Sitting of 12 December 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL HERITAGE

    National Lottery
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will ensure that millennium fund projects are evenly distributed around the country.
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): Under section 26 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 the Millennium Commission has been issued with directions as to matters which should be taken into account when distributing lottery proceeds. These include the need to ensure that major projects are supported in each country of the United Kingdom.
    Mrs. Knight: My right hon. Friend will know of the considerable interest in the millennium fund. Is he also aware that in the midlands, and no doubt elsewhere in the country, there is concern that projects in London and the south-east will get preference? Can he assure me that that will not be the case? Can he also assure me that support will be given to projects which celebrate both the heritage and the future of some of our traditional industries—such as iron, steel, lace and engineering—upon which many parts of the country such as Erewash continue to depend?
    Mr. Dorrell: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks. No preference will be given to projects based in London and the south-east; the Millennium Commission has made it clear that it will proceed without trying to distribute funds according to a quota and will judge each application on its merits, from wherever in the kingdom it comes.
    The type of project that my hon. Friend outlined would be particularly appropriate in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, and if local supporters put the idea to the Commission I am sure that it would be considered favourably. Her proposal has an attractive theme as it looks back over the past 200 years of achievement in those industries and forward to the prospects for those industries in the next millennium.
    Mr. Enright: Will the Minister give particular consideration to Wakefield sculpture park which, with its Henry Moore and Barbara Hepworth collections, is a leader not only in the United Kingdom but in the world?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the Yorkshire sculpture park, which is a
    596
    major centre of excellence. I am not aware whether it has made a bid to the Millennium Commission. If it has, the bid will of course be carefully considered.
    Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it will be important for elements of the celebration of the millennium to have a theme? Does he consider that the best theme for this country would be a celebration of music? To that end, will my right hon. Friend give thought to setting up a music palace in London, which could act as a central point and which could be replicated in all our major cities? We could then leave a mark which would establish the music industry as one of our great industries.
    Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the Millennium Commission must back projects with themes which communicate a clear message about the things that we value when celebrating the millennium. As to whether music should be such a theme, my hon. Friend may wish to put that to the Commission. I suspect that he would need to be able to demonstrate the extra elements that the Millennium Commission could add to such a project in addition to the backing that would come from the Arts Council, which would perhaps be a more natural lottery distributor body to deal with that part of the performing arts spectrum.
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met the organisers of the national lottery to discuss the provision of outlets for the purchase of tickets; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): The provision of outlets' for the purchase of lottery tickets is an operational matter and as such is entirely the responsibility of the operator, Camelot plc, and the regulator, the Director-General of the National Lottery. The director-general meets Camelot regularly to discuss operational matters.
    Mr. O'Brien: May I put it to the Minister that m many areas the organisation put in place by Camelot is not working, particularly in my constituency which covers the community council area of Normanton and Altofts with a population of about 25,000, and the neighbouring rural area of Sharlston with a population of about 27,000? There is not one outlet in that area where people may purchase a lottery ticket, so any of my constituents in the area wishing to purchase a lottery ticket must travel by bus to Wakefield or Castleford. As the arrangements made by Camelot are not working, will the Minister use his persuasive powers to ensure that my constituents and those in other areas will have an opportunity to purchase lottery tickets?
    Mr. Sproat: I am sorry to hear that all is not completely well in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and I will ensure that his remarks are brought to the attention of Camelot. He may be aware, however, that by the end of this year a postal subscription service will be on offer, which should solve some of the problems. Although he has drawn attention to one or

