. Since that procedure has developed, the major portion of the work has been affected by the demands which immigrant cases have placed upon the courts. Still today, the majority of cases coming before the courts can be described as immigrant cases.
Nonetheless, if I had appreciated that I was to have—if I may so describe them—two noble and learned Lords as leaders, I should not have put my name down to address your Lordships' House. Anyone who has had experience in the Judicial Committee knows that it is unwise for a junior to follow leaders of such eloquence unless perhaps he can provide factual information. That is what I shall try to do.
The position is that, as your Lordships have heard, Clause 10 proposes to take away a right of appeal

1193
which has existed for at least 21 years. I take the figure of 21 years because it is the figure which one arrives at if one takes as a starting point the Immigration Act 1971, albeit that there were rights of appeal before that Act came into force.
It is quite remarkable that the right of appeal which is at present available to visitors should be so regularly used, bearing in mind—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, indicated—that one has to leave the country before one can exercise that right. The explanation is that the visitors who exercise that right are not normal visitors who come here because they wish to enjoy the splendours which the ordinary tourist enjoys. They are visitors who are anxious to renew their connections with families from whom they have been separated for long periods of time. If they are not able to make a visit to this country, it often means that they are deprived of the opportunity of meeting again, before he or she dies, some grandparent, or meeting again some child who does not have the resources to return to the country from which the child originally arrived in this country.
That is why, notwithstanding the fact that these people are only visitors, they exercise this limited right of appeal. Even though it is a limited right of appeal, as noble Lords have heard, the number of appeals which are successful is disturbing. One in five is the information which was made available to me. We should bear in mind that those appeals are dealt with without the appellant being able to give evidence before the adjudicator who will consider his appeal. The appellant has to rely on putting his case on paper and thus I suggest that the number of appeals which are being allowed is doubly disturbing.
Normally, where there is a satisfactory appeal procedure, the courts will not become involved in judicial review of matters of this nature. However, in relation to the appeals where there has been some defect in the process, the courts have accepted that they should become involved. The reason for that is that the courts have recognised and accepted that for a visitor of the kind I have been describing to be wrongfully deprived of his opportunity to come to this country is a deprivation of his rights which is wholly inappropriate. It is not only a deprivation of his rights but a deprivation of the rights of people who are settled in this country because the visits are being made to those who are settled. They are the sponsors, the persons who seek that they should be visited in this way. The courts have been conscious of that fact.
Bearing in mind what I have just said, I should have thought that this was a matter which required careful consideration before the existing limited right of appeal was interfered with. I therefore communicated with the President of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal to ask him whether he had been approached as to whether there was any alternative procedure which would avoid that draconian step being taken. He assured me and authorised me to tell your Lordships that his advice and the advice of the chairmen of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal had not been sought, and that had their advice been sought, they would have recommended taking some different course. They would have recommended it because
1194
they also are impressed by the number of appeals which are being allowed at the present time. In the words of the president of the tribunal, it should be possible to devise other methods of speeding-up and dealing with the unfortunate backlog which at present exists. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner suggested one alternative. Obviously there are other alternatives.
It is right to say that the immigration appeal structure is a creaking structure. It is complex. It is drawn out. But the whole of that procedure needs examination. What is not required is the removal of what has become an entrenched right of appeal unless there is no alternative and, indeed, the removal of that right is justified.
There is, however, another disadvantage in the proposal contained in the Bill and that is its effect upon the present state of the applications for judicial review in the High Court. Reference has already been made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, with regard to the problems which exist there.
I recently gave a lecture on this subject. I hope that I did not overstate the position when I described it as being in a state of crisis—a state of crisis because applications for judicial review are extremely important. Unless they are dealt with expeditiously, the citizen can suffer, and so can the public, from unlawful action which requires rectifying. Other noble Lords have also spoken on the matter. Noble Lords were reminded that this is a subject on which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice addressed your Lordships. He authorised me to say that he would have wished to be here this evening to put his concerns about Clause 10 to your Lordships in person. Unfortunately, because of other public duties, he is not able to be here. However, his view is the same as mine: that it is the inevitable consequence of the present proposals contained in Clause 10 that, if enacted in their present form, they will lead to a substantial increase in the number of applications for judicial review.
The proposal that I made in my lecture to deal with the problems of judicial review included, in relation to immigration cases, extending the powers of the immigration adjudicators and immigration tribunals. It was my suggestion that such matters were more appropriately dealt with before those expert bodies, at least in the first place, and that that was a sensible way of relieving the burden on the High Court. I certainly would not have suggested that the right to apply to the High Court should be removed if there was no suitable alternative. I fear that what is being proposed here is just that.
I fully accept that the civil servants who have the difficult task of administering this legislation try to do their best. But it is very difficult legislation to apply in this particular situation. One needs only to see what the appeal figures at present indicate to know how fallible it is. It cannot be right that the actions now performed by adjudicators should instead be performed by High Court judges. The cost would be greater and the consequences to the administration of

1195
justice in this country could be serious. In those circumstances I would ask the noble Earl two questions.
First, I read from the information available in connection with the Bill that it was anticipated that the changes will lead to a saving of about £1 million to the two government departments concerned. Does that take into account the costs of the applications for judicial review, the costs of the employment of judges to deal with those applications and the legal aid which will have to be given to those who make the applications?
My second question is: has the noble Earl consulted the Lord Chancellor about the appointment of the additional judges that will be necessary to deal with those additional applications? I suspect that if the noble Earl and the Government have consulted the Lord Chancellor, he will have indicated that it will lead to an increase in applications for judicial review. It is inevitable. I also suspect that if he has consulted the Lord Chancellor he will have been told that that increase in the demands on judicial review at the present time is undesirable.
He may also have indicated—as he indicated in response to the requests made publicly by the Lord Chief Justice that additional judges should be appointed—that at the present time he does not have the resources to appoint those additional judges. I ask the noble Earl to answer those questions and perhaps give further consideration to the issues to which I have made reference when the future of the Bill is considered.
7.7 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, although no learned lawyer, I too would wish to lodge an appeal to my noble friend on behalf of those short-term and prospective students who will be affected by Clause 10. But I would like first to join others who have spoken to welcome this Bill and its proposals to speed up the procedures for those who have a legitimate claim to come to this country, whether as immigrants or as refugees.
The present system is not working. Perhaps before rushing to criticise the new proposals we should recognise how much distress and hardship are caused to many people. I have staff and students in my own institution who are caught in the lengthy process of application at the present time and who are waiting, sometimes for years, before getting any response to their request for refugee status.
It seems to me most strange that we in this country are quick to publicise the very tragic times when the system breaks down, and all too slow to recognise that we still have internationally a reputation for being one of the most welcoming and generous countries in any time of international crisis.
Others have referred to the period after the Second World War. I grew up in a family during the Second World War. I had a temporary sister for many years who was a German Jewish refugee, accepted by my parents along with many thousands of other British families like themselves, in the time when refugees
1196
were escaping from the horrors of Hitler and the concentration camps. Throughout our history and particularly in recent history, we as a country have been quick to respond. I understand that even now there are over 8,000 Bosnian refugees in this city alone. Let us therefore occasionally applaud the generosity and the good things that our country does while criticising the times it goes wrong.
I would like now to deal with one very specific aspect of Clause 10; namely, that which deals with the overseas students and the difficulties that I believe they will encounter as a result of these provisions, which take away from them their right to appeal against the decisions which can be made, sometimes in quite arbitrary fashion, on the part of entry clearance officers and immigration officers.
I wonder whether there is some feeling behind Clause 10 that short-term students who come here for less than six months are in some way not serious students and therefore do not really matter. That is simply not true. In the majority of cases they are here to follow three or four-month courses in the English language before proceeding to apply for quite substantial further or higher education courses. The majority of such short-term students are EC nationals with an automatic right of entry. But in recent years a significant and increasing proportion of short-term students have come from eastern Europe, central and southern America, Asia and Africa and have no automatic right of entry. They now face the possibility of being refused entry after being questioned at the port of entry, perhaps due to a misunderstanding arising from the language difficulty.
Others have referred to the large number of appeals which are currently successful against refusals of entry clearance. There is no doubt that a large number in the future could be refused, and without any right of appeal may have enormous difficulty in coming to this country. I welcome the Statement by the Minister in another place setting out a number of protections for those people who would be refused entry clearance and explaining that they would be entitled to make a further visa application. However, I do not believe that those measures compensate for the removal of their appeal rights or provide adequate safeguards.
It is important to remind ourselves that the British Tourist Authority, in a recent publication called, English Language Course Visitors to the UK 1990, which covered a piece of research on the population of short-term English language students in 1990, calculated that 615,000 language visitors came to the UK during 1990. While they were here they spent a total of £494 million. Around 12 per cent. of those visitors were from outside western Europe and it was found that those people spent more time and money per head than the western Europeans. It was calculated that they contributed around £95 million of the expenditure—19 per cent. of the total. The average length of stay of those students was 47 nights, making them short-term students under the regulations. In addition, a considerable number of them expressed a desire to become long-term students, and preventing

1197
them from entering would thus prevent them from coming here as substantial students over a long period of time.
I have represented British universities in many overseas visits on behalf of the British Council, battling for the business of encouraging governments, ministries of education and overseas companies to send more students to Britain instead of to the United States, Australia or Canada. The battle for the business is now extremely fierce. Other countries see the tremendous value of bringing students from other countries to study. They know that it creates long-term goodwill and natural links in industry and other areas. It would be most unfortunate if all the good work that the Government and the British Council have done in fighting for that business were now to be misplaced. I can promise that one of the things that I and my colleagues have frequently found on such visits is that the one or two bad anecdotes—the stories of somebody wrongly or badly treated—and one or two wrong headlines in the press about British higher education can destroy years of good work and goodwill that has been built up.
I ask my noble friend to look again at that specific aspect of the provision in the Bill. I am confident that he wishes to do what is right and I am sure that ways will be found—various suggestions have been made by noble and learned Lords—as to how that may be done. I beg him to think again and not to destroy what could be an important part of our national life.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I open by apologising that I shall not be able to attend the end of the debate. I am afraid that my duties as a local councillor will call me away.
In the past the Government have adhered to their obligations under the international human rights instruments. It is my hope that those humanitarian principles will continue to be upheld in any future changes to the asylum procedures. However, I am alarmed that the proposals before us will limit the prospects of asylum seekers reaching our shores and reduce the protection afforded to those who do reach our shores.
I believe that there are many reasons why my alarm is well founded. I shall briefly list them: first, the increased fares on airlines bringing in asylum seekers without proper documentation and the extension of the regulations to transit passengers; secondly, the restriction of legal aid to asylum seekers; thirdly, a new fast-track procedure which will give less scope for asylum seekers to put their case properly; fourthly, compulsory fingerprinting of asylum seekers; fifthly, the removal of the duty of local authorities to provide permanent accommodation for asylum seekers and their families; and, finally, the removal of the rights of appeal to visitors and prospective students.
The points that I have briefly listed will be familiar to all those present. However, I hope to illustrate their strength with two examples from my experience as a councillor in the London Borough of Wandsworth. In my work I have seen a number of cases where injustice has been prevented by the present appeals system.
1198
Until recently, Wandsworth had three law centres to represent local residents and their families at immigration appeals. The law centres showed that if people are given good advice at an early stage, only valid cases are put to appeal. Our law centres had a success rate in excess of 90 per cent. at the adjudicator stage.
Only two weeks ago the one remaining law centre in Wandsworth succeeded in an appeal for the son of a resident of Roehampton, the ward I represent. That young man of 22 had been refused leave to enter the country to visit his parents, despite the fact that he had had the right to come and live here up until his 18th birthday and had chosen not to do so, and despite the fact that he ran a viable business in his own country. As I said, his appeal was upheld. It is disgraceful and inconceivable to me that his family would lose their right to appeal, yet under Clause 10 of the Bill that would be the case.
My second example concerns the consequences of the proposed fast-track procedure. The law centre in Wandsworth is presently acting for a man who is a member of an ethnic minority in an African country. Because of his ethnic origin and his father's status as an opponent of the regime in power, he was picked up by the police. He was tortured and fled to Britain. Because of a lack of supporting evidence for his claim, his application for refugee status was refused.
The law centre is now gathering evidence for the appeal. It is taking a long time. They have obtained evidence from the consultant psychiatrist at the local hospital and the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. They have obtained evidence from witnesses in his country of origin to corroborate who he is and his likelihood of persecution. They have obtained evidence from many agencies, including the United Nations Commission for Refugees and Africa Watch to establish that this man's ethnic group is indeed persecuted in his country of origin. To repeat myself, that takes a long time and the fast-track system will inevitably lead to injustices. In that case, that would mean returning the victim to the torturer's dungeon.
I have sought to illustrate my anxiety with two simple and, sadly, common examples. It happens that both my examples concerned people from Africa— they are black. It has been widely commented that proposals contained in the Bill will be racially discriminatory in their effect, and I believe that to be the case.
In conclusion, I remind the Minister (though I am sure he needs no reminding) that development agencies across the world are estimating a massive increase in refugees in the years to come as conflicts multiply in the post-colonial world. Many of those conflicts will arise out of frustrated claims for self determination. In those circumstances, I believe that it behoves the Government and us all to seek a humane and generous response to the refugees who look to our country as a safe haven. I hope that the Government will give more support to multilateral efforts in the resolution of conflicts and be less concerned with the

1199
creation of a British laager in which legitimate refugees are barely tolerated rather than made welcome on our shores.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I should like to concentrate on an aspect of the Bill which has not been touched upon very much this afternoon; that is, Clause 12 that deals with carriers' liability. But first, perhaps I may make a few general comments.
We have heard a good deal this afternoon about trends in immigration and emigration and the fact that more people seem to be on the move now than has been the case over the past few years. The Minister told us that the number of asylum seekers dropped last year. That is very welcome news and perhaps is evidence that the Government's immigration restrictions are having some effect. However, the ever-present threat of serious instability breaking out in eastern Europe may swing those figures upwards again in a very short time. Who can say what the effect will be when the population of the former Soviet Union—who as far as I can see are all continuing in their jobs as though there is still full employment in that country—discover that the inevitable and much-needed economic reforms lead to them being out of work? Those new unemployed will either have to face starvation or seek work in other countries. Whatever happens, the problems facing us in the field of emigration will not go away in a hurry.
I return to Clause 12 of the Bill which extends the liability of airlines and shipping companies under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 to include the carriage of persons with transit visas. On previous occasions we have discussed at great length the question of carriers' liability and I do not intend now to rehearse many of the arguments I have already put forward. Suffice it to say that the mere fact that the Act is still in force is a matter of great concern to the carriers. Fines are still being levied upon them for transporting to this country persons without proper documentation despite their very best endeavours to prevent it happening. I believe that the fines total over £40 million, of which just over half remain unpaid. Unpaid fines show up as outstanding debts on companies' balance sheets.
Not unnaturally, the carriers would like to clear this matter up as quickly as possible. Is there no way that the Government can extend some kind of olive branch to the carriers and allow them to settle on a certain amount—not necessarily the full amount—and so clear up matters? It would be very nice to do that up to the end of 1992 and so allow the carriers to start with a clean sheet from the beginning of this year. I say "not necessarily the full amount" on purpose because I understand that some of the fines levied on the ferry companies in particular fell in a period when technically in both France and Belgium it was illegal for anyone other than a recognised official to check passports. Surely, it cannot be right for the Government to fine a carrier for an infringement when his staff are technically acting illegally in carrying out
1200
duties that have been imposed upon them under the carriers' liability Act. I believe that certain elements of tidying up can be dealt with here.
I should like to turn to an aspect where some progress has been made. I believe that discussions have taken place between the carriers and the Home Office concerning the issue of a new set of guidelines for immigration officials at ports and airports. These guidelines are expected to allow local officials to use more discretion than hitherto when dealing with cases. Hopefully, it will prevent some of the more ludicrous instances that have occurred from happening again. One has only to cite the favourite example of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. (I am sorry to see that he is not in his place this evening.) I refer to the case of the 16 Nepalese military bandsmen who had gone abroad during their tour of the United Kingdom to play in a concert on the continent. On their return to Dover the ferry company was fined £32,000 despite the fact that the bandsmen had onward tickets to fly home again from Gatwick the following day.
The new guidelines are very welcome so far as the carriers are concerned and are certainly a step in the right direction. That is something for which I have asked before. I wonder whether the noble Earl who is to reply on behalf of the Government can give the House any indication of how matters are proceeding with the issue of the new guidelines and when they may appear.
I have no illusions about being able to amend the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act in any way during the passage of the Bill. I am sure that the Government would resist any attempt to do so most strongly. However, I believe that the Government could take a serious look at clearing up in an equitable way the substantial fine problem to which I have alluded. I believe that that would go a long way towards alleviating the inequitable way in which the carriers feel they have been treated over this Bill.
7.26 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I should like to begin by saying to the Minister how grateful I and many others are that this time round the debate on the Bill has been conducted in an atmosphere of considered calmness. The present Bill has been discussed in a rational and constructive manner with many points being taken on board and properly debated on merit. The attitude of the Government has been positive and helpful, and for this I should like to thank the Minister and, through him, the Secretary of State. It is also helpful that in the present climate there is no longer a necessity to justify the need for the Bill at all. It is widely accepted that some form of legislation is now necessary.
I welcome the provision of the right of appeal for all asylum seekers under the Bill. This was a matter of great concern to the many agencies dealing with the problems of asylum seekers and refugees and to your Lordships who spoke at the Second Reading of the previous Bill in February 1992. However, there is still concern that a small minority may not have sufficient time to lodge an application for an appeal. The noble and learned Lords have already spoken about that.

1201
Bearing in mind the particular difficulties under which a potential asylum seeker may be labouring, two days may be a totally unrealistic time limit. I hope that the Minister can have another look at that point. I am the twentieth speaker so I do not have anything very original to say, but with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I should like to emphasise that a right given must be capable of being exercised with ease or else it may not be given at all.
Some matters which have already been mentioned require further consideration. I too believe that we all have a right to be concerned about the blanket fingerprinting provision. There are good objective arguments for introducing fingerprinting for all asylum seekers. There have been some sensational examples of fraud in the past. But is that in itself sufficient reason to depart from long-cherished principles? We have heard what happens elsewhere. It is not a question of what happens in neighbouring countries; it is a question of what we hold dear. The question is whether we want to change the character of our society. It is reassuring to be told that there will be no criminalisation as the fingerprinting will be done by the Immigration Service, but that may be cold comfort to some who have strong personal knowledge of the Immigration Service and may have doubts in that respect.
We must also remember that a great deal of social security fraud is committed by United Kingdom citizens themselves. Do we have any ideas about what we are going to do about them? This is a major departure from accepted practice and we need to balance very carefully the benefits of catching fraudulent complainants against a serious erosion of principle.
I am not going to say anything about children because my noble friend Lady Faithfull and others have dealt with that subject much more eloquently than I could. However, I want briefly to mention the question of housing. It is a matter of regret that even those who are in priority categories will not be entitled to any kind of permanent housing. Of the others I would only say that they should be allowed to join the queue and to remain in the queue until their application is determined. Indeed, if they are allowed the right to stay they could gain the time from remaining in the queue and be there to get their accommodation. If they are not allowed to remain in the queue they will have to start all over again once their application has been determined.
That would not affect the housing list in any way because those people would not be entitled to permanent housing until their application had been determined. All this will mean is that if their application takes two years to determine they will not lose those two years on the waiting list. If they are not allowed the right to stay they will be taken off the list.
One of the most amazing aspects of the Bill is that leave to appeal is to be taken away from short-term students and visitors. I regret that the Bill deals with immigration appeals and asylum appeals together. This has caused confusion to some people. Here again I find myself in the company of those noble and learned Lords who have made such a strong case for
1202
maintaining the appeal system. They have said that what is proposed will increase the number of applications for judicial review. I hope that if this matter is reconsidered it will not be out of fear of too many cases going for judicial review but because of a wish to do the right thing. It is not right to take away the right of appeal.
In any event this proposal gives quite an inordinate amount of power to an entry clearance officer to affect the lives of individuals and their families. To be completely free from scrutiny by higher authority gives an entry clearance officer more freedom and more power to act than any of our judges has. For me the question is not whether there is merit in an application but rather that no single member of the Executive should have such total power to make a decision of this importance secure in the knowledge that there will be no review.
What it may hold for the future is anyone's guess, but those of us who have been dealing with these matters over the years know only too well how rigid some ECOs have become in the application of criteria which they themselves have developed. While I am very glad that in Committee in another place it was accepted that a new application may be made on the basis of a detailed explanation of refusal, I fear that in reality there will be no fresh consideration of such an application and that the previous refusal will taint the new application in the eyes of the entry clearance officer. The only way to make it a genuine second hearing is for the ECO not to have knowledge of the previous refusal. If all those safeguards are applied, one may as well go for an appeal to a higher tier. If I may follow the theme of erosion, this is a further erosion of a fundamental right in a matter which will have serious implications for an individual or his or her family.
At this moment, for all kinds of reasons, Europe is very much on our minds. There is of course a European dimension to asylum policy, as has already been mentioned. The 12 countries of the Community are making some progress towards harmonising their asylum policies through processes such as those which led to the Dublin Convention. In addition, the 12 have agreed to try to bring their national legislation closer together. One detects signs of that in the outcome of the immigration Ministers' meeting of early December. I presume that some of the proposed changes in the asylum rules are a further step in that direction. For me the real issue is the contrast between the open way in which we proceed with our legislation and the secrecy which surrounds the debates of the European proposals. I hope that in the future we can move towards a more open European process as that will provide greater safeguards in the sensitive and important area of human rights.
We are living in an age of great turmoil. Large numbers of people are on the move because of war, persecution, famine or just grinding poverty. Europe is faced with only 12 per cent. of potential refugees or asylum seekers. What will its response be? What will be the United Kingdom's response? I believe that this

1203
will prove to be a major issue of our time and that our society will be judged in the future by how we rise to this challenge now.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am probably being unfair to the Government but when I read the Bill I feel that it is an exercise in cynicism. The Bill begins by affirming the acceptance of the United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees. It goes on to say that the convention should have priority and that its provisions should prevail over any inconsistent provisions of immigration rules. But having done that the whole tenor of the Bill is to make it as difficult as possible for the people who need to avail themselves of these provisions to do so. For example, they are expected to have proper papers; passports, visas and so on. Someone running for his life may have had a passport but there is certainly no question of his going to get a visa. Not only is it essential to have a visa, but carriers are expected to reject those who do not have one. If carriers do not reject them, they will be fined large sums of money. Secondly, assuming that a person arrives, he is then treated like a criminal. He must have his fingerprints taken. Even for an unaccompanied child, fingerprinting is an essential part of the process. Clause 1 indicates the kind of person with whom we are dealing. It is that kind of person who, having arrived in a traumatised condition, will be treated in this way. We go further. We say that if they are here seeking asylum, their case has to be determined and they are homeless. The local authority cannot re-house them except in temporary accommodation. It does not matter what the accommodation is. If they have temporary accommodation they are no longer a responsibility of the local authority. That means that the local authority has to satisfy itself as to the status of the person and therefore it has to question the person. I hope that the Government recognise the kind of problems that that will create. Nobody is going to ask an obvious Englishman, speaking good cockney English, about his status. If they did he would be angry and there would be real trouble. No local authority is going to do that.
Every time someone of colour becomes homeless the local authority—because it is obliged to decide on the status of a person—will question that person and seek to satisfy itself of that person's status. Therefore, we are legislating for racial discrimination. It is as straightforward as that. We are asking the local authority to do something which will affect people of colour to a much greater extent than white people. Therefore, it is racially discriminatory. I hope that the Government recognise that.
Leaving aside the racial question, the provision introduces for the first time a category of homeless person who should be treated differently from other homeless people. Frankly, and Shelter says so, this is the thin end of the wedge. Perhaps I should not put it as strongly as that. But there is always the fear that having acted that way towards one group, it will be
1204
done with others. Therefore we are undermining the basis of the legislation for the homeless. I hope that the Government will take that matter on board.
I am very grateful to noble and learned Lords for dealing with the question of appeals. It saves my having to go into the matter. I have a kind of midwifery relationship with the appeal machinery because it was set up when my noble friend Lord Campbell of Eskan and I were joint deputy chairmen of the Community Relations Commission. My noble friend Lord Callaghan was then Home Secretary. The appeal machinery was set up because of the large number of complaints that we were receiving about the way in which immigration decisions were being made. It took us some time to convince the Home Office that something needed to be done and that the appeal machinery should be set up. Eventually it saw the point and the machinery was set up. The evidence we now have as to the number of cases in which the decisions of the immigration officers have been overturned by the appeal machinery indicates its importance and value. The judges have given an additional dimension to the matter. I hope that the Government will take all those factors on board.
Perhaps I may put it this way. The Government are worried about the number of people applying for asylum and they are trying to tighten up the procedure. In doing so I get the impression—that is why I began by saying that this legislation is an exercise in cynicism—that what the Government are concerned about is the direct opposite of what they should be concerned about. The Government should be concerned that every person who needs asylum gets it. What they seem to be concerned about is that no person who does not need asylum gets it.
Our attitude to the law is that it is better that some guilty people escape rather than that innocent people are punished. We should be taking the same attitude here. The attitude should be that the one situation we do not want is that a person who has left a place where he would be tortured is in fact sent back to be tortured. All our activities in relation to these matters should be geared to prevent that happening. But the situation is the direct opposite. In the Bill we are making it absolutely certain that nobody who is not entitled to it gets asylum. We are running the real risk that the people who are in danger are sent back to the danger which they left. I cannot believe that that is what the Government want. I hope that there will be some rethinking.
I hope also that the advice which has been given to the Government by noble and learned Lords will be taken and that the Government will not proceed with Clauses 10 and 11, which should be withdrawn. It is obvious that we are going to have a very important Committee stage. I hope that we shall be able to improve the Bill. The essential factor is for the Government themselves to rethink their attitude. I hope that they do so.
7.48 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Ferrers for his most eloquent and extremely persuasive promotion of the

1205
Bill. Even though he removed quite a number of my doubts, I regret to say that I still have one or two questions and doubts remaining. I do not believe that I go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, as regards what he said on the Government's intention. I hope that it is not kidology on my part, but I certainly hope that the Government's intention is that all those who should receive asylum status under the UN convention get it and that those who are not entitled under the convention should not do so. No doubt my noble friend the Minister will confirm that in his winding-up address.
Incidentally, reference has been made to the fact that as the UN convention is now many years old, it is out of date and should be revised. It seems to me (perhaps a bit naively) that it is for the UN to do that, rather than Members of your Lordships' House. Until the UN alters that convention, I am happy to accept the Government's dedication to the principle set out in that convention, which seems to me to be an admirable model on which to base consideration of this subject.
If I may take a couple of quotations to illustrate my point, I approach this question of asylum primarily from the principle that God laid down in the book of Deuteronomy when He said, "do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice". I believe that it is our job here to seek justice for the applicants while we continue to show them courtesy, fairness and love, but that we should stick to what is the accepted criteria in the UN convention.
To back that up, perhaps I may quote also from the European Consultation on Refugees and Exiles. Speaking last October, the secretary said that we are to ensure the fair and efficient functioning of a humanitarian asylum system. That seems to embrace what your Lordships have been saying during this Second Reading debate. That is what we are aiming for. However, I do not believe that any two of us are interpreting those criteria in the same way. As several noble Lords have said, there is a balance to be struck between the two extremes and we need to try to get the best balance that we can. I hope that by the time your Lordships have finished with this Bill many of us will be happier with the balance than is the case as it starts its progress through this House. Many of the good things about the Bill have been mentioned. I refer, for example, to the speeding-up of the determination of applications to 28 days. We need the system to be fair and efficient, humanitarian and just.
I turn now to the question of fingerprinting. My noble friend the Minister was seeking to convince me that it is necessary and, reluctantly, I am prepared to accept the fingerprinting of adults. I did not write down the figures, but I believe that he said that there had been 27 prosecutions out of, I believe, about 1,500 investigations into multiple applications. My figures may not be accurate, but my noble friend will correct me if they are not.
Although there may be justification for the fingerprinting of adults, I am not at all convinced that it is justified in the case of children. The case of children has been put forcefully by my noble friend
1206
Lady Faithfull and others, and I do not want to repeat it. Children are, however, very vulnerable when they enter this country and we need to treat them gently. Surely, a minimum age for fingerprinting should be laid down at least in the rules if not in the Bill itself. I am not convinced that we should fingerprint those under the age of 16 but if it is necessary surely the minimum age should be 12 or 13. I should like to see that laid down in black and white.
I should also like to see a definition of the phrase,
"who is not an authorised person".
I fear that to a child any stranger, especially a professional stranger, will appear as bad as an immigration officer. A child who does not know the language will not know the difference between a social worker and an immigration officer. This task should be carried out by a member of the family but, if there is none, I am attracted to the idea of a qualified person being an advocate, which has been recommended by several of your Lordships.
My final point on fingerprinting is that although I note that the destruction of the fingerprints has been specified, I wonder whether the fingerprints are to be truly confidential. That point worries me. There is nothing in the Bill to stipulate whether the fingerprints may be used in other places or perhaps even in other countries. I should like the provisions governing the confidentiality of the fingerprints to be strengthened in black and white. I did not feel a criminal on the occasions that I have been fingerprinted, but I am conscious of the fact that I was probably not as vulnerable as are asylum-seekers when they enter a new country. As I have said, fingerprinting may be all right for adults, but not for children.
On Clause 4 which deals with housing, I should like briefly to endorse all that my noble friend Lady Flather has just said. She was totally right and forcefully made my point that surely it is not necessary for a successful asylum-seeker to start again at the bottom rung of the housing ladder. Surely a successful applicant can be placed where he or she was formerly in temporary accommodation and join the queue for permanent accommodation from that point. Such people should not have to start again from the bottom. Although I take the point made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull that it is not right for an asylum-seeker to jump the queue, nor is it right for the opposite to happen and for the asylum-seeker to have to start again at the very bottom of the queue.
On Clause 8 concerning appeals, we all welcome the right to a full oral hearing, first, before a special adjudicator, but the timescale is totally impossible. Ten days would be impossible, let alone two days. I have seen instances—and many of your Lordships will know of instances—where it may take a five-hour journey to reach a detention centre to talk to a person and another five hours to get back again. That means that a whole day could be spent just doing that. One may be allowed only one hour with the asylum-seeker, and may then have to apply for a new appointment because one does not have all the information that is needed to lodge an appeal. The time schedules are totally impossible and the criteria for them is not adequately set out. In another place it was said that a

1207
two-day time limit would apply only to those applications that were "without foundation". Why, then, is that not specified at least in the rules if not in the Bill itself? I believe that the time limits are too short for any reason.
Finally, on Clause 10, I hope that the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Woolf, will table amendments to tackle the withdrawal of appeals. They have ideas on that because of their vast experience and I very much hope that they will read Hansard and note that I am encouraging them to table amendments. I accept what my noble friend Lord Ferrers said and that the object is to clear the backlog, but I do not accept that it is right to withdraw the right to appeal as set out in Clause 10. I hope that the noble and learned Lords will provide the answers that will get us off this hook and kill two birds with one stone by reinstating the leave to appeal and clearing the backlog. I hope that they succeed.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I support Her Majesty's Government in much that this Bill is trying to do, as I did when we last discussed such legislation on 10th February last. My noble friend the Minister will not be surprised if I remain hostile to the burdens placed on carriers by the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 and by its extension through Clause 12 of this Bill.
I must declare an interest in relation to both tourism and the railways. I should like to remind the House that for some 20 years I have worked with a large number of British and foreign carriers with the specific objective of encouraging them to support the marketing activities of the British Tourist Authority. Although I no longer have any day-to-day connection with that activity, I still believe that Her Majesty's Government were and are right to recognise the importance of foreign tourism to our economy, and that they are right to direct the authority to raise all the support that it can from the commercial sector.
It may surprise your Lordships to learn that carriers contributed almost 60 per cent. of the authority's advertising spend last year. Furthermore, they contributed some two-thirds of the cost of other co-operative marketing ventures, such as print and inward missions. They contributed more than £2 million-worth of in-kind support in the form of free tickets for journalists and the travel trade as a whole. As I said, that support is welcomed by both the authority and by government. However, I must stress that the authority and the carriers feel that they are at risk because of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. Also at risk is London's domination as a tourist destination and as a transit air centre.
The 1987 Act placed on carriers the onus to ensure that passengers arriving at UK immigration controls have passports and visas which are absolutely in order and it penalises the carrier if that is not so. Initially the penalty was £1,000 but last year it was increased to £2,000. That is a stiff penalty to pay if a passenger's
1208
documents are not in order or, as is sometimes the case, if the passenger has no documents because he has destroyed them in transit.
In introducing the 1987 Act the Government appeared to be addressing the problems of economic migration and doubtful claims for asylum by making the carriers' check-in staff the first line of British immigration control. They might be employed by the carrier but that was not always thus; for example, Swiss law forbids British airlines from directly employing their own check-in staff in Switzerland. Some carriers have tried hard to fulfil the obligations imposed on them by that unsolicited task. British Airways spends more than £1 million per annum on staff training. As I mentioned in the debate last February, those of us who have seen the professional way in which its check-in staff address their task overseas cannot but believe that they are doing their best in circumstances which are becoming ever more complex as a result of economic migration, as a result of those who are seeking dubiously to achieve asylum status in this country, as a result of the large industry abroad which deals specifically with illegal immigration and as a result of the skill of the forger.
Whatever British Airways does each month some 90 or 100 people slip through the net and British Airways is levied that number of penalties. Whatever the staff of any carrier do it is clear that the demands made upon them—quite unfairly in my opinion—are not solving the problems that the Bill addresses or that the original Act addressed. That is why we have Clause 12 in the Bill and an ever-increasing number of penalties are levied. I understand that since the original Act came into force some £46 million-worth has been levied. Whether that is at £1,000 or £2,000 a throw it is a large number of people.
According to a Written Answer given in another place just before Christmas some £24 million of that £46 million remains unpaid. When I worked in government service debtors of that kind would have been the subject not necessarily of instant dismissal but of serious review. What is worse is that we do not appear to be doing a great deal to retrieve that £24 million. The carriers which I have consulted—including British Airways, the late-lamented Dan Air, American Airlines, Singapore International and several shipping companies—claim to be prompt payers if they believe that they cannot win an appeal. That suggests to me that other carriers are holding back. Among carriers as among any other group there will be good and bad apples. One must ask oneself why the odd writ has not been nailed to the odd mast in order to accelerate payment. It cannot simply be a matter of appeals outstanding. I wonder, as some carriers have claimed to me, whether diplomatic expediency is not being allowed to distort the level playing field.
Clause 12 will not aid the Government in achieving the objectives of the Bill. Rather it will distort the playing field for British airlines in that as in any market-led industry satisfying the customer is paramount. In order to comply with Clause 12 British carriers will have to be even more negative at the point of check-in overseas, rejecting perfectly legitimate

1209
passengers on grounds of suspicion alone. The transit passengers who reach the UK seem almost bound to be kept under a form of house arrest until they are safely embarked on their outward journeys. One slip and the airline or maritime carrier is penalised £2,000. That is £2,000 which at the end of the day we, the carrier's other customer, will end up paying.
One wonders whether such developments really sit all square with the Government's wish to see a strong British airline industry or with their directive to the British Tourist Authority to maximise revenue for British carriers. One fears that transit traffic, which is of major importance especially to our airlines, our airports and our economy, will go elsewhere. While some of our European competitors will suffer with us—Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Zurich in particular— Copenhagen, Rome, Vienna and especially Paris, which is a serious competitor to London, will benefit because their more relaxed transit visa requirements will advantage them at the expense of our efforts. In order to avoid that situation I hope that if Clause 12 reaches the statute book the Government will take steps to reconcile their asylum and economic migration problems with carrier interests.
In that context I hope that transit visas in particular will be easily obtainable. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, rightly implied that that was not always the case in respect of ordinary visas. The position may well worsen as a result of Foreign Office cutbacks overseas. I hope that the Clause 12 powers will be specific but will be used sparingly. I hope that the economic consequences will be talked through between the Home Office, the Department of Transport, the carriers and the airports. I also hope that the appeals procedure will be reviewed and eventually operated with a greater degree of flexibility than hitherto. Sensibility and reasonableness in interpretation were promised in both Houses as the 1987 Act made its way onto the statute book.
There is a final dimension which must cause us concern in terms of both the 1987 Act and Clause 12. Late this year, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, reminded us, we shall have the Channel Tunnel. We shall have shuttle trains for cars, which for immigration purposes will convey passengers who have been dealt with in France. We shall have passenger trains from Paris, Brussels and other European capitals on which immigration procedures will take place in transit. That will be at penal cost to the European railways involved because they will have to hire additional immigration manpower in order to cope with the transit requirement.
One must bear in mind that the immigration officer will work only half time; he will work on the journey towards London but not on the journey out to his position. Check-in, as airlines understand that, will not exist. At the Gare du Nord tickets will be electronically read. Where does that leave the railways in terms of the 1987 Act or in terms of Clause 12? The latter has, I feel, a particular relevance because as other carriers and the Government seek to close one illegal immigration loophole the illegal immigrant industry will, as some of us know, probe towards another.
1210
In echoing the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, in his call for compromise in interpretation of the existing Act and of Clause 12, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be evenhanded both to existing carriers and to new carriers. I seek the level playing field. At the same time I seek the achievement of the Government's other objectives, but the level playing field is of particular importance. I seek more Home Office co-operation. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, the improved relationship between the Home Office and the carriers is a welcome development. Finally, I seek more discretion—I cannot say at point of sale—at the point of immigration for immigration officers. With those factors in place I shall be happy to support the other measures in the Bill.
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it will not have escaped the notice of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that his Bill has not been received with unqualified enthusiasm. I am sure he now recognises that we are to have a long and tough Committee stage, and that there will be a great many amendments arising from the speeches made this evening.
That being so, I do not propose to turn the Second Reading into a preview of the Committee stage. I merely intend to underline some of the points that have been made in order to emphasise the great significance which many of us on all sides of your Lordships' House attach to them.
First, there can be no question that everybody who has spoken about it—and I expect many who have not —cannot accept the clauses regarding children. It seems quite extraordinary that anybody could ever draft those clauses, let alone have any intention of turning them into the law of the land. Undoubtedly there will be amendments on that subject.
On the question of appeals, we are extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lords who have made the case for appeal so overwhelmingly strong this evening. I have no doubt that there will be powerful amendments along the lines that they have suggested. It is particularly important to remember the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that a legal right which cannot be enforced is no legal right at all. It is hypocritical to have it in the legislation. It is better not to have such a right than to have it there if it cannot be used.
The noble and learned Lords made it clear that this change involves questions which go beyond this Bill as such. It is a matter which is of considerable anxiety to the Lord Chancellor's Department. I have no doubt that when the time comes, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will explain to us how the promised legal right of appeal can, in practice and in reality, be enforced. We have all noted how the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, made the point that there are simply not enough judges to enforce that provision at present. Those are wide-ranging matters which will be taken up in Committee. Decisions are needed along the lines suggested.
As regards Clause 10, I wish to support what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, about

1211
students. It is an extraordinary idea that students are a burden. Of course they are a burden to us sometimes in the short term. Anybody who has had dealings with them knows that. However, in the long term, overseas students are an invaluable asset. I believe that I have said to your Lordships before that the LSE library, the best social science library in the country and one of the best in the world, could never have been built if the LSE overseas students, the former students, had not subscribed in very large quantities in order for that library to be built. The way in which people who have studied in this country are prepared to favour it in trade terms is surely an enormous asset. It is the most absurd short-termism to think that a little money spent on students now is money wasted. In fact, it is one of the best investments that can possibly be made. To make life difficult for overseas students is false economy of the first order.
As regards visitors, we must not forget that we have not cracked our race relations problem in this country. There is a great deal of anxiety in sections of the ethnic minority communities that matters are not getting better, and that in some respects they are getting worse. There is evidence to show that that is so. There is not much doubt that many of the visitors will be members of families of ethnic minorities in this country. Whether or not it is so, it will be seen by members of those ethnic minorities as a form of race discrimination. In many cases, it is a form of particularly unpleasant discrimination because it will mean that families will find it difficult to get together. Other noble Lords have made the point, but I believe that it needs to be underlined. After all, the Conservative Government are the government of the family, are they not? Families are families whether they are black or white. They need to be able to get together on those occasions when families allege that they like to meet each other. Therefore, Clause 10 needs to be looked at again.
I am very much with the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, when he continues the battle against requiring carriers to enforce the regulations. The staff of carriers should not be involved in those matters. They have their own jobs to do, which they are trained to do. They are not trained to be enforcers of the law. People should not be subject to enforcement by those who are not properly qualified because it is not their job to carry out such work. To impose a fine of £2,000 on the carrier who brings people who do not have the proper papers is a quite inappropriate way of trying to enforce the legislation. We have argued that before on a number of occasions. I know that the Government are determined to maintain the requirement on the carriers, but at least we can continue to protest that that is not a proper way of enforcing the law.
I have never been able to understand why anybody should believe that a genuine refugee would be able to obtain the proper papers. If you are a genuine refugee escaping from your country, the last thing you are likely to be able to do is to go to the authorities and obtain the necessary papers. The Government have never told us why they believe that will happen. If you are not a genuine refugee, I am sure that you can
1212
obtain papers easily. If you are being sent by a foreign country to spy on people in this country, as happened in the 1930s (as some of us remember all too well) I expect you can obtain all the necessary papers that are needed. However, a genuine refugee is the last person to be able to obtain the documentation to prove that he is a desirable and worthy citizen. I beg the Government to look once again at that clause.
As I said, this is not a Committee stage. I wish to take up one or two rather broader points appropriate to a Second Reading. I recognise, along with everybody else, that we cannot have unlimited immigration. However, there is an extraordinary mood at present that to have refugees is fine because we have a great tradition of giving asylum to people who are subject to torture or who are fleeing from some tyrannical regime. But the implication is that economic refugees, about whom we speak with considerable distaste, will be the most enormous burden. History does not bear that out at all.
I must admit that some have been a burden. My own totally undistinguished forebears were among the thugs from Scandinavia who came across the North Sea to rape and to rob. I suppose in our case, they decided not to use their return ticket. However, the general record of immigrants is quite different; for example, the Huguenots. We have distinguished evidence of having Huguenots in your Lordships' House, one of whom has spoken this evening. There are many other distinguished descendants of the Huguenots who have contributed enormously with their hard work and high moral standards to the life of this country. The Flemish weavers brought in building and crafts and taught some of the residents of this country how to do jobs that they had not known how to do before. They have also added to the wellbeing of this country.
Two or three years ago, as a gentile, I was greatly honoured to be invited to a Jewish celebration of 100 years since the first Jewish Member of Parliament in this country. There were not many gentiles there. In the course of the celebration the Left-wing then Labour Member of Parliament, Ian Mikardo, said, "We should remember that but for the generosity of the British, many of us would be ashes in an unknown eastern European grave". That generosity has been repaid to this country over a thousand-fold in the arts, in music, in academia, in science and in making money —an art not to be despised. We should have been much poorer if we had not had them come in. These economic immigrants are not to be scorned. At present, the numbers may be too great to take at any one stage; but immigrants can be of the most tremendous benefit to the country that receives them.
We are dealing with something much bigger than the subject covered in this legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, referred to this matter. There will not be less migration in the world; there will be a great deal more with the increase in population in the developing countries which are unable to feed their own people. As was said to me in Kenya two years ago, "In 10 years' time, we can neither employ them nor feed them". Those people will migrate, and it is

1213
time that we saw the situation as one of the world's great problems. We need to get together on an international scale or at least at the European level.
This is not altogether a matter of subsidiarity, much as I support the ill-sounding concept. This is something which we should be dealing with together, at least at the European level, because it will get bigger and bigger and more politically difficult to deal with.
As my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter suggested (based on the letter that I think many of us had from the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits), an international conference should be convened to see how we can anticipate and so deal with the very serious problems that lie ahead, which will make the present problems look trifling. We should not deal with them as a single country fearful of getting new and different people in, but as a civilised world which has to deal with the hideous problem of people on the move.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, this has been a remarkable debate. If I may say so, the speech that we have just heard was characteristically remarkable. We all have great affection for the noble Baroness and we listen to her with great care. She spoke most movingly and profoundly.
I suppose I must first declare an interest in that I am the chairman of the British Refugee Council. I am very happy that the chairman of one of my committees is the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. I am very proud that she serves with me on the refugee council, and even prouder tonight after hearing another stunning speech, if I may say so.
This has been a remarkable debate, not least for the interventions of the law Lords, or, in some cases, former law Lords. I shall allude to some of their comments later, but clearly the Minister will have to think deeply about the observations that were made in a number of respects about the deficiencies of a Bill which offends legal principles and about the very remarkable revelation that we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who disclosed that according to inquiries he had made the Government had failed or had refused to consult with the presidents and chairmen of immigration tribunals. I cannot think what they were up to. Surely this is a matter which goes to the very heart of the work that they undertake. So it is incumbent upon the noble Earl tonight to disclose to the House why that arose at all.
There are many in our society today in Europe who preach the gospel of hate and fear. I believe that hate and fear can only poison and degrade our society and degrade our people. That is why it is incumbent upon all of us in a democratic society to rebuke those voices, and why we must turn away from those who preach fear and despair, doubt and suspicion.
I believe that the Government have gone the other way. They have chosen to pander to those voices. I do not believe that the Bill contributes to the purposes which I have just outlined. It is said that the Bill will improve race relations. I do not believe that to be the case. Indeed, it is interesting that when the Bill was revealed one saw in the tabloids headlines such as "Clarke acts to stop phoney refugees flooding into
1214
Britain", which is not exactly the voice of compassion: or "New war launched on refugees racket"; or simply —as the Sun newspaper tends to be very simple indeed —the banner headline "No entry". Those are the people who have declared their great pleasure with the Bill. That is one of the reasons why we on this side of the House are so firmly opposed to it.
Essentially, the Bill reflects the same mischiefs as the initial Bill did just before the general election. The Bill is opposed vigorously by virtually every organisation and individual who has anything to do with refugees, by councillors such as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, both as a doctor and as deputy chairman of the Community Relations Commission, by people who are intimately involved with the situation and know precisely what they are talking about, and by those who have dealt with the unfortunate, vulnerable people who, for the most part, even if they do not strictly conform to the criteria of the 1951 convention, have lost everything: their country, home, family and friends. That is a great deal to lose, a point made forcibly by the noble Baroness.
As the Minister conceded, the Bill is virtually the same as the 1992 Bill, with some slight improvements. It remains a huge mistake. I realise that it is not forbidden for politicians to repeat their errors, but neither is it mandatory. The Bill does not illustrate a determination to achieve that fairness which the Minister underlined in his speech in dealing with asylum seekers—that is, I believe, the pretence—because it introduces changes in the law and in the rules that are the very antithesis of that purpose. Those points have been developed during the debate with telling force by many of your Lordships. It is not even a Bill which purports to deal with the original justifications which were urged by the previous Home Secretary, who placed great emphasis on the task of reducing the number and backlog of applications. He supported those observations with predictions before the general election which were designed to make the flesh creep. Those justifications have been swept aside, whatever the noble Earl may have said about the matter today, by the Government's own statistics. The number of applications has dramatically fallen and the backlog has been stopped and is in sharp decline.
The Bill reflects little compassion for, or understanding of, the circumstances in which asylum seekers find themselves on arrival. In my former legal practice, I dealt with a great many cases involving refugees and immigrants. Most were people deeply suspicious of authority. They imagined, not unreasonably, that it would be akin to authority in the land from which they had just escaped, perhaps after suffering torture and threats of death.
The position could not have been put more graphically or vividly than it was by my noble friend Lord Mishcon. He invited us, in trying to put the Bill into proper perspective, to consider how we would feel if we were leading a refugee family. Would we go to almost any lengths to try to secure a haven for them? That was a simple but telling way of putting the whole situation. In dealing with the issue in that way he demolished those facile arguments that the majority of

1215
applicants should be regarded as bogus if they failed to achieve the criteria for asylum seekers. That point has been made over and over again and does not require further repetition from me.
The fact is that people who are seeking to escape do not go to a great deal of trouble to find the necessary documents. That is probably the last thing in their minds. They may even be obliged to destroy documents which they have in their possession for fear of being identified by the authorities from whom they are seeking to escape. They may be worried about the loved ones they have left behind. There may be every reason, therefore, for them to destroy the means by which they may be identified.
It is a tragedy that all too often they are given a hostile reception when they arrive on these shores. It may be that people in authority become inured to the situation and therefore react in that way. That does not apply to all immigration officers but certainly to some of them.
As my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, this is a Bill introduced by a Government who are insensitive or perhaps simply fail to care to understand the sort of pressures to which I have just alluded. The Government have deliberately confused issues of asylum and immigration when they are separate issues.
Another remarkable speech was that of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. The noble Lord referred to the Trevi Group. He found it deeply offensive, as I do, that the Trevi Group of internal affairs ministers should conduct its business wholly in secret. We do not know what goes on. Occasionally we may see a leaked document, but that is all. Why should those discussions be conducted behind closed doors? They affect people's lives. It is a pernicious practice. What the Trevi Group does is to introduce more and more restrictive approaches to asylum seekers. Regrettably, that has also been the case under the British presidency. I endorse what the noble Lord said, and I endorse what the former Chief Rabbi said in his letter. The Trevi Group should be trying to achieve a more equitable sharing of the problems which exist instead of adopting the negative approach which it has undertaken.
One of the documents leaked in November 1992 had this to say on the subject:
"those who fear violations of their human rights should if possible remain in their own countries and seek protection or redress from their own authorities or under regional human rights instruments".
What a thing to say! What a thing even to think. I ask the noble Earl directly: is that the policy of his Government? Is that the route to be adopted in respect of the Kurds fleeing from Iraq, Iran or Turkey or of Tamils from Sri Lanka? The noble Earl is duty bound to tell us.
I turn now to deal with the Bill itself in outline. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh warned the Government, in what I think the House will acknowledge was an excellent speech, we shall scrutinise the Bill. We shall seek to persuade the House and the Government to alter some of its more offensive aspects. I had thought that today the noble
1216
Earl, having observed the debate in another place and by reason of the submissions made to him by refugee organisations and others, would have recognised the force of what would be said today well in advance. I had hoped that he would say that the Government will willingly contemplate amendments to the Bill. But he did not do so.
On the question of fingerprinting, it seemed to me that the noble Earl did not begin to comprehend how outrageous are the propositions which have been advanced by the Government. The point was made with great force by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. All asylum seekers will be affected. The fingerprinting is to be undertaken by immigration or prison officers, by the police or by Home Office civil servants. Why have young children been included in that provision? When the first Bill was debated Ministers conceded that very young children would not necessarily be fingerprinted. I know that Ministers are reflecting on that position at present, but I ask why it was ever thought up at all.
In parentheses, perhaps I may mention the powerful criticisms made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], of that issue and the question of children in particular. She said that the Bill contravened the Children Act. Those seem to be points which passed the Government by altogether when preparing the Bill.
In the past fingerprinting has been associated with criminality. The Government cannot escape from that. We are not dealing with criminals. We are dealing with people who are extremely vulnerable and tormented and who are victims of others' criminal behaviour. We shall do our best to ensure that the more odious of those provisions are substantially amended.
I do not propose to go into the changes in immigration rules in great detail. My noble friend Lord McIntosh indicated the course we propose to follow. Our concern is that genuine asylum seekers will become enmeshed in the procedures allegedly devised to seek out bogus asylum seekers. The Minister must be aware of the anxieties expressed in the House today. He must do something about them.
The noble and learned Lords, Lord Donaldson, Lord Ackner and Lord Woolf, expressed serious criticisms, endorsed by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, of the time limits on appeals. The gravamen of the issue which they have raised is that it is necessary to be able to offer legal assistance. However, there must be time to do that. There must be time for lawyers to give that aid, and there has to be time for the person receiving it to absorb that advice. In a number of the respects which we are considering today, there is no time.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, regarded Clause 11 as vicious. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, gave profound advice regarding the 48 hour time limit. We look forward to amendments which he proposes in that regard. The burden of his remarks was one of terrifying simplicity: if you grant a right and then make it incapable of being exercised you grant nothing. The Minister must take that on board.

1217
The issues of removal of appeal from visitors and students and of access to housing have been dealt with by a number of noble Lords. My noble friends Lady David, Lord McIntosh, Lord Mishcon, and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, dealt with the subject of access to housing. We shall return to that as we shall return to the issue of carriers' liability.
I conclude on this note. The Bill is ill considered and unpleasant. It could help to create the problem, if other member states apply similar criteria, of refugees in orbit, treated like pariahs and unable to settle anywhere. Teddy Roosevelt once said of William Howard Taft, "He means well feebly." That is about all that one can say of the Government on this occasion; and I am not so sure about their meaning well. The Bill is an attempt to satisfy the insatiable appetites of people who engage in racism and who turn their wrath on immigrants and asylum seekers. It makes no pretence about sharing responsibility among other countries. It contrasts badly with what happens in desperately poor countries such as Malawi, Kenya and even southern Sudan which have adopted policies to absorb refugees that make our efforts appear puny.
I would rather have it on my conscience as a Minister that I had wrongly admitted an asylum seeker than have it on my conscience that I had mistakenly sent him back to torture or even death. It is against that consideration that we make a plea for the Minister to show flexibility, to take real account of the arguments and to introduce his own amendments to cure the more pernicious elements of the Bill.
8.41 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did not expect the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to give an enormous welcome to the Bill. It is not in his nature to do so. However, I considered that he went over the top when he stated that it was an ill-considered and unpleasant Bill drawn up to satisfy the people who indulge in racism. If that is the noble Lord's interpretation of the Bill I can only tell him that he ought to think harder and more deeply about it. He stated that the Government confused asylum with immigration issues. There is no confusion; the two are different. The noble Lord knows that perfectly well. It is not our intention in any way to confuse the two.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that she would not be surprised if the Bill were not met with universal approval. I would have been surprised if it had been. Your Lordships are always sensitive to any matter dealing with immigration and quite rightly so. I realise that noble Lords have many different views. However, that does not detract from the Government's obligation to deal with a problem that exists: the problem of people using and abusing the system in a way which one cannot allow to continue.
The noble Baroness interested your Lordships when she told us of her somewhat disreputable lineage. One often notices reflections in people resulting from their ancestry. However, I did not notice any of the ancestry as described by the noble Baroness reflected in herself.
1218
Noble Lords were also lucky to have had the privilege of hearing from the law Lords. It is always a formidable sight to see them seated three in a row. I find great comfort when the noble and learned Lords are on my side. I was not wholly successful with that aim today. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, accorded with the Government on one issue. He gave a crumb of comfort. Another crumb of comfort had a stone in the middle. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, did not give many crumbs of comfort. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, gave none. The advantage of having the noble and learned Lords on one's side is not because they are always right but because they are very powerful in both stature and eloquence. It is nice to feel that power in support rather than in opposition.
There is no dispute that the United Kingdom should continue to uphold its obligations to refugees under the 1951 United Nations convention. The Bill makes it perfectly clear that the convention is at the forefront of the asylum procedures. There is no dispute that all applicants should be able to have their claims determined fairly and quickly. The Bill will ensure that all those who are refused will have access to an independent adjudicator. There is no dispute that unfounded applicants should be refused and that misuse of asylum procedures should be resisted. In all the rhetoric of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I do not believe that he considered that there should be an excuse for allowing the abuse of asylum procedures or allowing those who abused them to come into the country. There is therefore a basis of agreement. We have to try to find the correct way through.
Asylum is a complex business. Some of the movements of people that we see are motivated by individual suffering and by the systematic abuse of human rights. We all sympathise with the victims and have to play our part in protecting them. However, asylum procedures also represent a weak link in immigration control which many have no compunction in exploiting. It is to deal with that that the Bill is before your Lordships.
Everyone is horrified by the world of turmoil, starvation and persecution that we all see. We all want to help. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Clinton-Davis, that one would do anything to get away from repression. Of course one would; there is no doubt about that. But many people on the move make it all the more important that we should have proper rules. I agree with my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark that we ought sometimes to applaud what we have done rather than always to criticise what we are doing. We have to have immigration rules because more people are on the move.
Asylum is different. We have every sympathy with those who wish to avail themselves of asylum, but we must not allow people to abuse the asylum process. That is the problem. I was glad that my noble friends Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Reay approved the Bill for that reason, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Her Majesty's Government wish to be sympathetic to asylum. Indeed we are. But we must have fair rules for immigration:

1219
rules that are fair not just to the immigrants but also to those who live in this country. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the rise of racist violence in Germany. That is what happens when the existing system cannot absorb the influx. Any government have to make sure that there are rules.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister allow me to intervene? It is the second time that such a suggestion has been made. It sounds very much to me as though the Minister is justifying the racist violence in Germany. Surely the Government ought to make clear that even if the system cannot absorb those people, there is no justification for racist violence.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I sometimes find it difficult to explain myself. If what I have said has given the noble Lord the impression that I was approving racist violence, I can only say that I find that quite astonishing. The thought and the words had never entered my mind. Of course I am not approving. I am saying that one of the problems is that if one does not control immigration in some form or shape, one can have troubles. That is one of the results that they have experienced in Germany. Of course, one deplores any kind of racist violence. One deplores violence and equally one deplores those who abuse the rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that the problem was real, world-wide and would not go away. That was the one part of the noble Lord's speech with which I agreed. I hoped that he would say something helpful, but no, he thought better of it. He said that the previous Bill was bad and that this Bill is bad. He gave the Government no commendation whatever for having dropped the proposal about which he and others were vociferous in the previous Bill about leave having to be obtained for an oral hearing. There was no commendation for increasing the asylum division staff in the way that it has been increased from 120 to 500 in two years in order to try to make the problem easier to solve.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, in an understanding speech, said that rapidity should not be the criterion, it should be justice. Of course, justice is important, it has to be important; but justice delayed equally is justice denied. We should all like to see the system which we have at the moment improved because the delays are quite intolerable.
What lies behind the Bill? It is not—as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said—to keep people out. It is to prevent abuse. The fact is that the numbers of applicants have risen tenfold in two years, as I explained in my opening speech. I gave your Lordships other figures, including the fact that out of 35,000 cases 15,000 people completely failed to attend their interviews. Of the remainder, only 1,100 were granted asylum. Clearly something must be done. I hope that your Lordships will, on the whole, realise that.
There were other points; obviously I cannot deal with them all, but there were a number of major issues to which I should refer. The first which causes much
1220
worry to your Lordships is fingerprinting. The noble Lords, Lord McIntosh, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Mishcon, referred to it, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Mallalieu, and my noble friends Lady Flather and Lord Brentford. In fact, it was almost but not quite everyone. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that he had no objection to fingerprinting; it was only those who lived a life of crime who need object. I agreed with him. Personally, I find little to worry about in it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said—and this is where he gave me the crumb of comfort—that he saw no objection whatever to fingerprinting. I was grateful for that support.
Perhaps I may refer to some points about which your Lordships were concerned. The right reverend Prelate was worried about why the standard acknowledgment letter was not sufficient. The standard acknowledgment letter relies on a photograph to identify the holder. There is no reliable way of indexing photographs to check whether the applicant has been given another letter previously. Although there has been some success in detecting multiple applications under the present system, only comprehensive fingerprints will guarantee that multiple applicants can be detected.
Some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that fingerprinting was not necessary. The number of convictions for social security fraud may be the tip of the iceberg; 1,500 cases are currently under investigation. Other European countries have found that when they introduced fingerprinting between 5 per cent. and 15 per cent. of the applications were multiple. We need fingerprinting to ensure that multiple applications are picked up.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh and my noble friend Lord Brentford were also worried about the need for fingerprinting. I can only tell your Lordships —and this is the point which worried my noble friend Lord Brentford—that there have been 27 prosecutions so far but they involved 700 different identities. More telling are the screening procedures which can have a deterrent effect. The difficulty is that people just do not co-operate. Of the 11,402 new applicants who were invited for identification interviews, 7,400–64 per cent.—did not turn up. Of the 7,250 who were invited for a second time, 5,500 did not turn up. That is 75 per cent. One wonders where they were. We have been screening the backlog and so far 15,000 refusals have been made on the basis of people not showing up at identification interviews.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that fingerprinting was intolerable because it was associated with criminality. Fingerprinting for police business and fingerprinting for asylum records are totally different. The fact is that three-quarters of the applicants at ports and more than half in the country do not have proper documents. Fingerprints are the only secure and reliable way of keeping track of who is claiming asylum. I believe that it is not adequate to accept that people are who they say they are, when they have deliberately disposed of all the evidence of the facts.

1221
My noble friend Lady Flather was worried about Department of Social Security fraud by United Kingdom citizens. All I can tell her is that there is no implication that asylum-seekers alone may defraud the Department of Social Security or that as a group they are particularly likely to defraud the department. The point is that they are more likely to appear with no evidence of their identity and no verifiable history here at all. For the unscrupulous, that is obviously a sound basis for fraud. The Department of Social Security seeks to deter and detect fraud by claimants of all nationalities.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, my noble friend Lord Brentford and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, were worried about children being fingerprinted. My noble friend Lord Brentford wanted the age of 13 to be written into the Bill. I am bound to tell your Lordships that the Government are reluctant to specify a limit. Because so many applicants dispose of their identity documents, there will obviously be wrangles about a person's age. That is one of the difficulties that would arise if we were to put the age in. We made it perfectly clear that we had no intention of routinely fingerprinting young children but we think that it is important to retain the possibility of fingerprinting in particular cases, to avoid creating a loophole which could be abused.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, was worried about fingerprints on the file with the Home Office. All I can tell her is that taking fingerprints will ensure that one person can obtain only one standard acknowledgement letter which the Department of Social Security will expect to see produced when the benefit is cleared. There is no question of the DSS fingerprinting applicants.
My noble friend Lord Brentford referred to the confidentiality of fingerprints. I am happy to repeat the assurance that records will be kept entirely separately from police records. There will be no question of the police trawling through immigration records. But that does not rule out answering specific inquiries from the police, for example to assist in identifying a body.
There are no immediate plans for the exchange of information with other countries but European Community countries are looking at the possibility of a joint fingerprint identification system. No final decisions have yet been taken.
Another point of anxiety was children. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, the noble Baroness, Lady David, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull, referred to it. It is not necessary to have specific legislation in order to treat children sympathetically. The Government wish to ensure that the procedures respond to their needs. The numbers of unaccompanied children are relatively small, only about 200 to 300 a year. Welfare is clearly the responsibility of local authorities under the Children Act 1989 and representation is available free of charge from the Refugee Legal Centre which is developing a specialist team to deal with vulnerable cases.
The Government believe that the framework for meeting children's needs is already in place. Clear
1222
responsibilities are already assigned to local authorities by the Children Act 1989. I recognise that there may be potential difficulties of access to existing services. I welcome the proposals from the voluntary agencies which the Department of Health is now considering for a central organisation to provide advice and informed information on handling these cases. There is no conflict with the Children Act. Of course, the child's interests are taken fully into account, but they alone cannot determine whether or not the child can enter the United Kingdom.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, was worried about nurses. The Bill does not affect the ability or otherwise of nurses to come here. The only relevant change is the removal of the right of appeal against the refusal as a prospective or short-term student. That is a student of under six months. There is no question about criteria for admitting people in these categories becoming any more restrictive than the criteria set out in the rules.
I now turn to the matter of the 48 hours. That has caused some of your Lordships considerable anxiety. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon referred to it, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—in the part of his speech which was his crumb which had a stone in it—said it was forensically myopic to think that a rushed procedure would be fair. He went on to refer to his friend the late Lord James, who was, he said, unlike himself, a workaholic. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord and myself share a common approach in our attitude to life. He disturbed me considerably when he said that Lord James brought on his demise by a propensity to overwork. I just hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will allow me to follow him rather than Lord James by not developing in me a regrettable and unnatural propensity to overwork by obliging me to think up arguments to questions which he might raise in putting down amendments at the Committee stage. I would find it most disagreeable if I were to follow the course of Lord James because of the approach of the noble and learned Lord.
The position on the 48 hours needs spelling out. On arrival at a port, if you are seeking asylum, you request asylum and it is considered. If the application is accepted, a paper is given to you saying that you have leave to enter. If asylum is rejected, you are given a paper asking whether you wish to appeal. The point about the 48 hours is that from that moment you are given 48 hours in which to complete a document saying that you wish to appeal. Other appellants have 10 working days to appeal. That happens only in very limited circumstances. The notice of refusal is served in person. The Government have said that in practice that will mean that a person is in detention and the Secretary of State has certified that the application is groundless. When the position is considered, it has to be considered within 10 working days.
With regard to the other matters, they are given 42 days. If one goes to a special adjudicator, there are five working days on which the groundless cases are adjudicated. Otherwise, there are 42 days in which this

1223
can take place. The adjudicator has the ability to extend that length of time. The point I was trying to get over to your Lordships is that it is not 48 hours in which the decision has to be made; it is 48 hours in which the application to appeal has to be made.
The right reverend prelate the Bishop of Ripon asked whether the appellate aúthorities had been consulted about the 48-hour time limit. The Lord Chancellor's department has consulted the immigration appellate authorities on the procedure rules. They have made a number of useful comments, and I understand that they have not raised any objection to the time limits for lodging appeals.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, also spoke on that point. Asylum seekers will have had the opportunity to seek legal advice in the presentation of their case to the Home Office before the application is refused. We believe that virtually all the people refused asylum at ports will exercise their right of appeal, however long a period is allowed. The refugee legal centre, which provides free advice and representation, will be in regular attendance at places of detention.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, also referred to the time limits for appeals. I hope that I have given the information clearly to her. There are two working days after the notice of refusal to lodge the notice of appeal. There are five working days after the receipt of the notice of appeal for the adjudicator to hear the appeal. That is in the fast-track system. In other cases, there are 10 working days to lodge the appeal and 42 days for the adjudicator to hear it.
On the subject of appeals, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, Lord Ackner and Lord Woolf were worried about Clauses 10 and 11. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, gave an example. I can assure him that we have no intention of using the provision in the way in which he feared. If an immigration officer ever acted in the way he described, I join him in hoping that a judicial review would take place. I also hope that the immigration manager would correct the matter first. All we are trying to do is remove appeals where they are bound to fail. For example, the immigration rules state that only a Commonwealth citizen can come on a working holiday or come as a working holidaymaker. An American is bound to be refused. An appeal for that kind of request serves no useful purpose.
On Clause 11, there was anxiety expressed by the noble and learned Lord about the rights of appeal. Nobody will claim that immigration officers are infallible. But with regard to the type of case mentioned, I believe that the likelihood is extremely small, especially since refusal of leave to enter must be confirmed by a senior officer. The onus is on the passenger who is seeking entry to produce a passport or other documentary evidence which shows that he qualifies. If he cannot do so, his appeal at present is bound to fail. The judicial review will remain a remedy of last resort.
Lord Donaldson was also worried about the effect of judicial review. A person abroad can apply for judicial review if he has a representative here. We do not expect that there will be many applications. We
1224
are trying to ease the burden on the High Court by creating the appeal to the special adjudicator in port asylum cases, and by providing a right to go to the Court of Appeal. I believe Lord Donaldson's colleagues on the Bench consider that is better than judicial review.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, was anxious about the cost of judicial review and legal aid to the Lord Chancellors' department. He asked two special questions. The figure in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum is the department's best estimate of the overall impact on that budget. It is impossible to predict how many applications there will be for judicial review. It is important to note that other provisions in the Bill, such as the new asylum appeal rights including access to the Court of Appeal on a point of law, may have a positive impact.
The noble and learned Lord was also worried about whether the savings took account of the increase in cases of judicial review or whether the number of judges would be increased. There may be some additional judicial review applications as a result of the clauses. Clause 8 gives a new right of appeal to a special adjudicator, and that should result in a decrease of the judicial review applications. Therefore the figures quoted are as near as can be estimated to be reasonable. We have not asked my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for more judges to deal with cases of judicial review. We do not believe that there will be a significant overall increase in the number of applications.
Various noble Lords were worried about the carrier's liability, including the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Greenway, and my noble friend Lord Mountevans. Carriers can start with a clean sheet, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, requested, provided that they pay their outstanding charges. I was grateful for the words in the guidance on carrier's liability. We hope to circulate that in its final form on 1st February. I note what was said about the charges for some ferry passengers and the effect of French and Belgian law. However, I am not in a position to give a final view on that. The matter is under consideration.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans was concerned about the same problem. I can say that no charge can be levied if forgery of, say, a passport or visa is reasonably apparent; no charge can be levied if the carrier can show that the passport was held when the passenger set out. The carriers are well aware of and have made full use of the possibility of the review of charges by immigration service headquarters. The fact remains that many charges arise because the passenger does not hold a United Kingdom visa in his passport when he should. That refers to around 40 per cent. of cases. It is not acceptable that those kinds of people should be transported to this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked why we did not consult with the immigration appellate authorities. There was the fullest consultation between the interested government departments. The concerns of the appellate authorities are as to how appeals are conducted and not who should be able to appeal. That

1225
is for the Government to decide and for Parliament to approve. We shall carefully consider those comments on the proposed procedures.
A number of other points were referred to which it would be improper for me to raise at this time. If there are any I have not addressed—I know there are many—I shall do my best to answer them. I come back to what I said at the beginning. Of course I realise that your Lordships are anxious about the Bill. I will take into account those anxieties and what may be said at Committee stage. However, we must all accept the basic principle—that is, that we must be fair to asylum seekers. We must also ensure that people do not abuse the process. That is what the Bill is about. I hope that in due course we shall ensure that that is achieved on the statute book. I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1992
9.11 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the draft order before you today gives effect to recommendations of the Boundary Commission for Wales, resulting from its review of six constituencies there. The commission announced its intention to undertake this review on 19th February 1990. Its purpose was to realign parliamentary constituency boundaries with local government boundaries that had been altered since the constituency boundaries had been drawn.
Provisional recommendations for the new boundaries were published on 14th June 1990. The number of electors affected was very small, and not a single representation was received that made objection to the proposed new boundary lines. However, the proposals to which objections were made were those for the names of some of the constituencies, as a result of which the first of two local inquiries was held in December 1990.
The Assistant Commissioner made recommendations to the Boundary Commission, which it accepted. Revised recommendations were published to that effect in April 1991. Some further objections were received about the names of constituencies and, as a result, a further local inquiry was held in June 1991.
The sole issue raised at that inquiry concerned the proposal to rename the Brecon and Radnor constituency as Brecon and Radnorshire. After consideration of the various representations and suggestions, the Assistant Commissioner's solution was to recommend to the commission that the name should be Brecknock and Radnorshire constituency. That was accepted by the commission and formed part of the recommendations in its report.
The order before your Lordships' House today implements the recommendations of the commission in full. There can be no doubt that the new boundary
1226
lines are unobjectionable. The constituency names represent the best compromise after all interested parties have had opportunity to have their say. The changes to boundaries and constituency names would come into effect at the next general election.
I commend those changes to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved. [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the Minister has explained very clearly the purpose of this brief and modest order that is based on the report of the Boundary Commission for Wales. I am very glad that the report has been published bilingually. This is a tidying up order aligning the boundaries of six parliamentary constituencies in Mid and South West Wales with local government boundaries. As the Minister has explained, the changes are minor and it seems that very few people will be affected. In addition, the order changes the names of three of the constituencies. The most significant change of name is that of Ceredigion and Pembroke North constituency: it now becomes Ceredigion Gogledd Penfro. Its name will henceforth in its entirety be in the Welsh language, reflecting the Welsh-speaking character of the constituency. That meets with our approval. The order is modest but it should be helpful.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Malawi: Aid
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether there are plans to resume development aid from donor countries to Malawi.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Question follows on from the reply given to a similar Question by my noble friend Lady Chalker on 9th November 1992 and published in the Official Report, in which it was stated:
"But the improvements made so far arc not sufficient evidence of fundamental change in the Malawi Government's approach to human rights and good government …". [Official Report, 9/11/92; WA1]
Before embarking on argument before your Lordships I should like to take this opportunity to thank very warmly my noble friend Lady Chalker who has stayed late in order to answer this debate tonight and other noble Lords who will be taking part in our discussion later this evening.
I believe that all noble Lords taking part in this debate recognise the necessity both to promote and to preserve human rights and fundamental freedoms. No doubt most of us will have received important material from Amnesty International and a report from the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar. In the report by the Law Society delegation there are both disturbing and encouraging elements. There can never be any justification for or toleration of torture. Accounts that torture has taken place must be investigated, the perpetrators punished and control

1227
measures established so that it does not occur again. That is so whatever one's views may be about the resumption of development aid.
Some of the matters raised in the report have already been remedied or there has been an acknowledgment that steps are being taken. There are also some signs of encouragement. The delegation appears to have had complete access to whomsoever they wished. That is not a symptom of a repressive or oppressive regime. So far as I can understand it, members of the Malawi judiciary have acted in complete independence. One example is given in the Law Society report; that is, the return of university students to their campus having come before the court (p. 54). The report concludes:
"We entirely accept that many of the problems we have spotlighted stem from law inherited or advised from Britain at the time of independence or subsequently drafted by British lawyers".
I believe that that is evident from the measures that have been considered. I believe it would be helpful if there was a continuing dialogue between the Law Society's delegation, or other representatives of the Law Society and Bar Council, and the Malawi Law Society in their efforts for peaceful legal change where human rights may still be abused or there is a fear that they may be abused.
The underlying question that I am asking is, what is now expected of Malawi? Further, is there no differentiation to be made at all in the assessment of observance in western Europe, where even the European Convention on Human Rights is not always observed and there is an average per capita GDP of about $11,000 a year, and observance by one of the poorest countries of the world—Malawi——with a per capita GDP of about $160 a year? Can we really apply the same criteria and standards at the present time to both parts of the world? It is recognised that donor countries are changing their perception of the grounds upon which development aid is given and that human rights and good governance are factors to be taken into account.
I should like to set out the demands that have been made on Malawi to meet certain human rights standards and the very considerable efforts for change that have been made by the Malawi Government in a very short space of time. It is not easy, in the short space of under 13 months, very rapidly to change, modify and amend laws that have been traditional over several years. In December 1991 certain western governments and the United States raised concern on issues to which the Malawi Government paid immediate attention and gave positive responses.
The first matter was detention without trial. According to a recent statement by the life president, Doctor Banda (I received a copy of this document on 31st December)
"all political prisoners have been released and we have no political prisoners in jail now".
Secondly, intimidation of the general public by Malawi Congress Party activists. A stop was imposed on the sale of party cards at various public places—bus stops, markets and so on. I understand that that was a form of abuse which was rife at the time.
1228
Thirdly, freedom of the press and of expression. I understand that at least 18 different independent newspapers and magazines are now published in Malawi and circulate on a regular basis. Fourthly, prison conditions and access to prisons by independent bodies. It was announced some time ago that the International Committee of the Red Cross was going to visit the prisons and report on conditions so that improvements could be made. In his speech the life president gave formal undertakings to comply with the ICRC's findings when the report is completed.
If development aid could be ring-fenced, prisons could undoubtedly be improved. But it must surely be accepted that where there is great poverty it is irrational to expect sums to be spent on prisons when living conditions for law abiding people are still very basic. After all, proportionately, we have the same problem in the United Kingdom. Some of us who have had the misfortune to have to visit prisons in our country know that those prisons are totally unacceptable in relation to our own standard of living. But shortage of funds prevents immediate modernisation. What appear to be Treasury shortcomings in this country become major human rights abuses in another. Fifthly, the Forfeiture Act, which did not provide for the right of the forfeited person to be heard, has now been amended with the desired result.
These positive responses were made by the Malawi Government at a time, it should be added, when there are more than 1 million refugees in a country with a population of 8 million. Acknowledgment and recognition were made of this fact by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in winding-up the previous debate. One wonders whether there is any other country, rich or poor, which has such an immediate proportion of refugees pouring in over the Mozambique border. And let us admit that humanitarian aid, although absolutely necessary and indeed welcome, cannot possibly answer all the social and political problems which result from this current influx. In addition, a widespread drought is bringing near famine not only to Malawi but to neighbouring countries.
Following these positive responses, made in good faith, further demands were made on 30th April 1992. I shall list some of those demands. First, adding to the demand for the release or trial of all political detainees, there should be no new detainees without trial. I have already quoted the reply of the life president. Secondly, the inspection and improvement of prisons. Since the first demand, a visit has been made by the ICRC. I understand that for the time being the report is not available; and in any case these reports are confidential. The life president has undertaken to make considerable improvements to prisons where such improvements are recommended.
The third demand was the publication and distribution in Malawi of human rights texts to which Malawi is a party. I must confess that I was somewhat surprised. As worded in the document I have seen, it is surely unrealistic, first, to go to the enormous expense of printing these texts, and, secondly, to distribute them to a population who even in their own local languages are, at maximum, 25 per cent. literate.

1229
Fourthly, the setting up of dialogue between Malawi and international human rights organisations, including invitations to Malawi. I believe that this is an important request. A delegation from the United Kingdom Law Society and the General Council of the Bar, to which I have already referred, was received by the life president. The delegation had long interviews with lawyers and private citizens and published its report on its return in December last year. I very much hope that similar delegations will go.
In response to the original and subsequent demands, the most important of which I have mentioned, the Malawi Government have amended the Preservation of Public Security Act to allow detainees to have recourse to legal process through the open courts and to appeal against detention. For those cases which cannot be dealt with in open court there is now a detention review tribunal. Further comment is also needed in regard to the rights of journalists to freedom of expression. As I understand it, one of the difficulties concerns adequate provision of training. It has been possible, through the good offices of the British Council, to recommend that some training may he available through its office in Zimbabwe. Application has been made for journalists—who in Malawi terms are known as "dissidents" —to benefit from such training.
Then there is the removal from the traditional courts of all crimes carrying serious punishment. That issue is currently under review, but it should be stressed that this must be a difficult change to effect within a short period of time even if the intention is expressed, since the traditional courts are those which are understood by the people of Malawi. They must be able to understand the benefit to them of what would replace them and how accessible these new courts or alternative measures would be.
Both sets of demands of December 1991 and April 1992 were raised at the consultative group meeting in Paris in May 1992 at which the Malawi Government expressed their commitment to the observance of human rights and good governance. Despite the very considerable efforts to which I have already referred, a new set of demands was forthcoming on 20th October 1992, including once again unimpeded access by lawyers, priests and relatives to all prisoners; and the separation of responsibilities for controlling police, prison and immigration. To reorganise the whole of these services would in itself cost an amazing amount of money. I believe that that is quite unrealistic for the time being at any rate, considering the size of the country and the refugee problems which they are having to deal with.
Another demand was opportunities for religious, business community and other groups to put the case for democratic reform through peaceful means; the automatic and prompt publication of the names of those arrested and released and the grounds for so doing. Even in the European Community, and in this country in particular, as we well know, it is not always possible, for all kinds of reasons including grounds of privacy, to publish immediately the names of those who have been arrested and later released.
Those demands have been put to the Malawi Government, to take the necessary measures towards creating a new situation. The life president recognises that there is a new situation. He recognises these efforts which, under his guidance, have been implemented. He has declared the new vision of Malawi to be "irreversible". I believe that that is encouraging.
There are three further brief points that I would like to mention. The first is the trial of Mr. Chihana on five counts of contravening the penal code. He was convicted on two and three counts were dropped. I have read carefully the reasoned judgment which must of course be based on Malawi law as it is now. Whether that law in relation to sedition is eventually changed is one thing, but the judiciary has the obligation to apply the current law. If there is any doubt as to the conduct and course of that judgment, Mr. Chihana has the right of appeal to the appeal court.
In its report the Law Society accepted the independence of the judiciary and remarked, incidentally, on the acute shortage of magistrates. Here again, as for prison improvement, if development funds were available, even to a limited extent, they could be applied to the very necessary training of more magistrates to meet that lacuna. I hope that this is an aspect of the question to which my noble friend will be able to reply.
It is very relevant that your Lordships should be aware, especially those who are familiar with United Nations Resolution No. 1503 procedure—which goes through the United Nations sub-commission on discrimination and minorities, of which I happened at one time to be a member, and eventually to the Commission on Human Rights—that there has not been any complaint of violation by the Malawi Government or its agents of human rights in Malawi. Yet at least four other African countries have been named in the 1992 report.
I accept that measures needed to be taken and that many have been taken. There are no doubts that more need to be taken. If the situation was so serious for Malawi to be deprived of development aid, individuals would surely have used the UN procedure to make a legitimate complaint.
Poverty is no ally of the observance of human rights, and development aid is undoubtedly badly needed. That is not to underestimate the issues that have been raised by donor countries, but it is sincerely hoped that the efforts of Malawi to meet current comments will be recognised and that it will be helped by further financial aid to make further improvements.
It would be a major contribution to today's discussion if my noble friend the Minister, with her long-standing and high reputation in Africa, could state, first, in the view of the Government and donors, on what issues have inadequate responses been received to the questions already put and, secondly, in her view, are there any other matters that could further impede Malawi from receiving the development aid which is so badly needed?
The same argument can be made about aid as is made about sanctions. After all, aid to Malawi goes to help the rural population of a country which, unlike so many other African countries, has had a stable and peaceful political existence for the past 20 years, and in which the people are peaceful and industrious. Indeed, Malawi itself has been a long-time friend of Britain.
9.31 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I was going to say that I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for tabling this Unstarred Question, but as Mr. Banda controls most of the media in Malawi and as I believe that any complimentary remarks will be reported in the papers while anything said against Malawi will not, I fear that to do so would almost be to his advantage.
I have been to Malawi on a number of occasions. In 1990 I travelled around the country for two months. I have to admit that it is one of the most beautiful countries that I have ever visited, but it is also one of the strangest because it is so multi-layered. I agree that the judiciary and the army are independent, and Malawi must be congratulated on its excellent record over refugees from Mozambique. However, once one has lived in the country for a while and has talked to its people, one finds that beneath the exterior facade of people living happily lies a state which is run on the basis of an autocratic dictatorship. If one talks to Malawians by themselves and away from the villages, one hears a completely different story from that which would be given if one talked to people in the cities. There is a real fear among Malawians of disappearing, of being arrested, intimidated and held without trial. When I was over there I heard a number of people talking about their experiences at the hands of Malawi Youth, which is a rather heavy-handed implement of the Malawi Congress Party.
Although the impression has been given that Mr. Banda's hold on Malawi is not so severe, it is. When I entered Malawi, I came through what is called the "gun-run", which is an armed convoy that goes through Mozambique. When I reached the border-post, I was informed that one is not allowed to have long hair. A friend of mine had to have his hair cut, but I cannot say that that was over-authoritarian. I also found it rather amusing that my bags were searched for a travel guide, The Shoestring Guide to Africa. This book is banned from Malawi because it gives a rather jaded view of Mr. Banda. On entering the country, people's bags are searched to make sure that such seditious views cannot reach the population. However, quotations from it can hardly be said to be seditious. In fact, if they related to our present Government, they would be printed every day in our daily newspapers.
The human rights record in Malawi is nothing but atrocious. The Malawi Government keep control by imprisonment, torture, executions and, to a great extent, fear. Is it right that we should provide development aid which allows the Malawi Government to continue to function when it takes
1232
such actions? Is it not better that we and other countries should do what we have previously done in other cases; that is, to suspend development aid until democracy is introduced and the human rights record is improved?
The issue of human rights was brought to the world's attention by eight Catholic bishops who sent to all the Catholic ministries a letter which was read out to the congregations. It condemned Dr. Banda's record on human rights, on working conditions and on the wages paid to most of the people working in Malawi. As a result of writing such a seditious document all the bishops were arrested and held for 48 hours. They were later released but tapes which were smuggled out of the country and later verified provide evidence that the Malawi Cabinet talked about executing them.
Development aid should be reinstated only when the Malawi Government have introduced democratic elections. The proposed referendum goes nowhere near fulfilling those objectives. It is ridiculous to assume that a referendum which will be held on 15th March, when all political parties will still be banned, will have anything but one result. Indeed, there is talk of having two ballot boxes; one for the Malawi Congress Party and one for the Opposition. That is hardly a fair system of election.
I wish to point to an example which shows the degree to which the referendum is a mockery. I refer to the members of the Referendum Commission. They include members of the Malawi Congress Party and the Reverend Njaidi who is the current chaplain to the Malawi police force. Indeed, the commission includes Father Tenthani, the only Catholic priest in Malawi who refused to read the historic pastoral letter which sparked the current debate on human rights in Malawi. Only one person can be seen as not chosen by the Government; that is the Reverend Dr. Nyirenda. However, the support of the Public Affairs Committee which put his name forward has since been revoked and therefore he cannot be seen to stand on behalf of the Opposition parties.
Democracy can work in Malawi. It was instituted on independence but after only two years Dr. Banda declared himself president for life. It is a matter of urgency that democracy is introduced. Dr. Banda is in his nineties and there is reason to believe that he is more than 100 years old. He will not live forever. Mr. Tembo, who is seen as running the country, would not be acceptable to any Malawians as a successor. Democratic elections should be implemented while Dr. Banda is in power in order to stop any power vacuum which would lead to unrest. Rather than agreeing to reinstate development aid, I hope that the Minister will give some indication of what measures she is taking to promote further democracy in Malawi.
9.40 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for raising this Question. It is of crucial importance to the life of a whole nation at this critical time. No one has yet

1233
spoken of how critical it is in these days of rallies, upheaval and uncertainty, for those who are bravely leading the reform movement.
I seek to speak for those Church leaders and supporters who constitute the core of a remarkable and dramatic movement for reform and moderation. I have their messages, the documents which they have sent to me and their descriptions of the state of the country at present. If the Minister tells us that the Government's policy is what I hope and believe it to be, it will affect not only the life of a whole community and nation but also the lives of extremely courageous people whose liberty and life is threatened. I believe that one person has already been arrested since he dared to speak courageously at a rally last Sunday.
This is an extremely vital and perilous time for Malawi. Decisions taken by donor countries and a firm response by the international community to the misrule from which that country still suffers—let us have no illusions about that —are vital. Perhaps in no country has the brave stand of a small precarious group of Christian leaders, women and men, had such a striking effect in such a short time during its history. Achievements have been made which would have looked impossible before last March. Malawi can easily be seen by tourists and people who speak casually about it as a lovely, idyllic, quiet country. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, when one goes deeper, one begins to see what is the real system.
My church friends have gradually revealed to me, as have other informants, some of whom returned recently, that there is still a system of absolute dictatorship which justifiably can be seen to be of an eastern European character underneath. But suddenly, after years of tragic oppression, the country is beginning to break free. There is a freedom and independence of the judiciary in one sense; in another, the appointment and discharge of judges remains in the hands of the president. In many ways the judges are subordinated, as the Law Society report showed, to the will of the president. That remains true.
However much turnover there may be, all appointments of MPs are controlled from the centre. Even the economy has been captive to the president's own organisation and press holdings. Although there has been some modification of the process, a great deal in the country has been in the hands of the central authority. The gross national product has been employed in a way which has very largely maintained a central elite with great wealth helping to finance the large palaces which have been built. It was to one of those palaces that the speaker at the rally dared to point attention. I believe that that helped to lead to his detention not long afterwards.
Recently all those matters have been exposed for what they are. The Roman Catholic bishops' letter, about which your Lordships have heard, read out to so many thousands of churches marked a watershed. The process which began with that letter is, I pray, hope and believe, unstoppable. There were threats to murder the bishops, and they are still not out of
1234
danger. No one who is leading this reform or is identified with it is free from the danger of arrest or death.
In September there was the incredible indictment of the report on human rights in Malawi by the Law Society. I was told by a priest friend who returned this week from Malawi that judges looking at the report in Malawi have been staggered to see all the scattered fragments of what people knew about the oppression of the country brought together in one terrible whole—detention without trial, trial without proper procedure, and sentencing without proper cause. We would need to have a great deal more discussion about the sentence under which Mr. Chihana was condemned. The Law Society did not seem to feel, on recent inquiries, that it had been a fair or proper trial or that he was sentenced rightly, or that the laws under which he was sentenced were adequate.
Certainly, it is still difficult to get to see prisoners, and it is still dangerous to join in the movements which nonetheless a large number of people are joining. They started by speaking timorously and tentatively but are now beginning to speak courageously, and the thugs of the youth league and the youth pioneers are not able to stop them, nor are the police with all their sadly terrifying modes of repression within the police station, which are well authenticated and still continuing, able to stop them. Indeed, it is worrying that the police have very clearly had collusion with and visits from police authorities from South Africa.
The party is having to lumber gradually into a new state, which is certainly true, but Banda reminded the people not long after the Catholic bishops' letter that they were first Malawians and secondly Christians, and that they must tell the church leaders that they are not speaking the true message to Malawi. He dismissed the protesters as dissidents—a word that has been referred to already—but in his own language that is an offensive word to those who were so described since it had a particular meaning in Chicheva. The party has to break the spirit of that Christian Church opposition or it will itself be broken. There is no doubt that that is the situation at present.
Meanwhile, there has steadily emerged this group of leaders who have become moral and actual spokespeople for a whole dynamic: the public affairs committee, its chairman a heroic frail old bishop, Bishop Chimoli, recovering from a stroke; its deputy chairman, a very able, articulate and active man Emmanuel Chinkwita-Pirie, a Baptist who has brought the Baptists in behind him to quite a large extent. Already behind him are the great majority of the Presbyterians, the Roman Catholics and Anglicans. They are all represented on this committee, together with the leaders of the two multi-democracy parties, now seeking to work closely together, AFORD and the UGF. Also represented on this committee is the Law Society of Malawi, the University and the polytechnic and the Moslem Association. It is a formidable body and not one to be looked upon lightly. But at the same time all its members are conscious that they are under threat.

1235
Recently the rallies have stepped up, and now they are reaching such a size and impressiveness that I think it would take a Tiananmen Square to stop them. I trust that we shall not give any encouragement to such a solution by in any way relaxing our own approach. We have heard of rallies this last weekend, for instance. We have heard of attempted government rallies attracting about five people in one case, and even when John Tembo himself was calling another rally there were about 118 people, whereas there were 20,000 people at the rally last Sunday addressed by the Reverend Peter Kaleso and the Reverend Aaron Longwe, brave men, both of whom went back to their homes knowing that they might be arrested. One of them was, and the other has disappeared. His whereabouts are unknown. His wife had been arrested on Friday. This habit of seizing people and arresting them without warning and taking them away without any clear reason shows that the whole process is still in action.
Mrs. Vera Chirwa has indeed been released, and obviously we rejoice in that news and are grateful for it, but the persecution and harassment of these others overshadows that. One cannot help feeling that that itself is due to the economic pressure which has been exerted, and one hopes that that economic pressure may be continued and intensified. Every effort is still being made by a regime which is fundamentally sinister to retain power.
In all this movement the pressure exerted by the EC donors in July (to which reference has been made) of cutting off development aid has had a most powerful effect. The president told the Law Society delegation that Malawi was prosperous but he recognises that the sources of his own power are drying up or being threatened by what is happening, and the release of Mrs. Chirwa may have had something to do with it. The representatives of the government are now assiduous in seeking to persuade us that all is reformed. We have heard talk of this already, but I see no reason to trust them now any more than one could trust them in the past or to believe that this can really be true. We must not be deceived while arrests and detentions and torture and oppression continue. I have reliable accounts of such actions continuing.
The Malawian leaders who stand for reform are isolated. I feel that they are in danger. Any move on our part to change our present stance would be very dangerous. We must, if anything, add further pressure. The movement is beginning to gather force. It is beginning to deepen and widen. It is finding expression in those irrepressible African instruments of expression—songs. People are daring to sing publicly:
"The lion we once knew has turned into a hyena".
The victory sign of freedom and liberation is spreading among the people. That was happening even in the last week. The whole movement can be seen to be deepening in rural as well as in urban areas.
Therefore, I do not believe that we should give any encouragement to representatives of the present discredited order who come seeking support.
1236
Obviously, we want to give all the support we can to an impoverished country, but we must do so in the right order. First we must see a real change.
The Law Society report emphasised above all the fear that pervades society everywhere. That is still true, despite the courage with which people are beginning to make changes and to realise the liberation that comes from that. The president has conceded a referendum but, as we have heard, under international and economic pressure and pressure from the United Nations. The United Nations report to the president was clear. It wanted a non-partisan commission, free expression of all views, a new voting register, proper monitoring and an education programme, which could not be achieved earlier than June in the view of the United Nations. The president, manoeuvring to implement the referendum as soon as possible, wants to give his opponents no time and has chosen March for the referendum. He wants rapid preparation.
I have in my possession a leaked document, which looks authentic. It is the agenda for a meeting of the national executive committee and cabinet ministers on Saturday, 9th January, 1993. It indicates that the cabinet wants to use drama and all forms of propaganda to try to persuade the people to change the image of the Malawi Congress Party in a hurry. They want to "buy"—the word used in the document—the agricultural extension workers and others who have supported multi-party democracy. They might be threatened with dismissal. The life president is to tour districts to try to persuade chiefs and other people of influence, through personal approaches and, where necessary, using incentives such as a bale of sugar, soap or salt, that they would be better off staying with the established order. That is what the document indicates. It is allegedly a cabinet document, and I believe it to be so.
The requirements of the reform group are clear. It wants one ballot box. It is said that two have always been used in the past. That may have been so. The president wanted one to be marked with the black cock of the Malawi Congress Party and a soldier standing by. That soldier, he tried to assure everybody, would pay no attention to how people voted. I do not think that people are likely to believe that. The reform group wants no movement of ballot boxes to a central point nor does it want them moved around, even in the way they were in the Kenyan elections. Election by election, as the mood for popular control spreads in Africa, we are beginning to see the growth of awareness in those areas.
The reform group also wants the eligible age for voters to be not 21, as the president has insisted, but 18. At the age of 18 people begin to pay taxes, and 25 per cent. of the population is aged between 18 and 21. That group would form a major part of the voting population. Therefore, the reform group does not want those people excluded by some device.
The group also wants education for everybody over a period of time which must extend beyond March. The group is prepared to negotiate that with the United Nations. It also wants access to the radio. Freedom of the press has been mentioned. However,

1237
most people in the country are illiterate and do not read the newspapers. The opposition must be given access to the radio. That would indeed be a revolutionary change. That is what is required. Nothing less will do.
There must be freedom of expression. The reform group wants meetings which are genuinely free of interference. At present it has proved impossible to hold meetings; there has been police prohibition. However, meetings have been held in defiance of what the police have said.
We must back those demands. We must back the firm requirements of the UN and the reform group. We are not backing our own views, or our own 20th century sophisticated ideas, as they are accused of being. We are backing Malawians themselves. Malawians have taken us seriously. They are working together, inspired by faith and a vision of a new society, to try to change their society. We must support them at this time. A new political order must be established while life-president Banda is still there. Once that free order is clearly established, we must back the Malawians in the tremendous programme of moral and spiritual rehabilitation and development which will then be needed.
Many senior politicians and officials have blood on their hands; and the old gang will try to cling to power. There must be a real shift. In that shift we, the donors from outside, must do all that we can to back the people who represent the great mass of public opinion, as a free democratic vote would show. The Church has a great deal to do in the reconciliation, healing and peacemaking that will then be needed. I do not underestimate that task for one moment. Nor do the Christian leaders. Massive economic help will then be needed. We know of the poverty, the tremendous problems of the HIV-positive patients in the hospital beds, the undernourishment of children, and the huge needs for every kind of medical help in this beautiful country with its tremendous potential. Such help can be realised only in a free, just and properly ordered society. On behalf of all those whose lives and liberty are in our hands today, by the way in which the Government respond and decide, I appeal to our Government and all the donor governments to keep up a relentless pressure for true, popular, just and free transformation because the moment for that has come.
9.56 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, like others, I am grateful to my noble friend Baroness Elles, for initiating the debate, and for trying to present us with a fair and balanced view of a difficult situation.
My anxiety is the effect that the withdrawal of financial aid is having on the medical services in Malawi. The AIDS epidemic is sweeping Africa and straining Malawi's already overstretched health resources. When one visits the hospital wards, as I have done, they are full of people who have AIDS. As noble Lords will be aware, many of the African countries will lose one-third of their population. Mozambican refugees have been allowed free access to
1238
Malawian hospitals and often 50 per cent. to 70 per cent. of the hospital beds are occupied by those refugees.
The population of Malawi is 8 million; and the number of Mozambican refugees is approximately 1 million. It has to be said that the Malawian Government have behaved well towards the refugees and, although the donor nations have recognised that in their previous contributions, nevertheless there are many hidden costs which are not covered by the donors in hosting that great number of people from Mozambique.
The increased demands on the Malawian health service have been made much worse by the most severe drought in living memory. It has aggravated diseases of malnutrition and water-related diseases such as diarrhoea and poor hygiene. Many primary health care projects have been slowed down or stopped. The World Bank had approved projects to build two district hospitals, one in Chiradzula and the other in Lilongwe districts. Those cannot proceed. The World Bank projects to upgrade urban health centres for the purpose of decongesting the Malawian city hospitals have also been halted. The procurement of drugs and medical equipment has been affected because of the foreign exchange shortfalls. There is a widespread shortage of drugs in all those hospitals. I should like to thank the Minister for recently persuading the Government to supply £500,000 for drugs to help in this desperate situation.
Having visited Malawi, I was able to recognise the many achievements of the government and people of the country and to see the peace and security that many enjoy, in marked contrast to the picture of the people in neighbouring countries. I welcome the efforts that have been made by the Malawian Government to broaden the participation of the people, to offer them a referendum and to give the people an increasing say in their own affairs. I very much hope that the British Government will make every effort to help the Malawian Government in their efforts. I have in mind particularly the important role of the press and radio which could be encouraged to give better expression of many points of view. Of course, the press can be a great nuisance but it tends to keep people on their toes. It would be helpful if Malawi were to encourage better coverage by the international press of the country's achievements and its difficulties. I know that recently there were no foreign press reporters living in Malawi. If this could be rectified, I am sure that it would be of benefit.
I know that within Malawi there have been accusations of corruption among those who seek power in opposition to the government. The same kind of accusations have been made against friends of the present government. The whole problem of accountability is one with which we are still learning to grapple in our own country and it is a problem which we should be prepared to help the Malawian Government face more effectively. Perhaps more transparency in financial dealings could be achieved by an order from the life president that senior civil servants, ministers and leaders of any potential

1239
opposition parties should declare their assets annually. That would help maintain public confidence in the country's present and potential leaders.
It is, of course, reasonable for us to wish that Malawi will enjoy the kind of democracy which we now have. But it took us 600 or 700 years to achieve it. Malawi has only been going for a mere 30 years. There are elections every five years and each constituency may have as many as five candidates from which to choose—albeit from only one party. At the election last year, half the members lost their seats, including one cabinet minister and four deputies.
I should like to ask the Minister whether, if the referendum in March or June proves in favour of continuing with a one-party state, it will preclude a resumption of aid.
The release from prison on Sunday of Mrs. Chirwa was an encouraging sign of the Malawian Government's attempts to improve the political climate. Perhaps now is the time to encourage them by resuming aid, particularly in view of their unprecedented medical crisis.
10.3 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I never served in Malawi but I have a special personal connection with that country because my father lived and worked there before the First World War. Nyasaland, as the country was then known, was the first African country to which I came at the age of six months, with my young mother. It is a small, poor agricultural country with few resources, which has nevertheless relatively the most effective civil service and infrastructure of any African country in the region. It has survived hard times and is capable of delivering the good government which we seek. Unfortunately, it seems that government policies tend consciously to direct resources towards a small elite, while the general public suffer poverty and hardship. It is said that famine relief tends to be distributed first to active supporters of the Malawi Congress Party —not, I may say, very unusual in Africa.
However, I urge my noble friend the Minister and other donors to consider the special factors which should justify the restoration of a limited amount of development aid under certain conditions. Throughout the past 20 years or so, and particularly in the last 10, this small poor country has been host to over a million Mozambique refugees. With the end of the war in Mozambique and the conclusion of the peace agreement, there is hope that the pressure which so large a presence must create on the impoverished Malawi economy and its society will ease, and that Malawi's trade routes to the sea will be restored.
But the UN mission, whose task it is to supervise the disarming of the troops on both sides and to concentrate those forces (both Renamo and government forces) in camps to facilitate disarmament, and which should have begun the process in October 1992, is not yet in place. Part of the peace agreement was that the UN would be responsible for feeding those troops. That process too has not yet begun. During the hostilities, Renamo lived off the people, exacting
1240
tribute from the villages in terms of food. Now it cannot do that and is turning to selling its arms. There are always criminals ready to buy them in both Malawi and in neighbouring countries. This adds a further dimension of suffering to the lives of ordinary people.
At present, those ordinary people have had to live in very harsh conditions, side by side with refugees in the camps who receive much valuable support in terms of medical treatment, food and education from the NGOs. The land of the Malawi villagers living around is de-forested, and there is no money for development. There has been, in Malawi's eyes, a strong argument to politicise the refugee issue by arguing, upon the withdrawal of all but humanitarian aid, that without development aid they cannot be expected to afford to sustain the extra million people, who are the refugees.
I strongly argue that it is in the interest not only of Malawi but of the international community to ensure that there is a stable transition, as transition there must be in the next few years given the age of the vice-president, to a new and more representative form of government. We should build on and encourage the existing relatively sound and potentially efficient and effective infrastructure—for which, incidentally, the president deserves much credit—by giving some development aid to encourage that transition and kick-start, eventually, a new regime, making the best use of the good institutions of the country. The economy has faltered in recent years. It could recover with only quite modest injections of development aid.
What should our conditions be? Clearly the international community must insist on a truly free referendum. Humanitarian aid must not be used by the government to buy votes. The media must be free to cover the referendum. The offences against and abuses of human rights must cease, and opposition groups must not be intimidated. I suggest that in return we should begin by restoring some development aid, while endeavouring to make sure that it is aid which clearly contributes to national development and the general good and cannot be misappropriated.
Malawi for its part deserves some recognition for what it has suffered as a consequence of the long-term presence of so many refugees. It surely needs development aid to restore its economic infrastructure —for instance, new forestry projects and financing the clinics which were opened for refugees, which should remain for Malawi citizens to use.
As part of the tacit bargain that should exist between donor countries and the government, every effort should surely be made to get the UN operation moving. It is vital for the long-term viability of two countries, Malawi and Mozambique, for the refugees to be able to return successfully and to reintegrate in their own society. Until then it will be only natural for Malawi to regard the future of the refugees as a lever to be exploited to get the world's attention. Can we not now offer a strictly conditional package of limited development aid?
I hold no brief for the abuses and excesses that have undoubtedly existed. I believe we should consider the country's strategic future. We should never ignore the hateful nature of many of the acts of the present

1241
regime. But we must act in good time to do what is necessary for the long-term stability and prosperity of this small country. It has many of the ingredients that
1242
make for good government. It has a relatively good infrastructure and, above all, a tough, enduring and intelligent people.
10.10 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I speak from this place with I hope the approval of your Lordships. For over 30 years I had the pleasure and privilege of being in a way part of Africa. It was a long time ago when my late husband was the Secretary of State for the Colonies and I learned to love most of that continent, but in particular Malawi. Many is the time that I have cooked for the people who wanted to speak to my husband in that capacity. I am a bad cook but I still welcomed the people, especially those from Malawi, and in those days Kenya, who came to ask his advice in regard to forward planning for their countries.
It has been said before but I must reiterate that Malawi is a particularly poor country. As the right reverend Prelate rightly said, it is also one of the most beautiful of all the countries in Africa. Not only that, but the ordinary ground people of Malawi are some of the kindest, most hospitable people in the whole of Africa.
I thank my noble friend Lady Elles for her extremely comprehensive introduction to the Unstarred Question. She must have done an enormous amount of homework during the past weekend and I, for one, am indebted to her. I know that she has first-hand information, unlike—if I may say so—the right reverend Prelate, who does not appear to have been to the country of which he spoke for any great length of time. Unless one has lived in that country it is difficult to see the different standards that exist comparatively between the extremely rich western world and the donor countries and the extremely poor countries of Africa.
Malawi has little to offer except a kind and generous people. They have no minerals; they have practically no wealth at all. They depend on people from outside to help them. But they are always grateful for anything that is done for them.
My noble friend Lord McColl has visited there. He knows the hospitals in Africa better than I, although I have been to the hospitals in Malawi many times. His account of the hospital situation is indeed tragic. It is one that I know well. I also thank the Minister for the recent money that she has been able to—dare I say it —extract from the various budgets and send to Malawi by way of medicines.
My noble friend Lady Elles went through the démarches that were required of the Malawi Government. Most of those have already been accomplished. Others, like the referendum, are in train and will be accomplished in the next few months. Therefore, although I have many notes on it, I shall not weary your Lordships by repeating what my noble friend said. As your Lordships know, she was a member of the United Nations and knows well the standards demanded by the other western countries, especially those who are kind and donate either money, food or medicines to the impoverished countries of Africa.
When I started thinking about 1992 in terms of this country and how it affected Malawi I realised that our problems were as nothing compared with the problems faced by that country. The drought has not
1244
been surpassed since the 1949–51 drought when many people died. This year the drought has been so bad that very few crops have been harvested. More and more boreholes have had to be drilled. The water shortage is as bad as the maize shortage. This season maize has had to be imported for the first time in a long time.
Mozambique has been almost a halter round the neck of the Malawians. Despite that, the Malawian people welcomed the Mozambicans who fled from their country in despair and unhappiness at the civil war going on in Mozambique. We have had confirmation of the distinct possibility of peace breaking out in Mozambique. If it does we all hope that those 1½ million refugees will go back to their country. They have been the guests of the Malawians; they have eaten their food and have been spoilt to the extent that the Malawians have gone without food themselves in order that Mozambicans can have sufficient to eat. How are they paying them back? They are bringing guns from Mozambique to Malawi, which has never been anything but a peaceful nation. They are trying to barter their guns for food. As your Lordships will realise, this is now a source of very grave concern. If guns are bartered peace is not likely to last for very long. The life president is so worried about it that the people, the police and the army have been asked to be on the lookout for those who are bartering guns in that way.
As a direct result of the donor countries failing to give them financial support following the meeting held in Paris between 11th and 13th May the kwacha has had to be devalued twice. They and we who care very deeply for this lovely country are indebted to the voluntary aid that is going into that country—aid in the shape of the Red Cross, Oxfam and the many people who give willingly to help the country. I am not saying that this country is another Somalia or that the people are starving. They are not. The president sees to it that there is enough food to go round, but they are perilously near the starvation line.
What of the future? As the right reverend Prelate said, I feel that the discussion tonight and the answer that we hope the Minister will give will have more widespread repercussions in the whole of that lovely country than was realised when this Unstarred Question was put down. Much depends on the referendum. It is probable that the people of this country do not realise how much the result of the referendum and indeed the way in which it is conducted will have repercussions on their future lives. A great deal hangs on it. I am certain that the donor countries, with my noble friend the Minister, who in my judgment, and I am sure that of others, is always fair, will be able to ensure through the United Nations that the referendum is conducted fairly and honestly. That is the way things are conducted in Malawi. The life president is a very strict man and he sees to it that his people conduct things in the right way. With the United Nations in charge, I feel that the referendum will be as fair as any country could wish to see.
I must thank the Minister very sincerely indeed for taking the trouble to be here for what those of us who

1245
are involved and care consider to be a very important debate. She is a very busy lady. She is our roving ambassador who travels the world. I know that she is off to yet another country at five o'clock tomorrow morning, which is why I shall not go through the rest of my notes. I shall not kowtow to the Minister because she will make up her own mind but I hope that at the end of the debate she will be able to give us encouragement and the people of Malawi encouragement to go on striving to keep Malawi the happy country it has always been. It has been known throughout the world as the happiest and the most beautiful country in Africa.
10.22 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for initiating this debate. It has provided the House with a rare opportunity to discuss recent developments in Malawi. The noble Baroness spoke with compassion, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord McColl, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and, most recently, the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod. We must all share their anxiety for the people of one of the poorest countries of the world. They were certainly right to recognise the refugee burden which Malawi has carried.
However, the Minister and her ministerial colleagues have powerfully argued that democracy and accountability of government are essential for meaningful, sustained, economic and social development, and that human rights must be key factors in determining aid policy. Most of us with first-hand experience of overseas development work readily endorse those principles; and it is their relevance to Malawi that we debate today.
Since the 1960s Malawi has been a one-party system under the autocratic rule of Dr. Hastings Banda, who, as we have heard, is now well into his nineties, and his Malawi Congress Party. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has graphically reminded us, the regime has a long, shameful history of human rights abuse. It is this flagrant contempt for basic human rights which on 13th May last year prompted the fourth consultative group meeting for Malawi in Paris, attended by representatives from the World Bank, the European Community, the International Monetary Fund, UNICEF, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees as well as from a number of individual donor countries, including the United Kingdom, to cut off non-humanitarian aid to Malawi —a decision with which, I am sorry to learn, the World Bank has subsequently felt unable fully to comply.
The group pledged only 170 million dollars of the 270 million dollars requested, and stated that the resumption of development aid would depend on,
"tangible and irreversible evidence of improvements in the regime's human rights record".
In response, Dr. Banda announced that the regime would introduce a number of reforms including the referendum now scheduled for March 1993 on the future of the one-party system.
Sadly, close examination of the regime's human rights record over the past year and of its actions since
1246
Dr. Banda made that announcement underline the wisdom of the policy announced in Paris with its emphasis on tangible and irreversible evidence. The situation remains grim. Over the years the regime has murdered an unknown number of its opponents while subjecting many others to arbitrary arrest and incarceration in prisons where cruelty and torture appear routine. The reality is that Dr. Banda has continued to run the country as a police state and systematically deprived its citizens of their human rights. The brutality of his army and security forces is backed by a pervasive network of informers whose perjured testimonies produce trumped-up charges and sentences which make a mockery of justice.
As recently as last September an Amnesty International report on Malawi noted that all political opposition was still strictly prohibited and that,
"any form of dissenting opinion [was likely] to be harshly repressed".
Reflecting that, people have often been imprisoned because of private conversations overheard in bars and other public places by police or party informers. Religious freedom, according to Amnesty International, exists only, "within strictly defined limits", and there is frequent discrimination on ethnic grounds in favour of those from the central region where President Banda and his deputy, John Tembo, come from, and against those from the northern region.
As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has told us, it was in response to those abuses that in March last year, before the Paris meeting, the Roman Catholic bishops issued their pastoral letter condemning the lack of freedom and the stark inequalities in wealth existing between the rich and poor within Malawi and called for the introduction of democracy. It was all too characteristic that the regime reacted by temporarily arresting seven bishops and declaring possession of their letter a criminal offence.
In a country where the president has periodically threatened to turn his opponents into "meat for crocodiles" it should come as little surprise that the pervading emotion encountered by the joint Law Society/Bar Council delegation to Malawi last September was still—using their word, and as the right reverend Prelate has reminded us—"fear" and can be attributed to the fact that even the mildest criticism of the regime was still likely to result in arrest. The population still appeared to be at the complete mercy of the police and the regime's security apparatus.
Consequently, the delegation found that detention in Malawi,
"means being arrested without warning, without explanation, without trial and without limit".
An unknown number of people have fallen prey to those conditions. Unfortunately, the Minister of Justice was unable to shed any light on their number when asked to do so by the delegation and confessed that he had no way of finding out. That perhaps gives some insight into where justice lies in the regime's list of priorities.
A number of opposition figures have been the victims of repression, many of them on a long-term basis. Mr. Chakufwa Chihana, for example, Secretary General of the South African Trades Union

1247
Co-ordination Council and Chair of the Alliance for Democracy—a cross-party group embracing church members and other pro-democracy activists as well as trade unionists—was arrested in March last year on charges of alleged sedition. Mr. Chihana was also charged with,
"undermining public confidence in the government"
by making statements to the BBC's World Service; namely,
"90 per cent. of the Malawian people are ready to change the government"
and that
"the President is too old to run the country".
The Law Society/Bar Council investigated that case and found that Mr. Chihana's only crime was to call for democracy and the protection of human rights within Malawi. However, that was too much for a regime notorious for its intolerance and repression. Mr. Chihana was sentenced to two years' hard labour last month and it is feared that he will not survive that sentence because of his age and ill-health.
The regime's long-term prisoners have included Mr. Machipisa Munthali, a former Chair of the Elections Commission, and Orton and Vera Chirwa. Mr. Munthali was released only last year after 27 years in custody, 16 of which he served following the completion of the draconian 11-year sentence originally imposed in the courts. Mr. Orton Chirwa was a founder member of the MCP and a Cabinet Minister until 1964 when differences with Dr. Banda forced him to flee with his wife Vera, a prominent lawyer and human rights activist. On Christmas Eve 1981 they were arrested and charged with attempting to overthrow the government. The Chirwas were sentenced to death in 1984, a sentence commuted to life imprisonment because of the international outcry which their case provoked.
The Law Society/Bar Council delegation visited the Chirwas in prison. This occasioned the first meeting between the couple in eight years, despite the fact that they lived only yards apart in the same prison. Sadly, Orton Chirwa died about a month after that meeting. Until the past few days and the significant intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, among others, his wife Vera remained in prison. Her release is, as the right reverend Prelate put it, reason for rejoicing; but, as he asked, what of all the others? It would be helpful if the Minister could underline the steps the Government are taking to secure the release of Mr. Chihana and the other detainees who are being held in Malawi, not least the Reverend Peter Kaleso, a leading member of the Alliance for Democracy, who was arrested only last Sunday.
These examples of the regime's tyranny explain why the international community has felt it necessary to cut off development aid to Malawi. Certainly in response, Dr. Banda promised to introduce reforms including the referendum on the future of the country's one-party system. However, the recent reports by organisations such as Amnesty International and the joint Law Society/Bar Council delegation have exposed the emptiness of most of the promises.
1248
Indeed, harassment of pro-democracy activists has arguably increased as the ruling MCP attempts to suppress the nascent pro-democracy movement. One aspect of this is the continued arrest of pro-democracy activists, such as Mr. Felix Maponda, editor of the new weekly, the New Express. He was arrested on his return from Zambia, and there has been no public news of him to date. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government have any information on his safety and whereabouts? These arrests undermine the MCP's claims that it is committed to reform, and inevitably reinforce the anxieties that the regime will manipulate the referendum results to endorse the one-party system.
If the referendum could be genuinely free and fair it would be a welcome first phase in a process towards multi-party elections. However, it would appear that the regime is taking action to ensure that the referendum is anything but free and fair. Pro-democracy activists are being intimidated and harassed while the prevailing conditions within Malawi prevent them from campaigning openly for change. Returning exiles have been arrested and detainees have been kept in gaol to weaken the pro-democracy campaign.
The UN mission which, as we have heard, visited Malawi in November last recommended that the regime should establish an independent Electoral Commission and allow Opposition groups to campaign freely and with equal access to the media. This mission also suggested that there was a strong case for delaying the referendum until June as a vote in March during the rainy season, when many areas remain cut off, would produce a low turn-out which is precisely what the regime wants. The MCP seems to be leaving nothing to chance by refusing to countenance delay. The regime has packed the Electoral Commission with its own supporters; and to limit the poll, it plans to restrict voting to those over 21. The Alliance for Democracy has claimed that the Malawian regime has implemented only about 25 per cent. of the UN electoral mission's recommendations.
Against that background, surely the Government must continue to use whatever influence they have with Dr. Banda's regime to guarantee that the referendum is democratic. The ruling MCP must be prevented from arranging a stitch-up. If the referendum is to have any credibility, it has to invite international monitors, not just observers. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that the Government are making firm representations in order to ensure that such international monitors will be present to assess the conduct of the referendum and subsequent elections.
In addition, the MCP should compile an open register of voters. It must also allow opposition groups to function without fear of repression. To facilitate that, exiled opponents should be able to return to Malawi without fear of harassment or imprisonment and those in prison should be released immediately. Those steps are vital if the referendum result is to have any authority.
The continuing situation suggests that the regime's new-found commitment to reform may indeed be little

1249
more than a cynical confidence trick. Given HMG's commitment to linking the provision of UK aid to a recipient's support for democracy and human rights, will the Minister outline what action she and her colleagues are taking through the UN and with our EC partners to ensure that Malawi is not an exception to this standard? Will she also clarify how the Consultative Group for Malawi continues to monitor the situation and what is being done, to bring the World Bank on side? It would also be helpful if she would say whether any advice has been given to British firms which wish to invest in or trade with Malawi in order to inform them of the situation in that country.
Disturbingly, there have been reports that even humanitarian aid to Malawi is being siphoned-off by the regime and used as largesse to persuade people to vote for the one-party system in the forthcoming referendum. Will the Minister say whether she is aware of those reports? If so, will she assure the House about the measures being taken to monitor the delivery and distribution of such aid?
As I have stressed, the Consultative Group for Malawi agreed that the resumption of non-humanitarian aid will depend on tangible and irreversible evidence that the regime has improved its human rights record. Unfortunately, there is as yet little sign of such evidence and it appears that Dr. Banda's announcement of reforms and a referendum to decide the country's future may be little more than a calculated attempt to appease international opinion. Repression in Malawi has continued and unless the ruling MCP begins to allow the opposition to campaign openly and with full freedom of association and expression the referendum is likely to be a complete travesty.
In view of these factors the Government must leave Dr. Banda and the MCP in no doubt that international pressure will continue to be exerted against the regime until such time as it proves beyond all reasonable doubt that it is finally willing to put an end to human rights abuse and to introduce the democratic reforms which the people of Malawi so desperately need. Those reforms are essential if sound development is to be possible and good use made of donor money. To hold that, because it is Africa, the principle of human rights and accountability of government somehow do not matter every bit as much as here in the United Kingdom would be insensitively patronising. It would be a grievous insult to those who have been imprisoned and tortured, to those who have given their lives in the struggle for justice and to all those people about whom the right reverend Prelate spoke so movingly tonight. It would also be to deny the inescapable truth of what is necessary for sustained development, as the Minister has well argued on many occasions.
10.38 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Elles for introducing the debate tonight. It is most timely and I hope that the whole of the debate will be
1250
published and read throughout Malawi. It would be good if people in Malawi were able to see how open debate is carried out.
I greatly welcome the decision of President Banda to release Vera Chirwa so that she can spend the rest of her life in peace and freedom with her family. That was a humanitarian act and one which has rightly been welcomed by all noble Lords who have referred to it. Moreover, it has been much welcomed by all the groups involved in Malawi's human rights debate. I know that my noble friends Lady Elles and Lady Macleod of Borve played key roles, along with many others in the UK, including Her Majesty's Government, and far outside in working for Vera Chirwa's release. We are all grateful to my noble friends for their work.
I am grateful also to my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve for the wider role which she has played in persuading the Malawi Government to take more seriously human rights issues. We do not always agree, but she has been tireless in trying to bring about an understanding of the new world in which we live.
The issue of good government is now firmly on the development agenda of all donors and is set to stay there. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, need have no fear of that. Studies by international organisations show that good government is a key factor in development in Africa and essential to ensure that aid is well spent. People in this country whose taxes we spend through the aid programme are rightly concerned that the way recipient governments treat their people should be one of the factors reflected in the aid we give. This is not just a change of perception among developed countries, but in Africa too. We have seen statements from the OAU and from African leaders, and in October 1991 the Commonwealth heads of government meeting (CHOGM) in Harare made a forthright declaration on good government, which Malawi accepted.
Our relations with Malawi have been long and close, and we want them to remain that way. Malawi's record on economic management over the years has been good. Internal peace and security have been better maintained than in many other countries. As so many noble Lords said, Malawi has also opened her doors to over a million Mozambican refugees. But, sadly, Malawi remains a very poor country and compares badly with many other African countries on health and literacy indicators. It also faces serious environmental problems. The donors believe that those issues deserve a widespread and free debate in Malawi, as well as in other countries around the world. Last May when the consultative group met, however, human rights in the country were characterised by a lack of political accountability and choice and a denial of basic freedom of association, information and expression, continuing arrest and detention without trial of those considered a threat to public order, and the absence of a legal framework to protect human rights. There has been growing concern in Malawi and among donors about arbitrary arrests and detention for many years. The concern continues.
Respect for human rights is a fundamental tenet of international law. It is recognised as a legitimate

1251
matter for members of the international community to raise. Malawi's record on human rights, despite a number of private pleas from its friends, has not been good. EC member states have long been unanimous that anxieties about the shortcomings in respect of Malawi's human rights record should be conveyed to the Malawian Government.
So far as we are aware, there are no longer any detainees against whom preventive detention orders have been made. But I must tell your Lordships that there is still anxiety about the delays occurring between arrests and the presentation of charges. There are numerous reports of short-term detentions followed by release without charge.
My noble friend Lady Elles and the right reverend Prelate both spoke, as did other noble Lords, about Mr. Chihana. That is a cause of great anxiety to many. I understand that Mr. Chihana has lodged an appeal against his conviction and sentence of two years' imprisonment following his conviction on charges of sedition. We protested to the Malawian Government about his detention at the time of his original arrest. Following his re-arrest, after speaking with the BBC World Service, we informed them that his detention was a flagrant violation of the fundamental human right to the freedom of expression.
It was, I believe, my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth, who outlined so clearly the sorts of basic freedoms that one looks for in these countries and in all countries across the world. It is right that we should point out these problems. It is no good trying to bury them as if they did not exist. That is why we sincerely hope that at a time when the Government of Malawi are conducting a referendum on the very issues for which Chihana was arrested, his appeal will be considered in the light of a new era in Malawi.
There has been reference to the arrest on Sunday night of the Reverend Peter Kaleso, a leading member of the Alliance for Democracy. Today I came across some papers which worried me very much. It is all very well for the commissioner of police in the central region to tell the district chairman of AFORD that permission had been granted for public meetings to be held on open ground in BEWA triangle on 24th January 1993. However, he goes on to say,
"We would like to inform you that the Reverends Kaleso and A. L. Longwe should be deleted from the list of main speakers".
As members of your Lordships' House will know, they were the main speakers. It was immediately following that that Mr. Kaleso was detained.
These are problems that go on all the time, and they will not be cured quickly. I believe that the referendum holds a key to the future. I think that that is generally accepted by all those, particularly my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve, who have sought to explain the real situation in the world today to those who perhaps do not understand it in the way that we all take for granted.
The decision to suspend certain types of aid was not taken lightly, or in isolation. The Malawian Government were fully aware of donors' concerns when the consultative group meeting took place in Paris in 1992. Our own bilateral programme aid had
1252
been reduced from £10 million to £5 million the previous year with a clear warning that further cuts would follow if Malawi's human rights record did not improve. But the Government of Malawi gave little indication of their preparedness to address the issues and so the following year new balance of payments aid was suspended altogether. The decision was not that of Her Majesty's Government alone. It was reached together with our EC partners and other donors, including the United States, after long and careful deliberation, and a consistent donor approach has been maintained since.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked about the World Bank. Perhaps I may say that in respect of all countries, not just Malawi, we consider the projects in the World Bank board on their technical and economic basis, as required by the Bank's articles of agreement. But in the consultative group we are in very close touch with other donors, whether it be the Malawian consultative group or others, and certainly we wish consultative groups to be a success; otherwise they take a lot of time to no avail. That is why, when a new consultative group is called for Malawi, I sincerely hope the donors will feel fully able to make new pledges, but we are not quite yet at that stage.
As both the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, and my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich said, the effects of the economy over recent years have been very dire for Malawi. Whereas Malawi's GDP grew in 1991, it fell by a similar amount in 1992. The drought and the low tobacco prices were the main reasons. I agree, however, that the suspension of programme aid from bilateral donors played a part and will have an even bigger impact in 1993 if we cannot restore it.
The shortage of foreign exchange obviously affects the private sector and it damages business confidence. However, I repeat that it is not our wish to damage Malawi's economy. We believe that good government is crucial to Malawi's long-term prosperity. That is why we wish to see it.
The donors tried dialogue before imposing restrictions on aid. Unfortunately, in those days it had little effect. Since the restrictions were imposed we have seen some good progress. We are keen to see even greater progress, and the key to unlocking further aid is in the hands of the Government of Malawi.
It is also important to recognise that the donors sought to make a balanced response in May last year. It was designed to send a clear message to the government while at the same time continuing to help the poor in Malawi. We did not cut all aid. Far from it. The UK withheld new balance of payments aid and suspended certain other forms of aid. But we have diverted much of the money saved into humanitarian assistance, which was badly needed last year because of the drought. I am referring to the needs of Malawian people in Malawi. Indeed, we committed £10 million of such humanitarian aid for Malawi, much of it through British NGOs which do such an admirable job. In addition, we gave £1.8 million pounds of aid for Mozambican refugees in Malawi. We believe that helping them eases the pressure which

1253
there has undoubtedly been on the people of Malawi, although not quite in the way which my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve indicated.
We are prepared to respond to urgent appeals for help. Late last year, as my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich said, Malawi was running very short of medicines and President Banda appealed to me directly. We responded very quickly with an allocation of £0.5 million, channelled through UNICEF. In addition, we expect to spend about £12.5 million this financial year on our regular ODA programme, and we shall continue to prepare projects on health, education, forestry and rural water supplies, which are of direct benefit to poor people.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked me whether I thought that humanitarian aid was being siphoned off. I do not believe that it is. I have no evidence to that effect. If the noble Lord has any documents or anxieties about that point I hope that he will write to me.
All members of the international community have continued to monitor developments in Malawi very closely over the past year since that consultative group meeting. Throughout that period we have maintained a dialogue with the Malawian Government, and I am glad to see the High Commissioner in the Gallery tonight. At the specific request of the Malawian Government the European Community has detailed a number of outstanding concerns and issues which still need to be addressed. Such issues, as my noble friend Lady Elles mentioned, relate particularly to police accountability and freedom of expression. Those concerns do not represent the introduction of a new agenda. They are wholly consistent with the Community's original objectives in seeking an improvement in the Malawian Government's approach to human rights.
We are not seeking to impose on Malawi a particular form of government or set of institutions which conform to a western model, but we do seek a political and legal framework which safeguards human rights, basic freedoms and political accountability in that context. That is why I so appreciated the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth when she spoke of the conditions for restoring development aid being a free media, ensuring that opposition groups were not intimidated, that people were freely and fairly treated before the law, and a truly free referendum.
I should like to clarify one point which is sometimes misunderstood, perhaps not in this debate but certainly in the press and elsewhere. Neither we nor any of our European partners are seeking to impose multi-party democracy. We welcome the decision to hold the referendum on that question as one means of responding to donor concerns. The referendum was not a condition of the donors; it was an initiative of Dr. Banda. It is for the people of Malawi to decide whether they wish to continue with the one-party system. We shall not interfere in the debate. I was glad to hear my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve talk of the free and fair conduct of the referendum. How much I agree with what she said and how important it is that that is internationally recognised and respected
1254
throughout Malawi. I hope that international monitors will be able to give a report of a free and fair referendum after 15th March.
However, the referendum process does encapsulate many of the key human rights issues which the donors have been discussing with Malawi. The manner in which the referendum is carried out will have a crucial impact on the confidence attached to the result. That is why I say that provided the referendum is held in conditions which are acceptable we will accept the result. It is vital for Malawi that the referendum has both the support of the advocates of democratic change and is conducted in accordance with internationally accepted standards and practices. United Nations support for the referendum will be essential to establish its credibility in the eyes of the international community.
We are concerned therefore that having sought UN support to provide a report on the conduct of the referendum, President Banda appears to have rejected or significantly modified some key proposals made by the United Nations: for example, whether the use of a "yes" box and a separate "no" ballot box can be regarded as a fair and secure system. The question of registration of voters is also critical, as is the membership of the referendum commission, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. We very much hope that agreement can be reached with the UN. For the Government of Malawi to proceed without the approval of the UN, having requested its involvement, would carry little credibility with the donors. On the other hand, if agreement can be reached, I am sure that we and other donors will respond generously to any call to provide observers and other practical help for the referendum. We will recognise the result and we will respond accordingly provided the human rights record remains good.
Now that a referendum has been announced it would truly be helpful if the Malawi Government did not publicly denounce all those advocating a change to the one party state as "dissidents" and their pamphlets as "seditious". Application of the current legislation on sedition and detention during the referendum campaign will be watched carefully by outside observers, in particular by your Lordships' House.
Malawi has taken steps to address donors' concerns. I have paid tribute previously to that. Let me do so again. It allows the International Committee of the Red Cross access to Malawian prisons. It has released a number of long-term political detainees. It has introduced legislation to amend the Preservation of Public Security Act to enable those detained under the Act a right of appeal. It has amended the Forfeiture Act to allow persons arrested under the Act to prove their innocence. It has amended the penal code to reduce sentence for those accused of producing news reports damaging to Malawi from life sentence to five years. We welcome those steps. However, our dialogue must continue with the Government of Malawi about matters on which we and our European partners hope to see further progress.

1255
I do not underestimate the distance that the Government of Malawi have already travelled. Over the past six months the Government have taken repeated steps to address the international donor communities' concerns. The release of a number of long-term political detainees—most recently on Sunday Vera Chirwa—is a welcome step forward, as was the agreement to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to inspect prisons. However, I hope that in the coming months the Malawian authorities will continue to co-operate fully with any proposals, for instance, that the International Committee of the Red Cross may make with a view to improving the penal system in Malawi. That is a crucial step that must continue. It is not enough to take that action once; it has to continue.
We are watching what happens carefully. It was in response to the Malawian Government, for clarification of the issues which remained of concern to the EC representatives in Lilongwe, that we delivered an EC démarche on 20th October. That matter concerned my noble friend Lady Elles. That démarche set out those human rights issues which remain of concern, particularly police accountability and freedom of expression and association, to which the right reverend Prelate referred several times in his remarks.
1256
The Malawian Government have formally indicated that those concerns will be addressed through the referendum process and by action which the Government of Malawi will take, following up the recommendations of the ICRC. It is those things that we shall be watching; that is what we are looking for from the Government of Malawi.
Finally, what Malawi needs now, in the climate of change and new freedom that is sweeping through Africa, is for President Banda, a leader with immense authority, to bring about the reforms that have been identified tonight and that are so badly needed.
I sincerely hope that in the months ahead we shall see clear evidence of the acceptance by the Government of Malawi of the rights of all individuals to the fundamental freedoms of speech and association and will be able to restore our normal aid relationship. The decision to restrict aid was not taken lightly, but it is right that we should not lift that restriction until there is sufficient evidence of a fundamental change of approach on human rights issues.
House adjourned at one minute past eleven o'clock.

  A.40 ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES
  A.40 ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES
  MACEDONIA: RECOGNITION
  MACEDONIA: RECOGNITION
  ZAIRE: HUMAN RIGHTS
  ZAIRE: HUMAN RIGHTS
  RWANDA: HUMAN RIGHTS
  RWANDA: HUMAN RIGHTS
  SET-ASIDE PAYMENTS: CLAIM FORMS
  SET-ASIDE PAYMENTS: CLAIM FORMS
  SCHOOL MILK: EC SUBSIDY
  SCHOOL MILK: EC SUBSIDY
  DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: EXPENDITURE
  DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: EXPENDITURE
  EC RESEARCH MEETINGS
  EC RESEARCH MEETINGS
  BUILDING REGULATIONS: CONSULTATION PAPER
  BUILDING REGULATIONS: CONSULTATION PAPER