    597
    two things that have gone wrong, it is perhaps right to point out that 11,250 outlets are working extremely successfully.
    Mr. Jessel: I thank you for calling me, Madam Speaker, although I am not sure whether you will like what I am going to say. Will my hon. Friend see whether lottery tickets can be put on sale somewhere in the Palace of Westminster?
    Mr. Sproat: As is often the case, my hon. Friend has suggested an interesting idea. I will certainly ensure that it is brought to the attention of the appropriate House authority.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the anonymity provisions of the national lottery; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sproat: The anonymity provisions in the licence issued to Camelot to run the national lottery state that the identity of any person who has won a prize shall not be disclosed without the prior written consent of that person. The director general has informed me that he is not aware of any cases in which Camelot has not complied with that condition.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend hope to win £18 million in the national lottery some day? If so, what would he do with the money, and is he satisfied that the current anonymity provisions in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 would ensure that no one knew about his win?
    Mr. Sproat: As I have said, there appears to be no doubt that Camelot has adhered to the provisions to keep winners anonymous. It may be, however, that others have not done the same. If, for instance, it was felt that complaints about what has happened in the press were proper, they could be made to the Press Complaints Commission.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much money has been raised to date via the national lottery.
    Mr. Dorrell: In the four weeks since it began, the national lottery has raised more than £53 million for good causes.
    Mr. Evans: I am delighted with that response. I had rather hoped that this would have been the appropriate time for me to declare an interest, but unfortunately I am not the person who has won £17.8 million—and good luck to whoever it happens to be. As well as people winning prizes from the lottery, are not vast sums of money now set to be distributed to good causes and is it not appropriate that some of the rural areas of the United Kingdom should attract some of that money? On Friday I was talking to heads and governors of schools who would like to get funds for a swimming pool, which they would not ordinarily be able to build. Does my right hon. Friend agree that they may be able to look to the Sports Council for national lottery money to enable them to provide that facility?
    Mr. Dorrell: I am sorry that my hon. Friend is not able to declare the interest that he wanted to declare. He has, of course, drawn attention to the principal
    598
    benefit of the national lottery to the great majority, because it is raising sums of money for good causes which could not reasonably have been expected from any other source. My hon. Friend has also drawn attention to the opportunity that the lottery represents for a community in his constituency to realise a long-cherished ambition. The picture that he has drawn will be repeated many times in constituencies up and down the country.
    Mr. Chris Smith: In four weeks, has not the Chancellor of the Exchequer already made £25 million for the Exchequer through his 12 per cent. tax take on the national lottery? Does that not make it even more inexcusable that, as a result of the Budget statement last week, the Arts Council and the Sports Council have less money in real terms than they had two years ago, especially when arts, sport and heritage are at the very heart of the appeal of the national lottery?
    Mr. Dorrell: I am at a loss to understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. He seems to be saying that, as the lottery represents an unprecedentedly large addition to the resources available to the arts and sports world, there must be an equally large addition from taxpayers' funds. The Government have made it clear that the lottery money is additional to the Government's funding to the major beneficiaries. We have delivered on that commitment in the public expenditure settlement that I announced the week before last and, in addition, the lottery is unleashing an unprecedentedly large sum towards those beneficiary groups.

    Listed Buildings
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many representations he has received about the criteria on which buildings are listed.
    Mr. Dorrell: Very few; the listing criteria were fully restated in the recent planning policy guidance note No. 15, which was the subject of wide public consultation last year.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware of the number of farmers who have listed barns that they are not allowed to convert for housing or light industrial use, and who are confronted with the dilemma of maintaining a building that is extremely expensive to maintain to the standards of English Heritage and other organisations and being forced to foot the bill? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the criteria in the light of the dilemma faced by farmers, many of whom are in my constituency?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of ensuring that in the enforcement of the listing regulations— [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) anything to raise? If he has, I will deal with it in a point of order after questions. The question was in perfect order.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is right to emphasise the importance of ensuring that the listing system is applied in such a way as to ensure that, while we respect the ancient buildings that are listed, the enforcement

    599
    mechanism is sufficiently flexible to allow those buildings to be put to modern, effective use. That principle is made clear in the policy guidance to which I referred.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) cannot go around cladding her Tudor house and hoping to get away with it? Will he also bear in mind that, in terms of listing, a number of modern buildings in London need to be listed and protected? Will he make it clear that any change in the listing of that wonderful art deco building, the Hoover building on the Great West road, will be resisted?
    Mr. Dorrell: We shall continue to operate the listing system in such a way as to ensure that proper respect and attention is paid to buildings of architectural importance. We shall also ensure, however, that once a building is listed it is not preserved in aspic but that the listing system is applied sufficiently flexibly to allow the building to be put to economic use in the modern world.
    Mr. Steen: Listing commercial buildings without regard to economic consequences is a form of sequestration by the state without compensation. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the value of Castro] house in Marylebone road has plummeted since it was listed by the Department of National Heritage? The building is out of date and has reached the end of its life, but modern facilities cannot be put in, it cannot be Jet, it cannot be sold and it cannot be pulled down.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right that the listing of a building has economic consequences. It is important, therefore, to ensure that the system which lies behind the initial decision to list is sufficiently flexible to allow the heritage and economic questions to be held in the balance, and a proper and balanced judgment reached. That does not always mean preserving the building exactly as it is, but it certainly does mean respecting ancient buildings which are determined, according to the listing criteria, as being of national importance.

    Battersea Power Station
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which parties are involved in discussions on the future of Battersea power station; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sproat: The London borough of Wandsworth and English Heritage are taking part in discussions on the future of Battersea power station with the owners, and with other parties.
    Mr. Cox: I note that reply, but is the Minister aware of the feeling in the London borough of Wandsworth that the destruction of the internal fabric of Battersea power station is an utter scandal, because that power station has been a major feature of the national heritage of this country? In view of the development, which was fully supported by the Conservative Government and the London borough of Wandsworth, by a developer whose ultimate aim was extremely dubious, close attention will be paid to the Minister's reply today as to the involvement that Wandsworth council will now
    600
    have. Local people have no confidence in anything in which Wandsworth council is involved relating to the Battersea power station project.
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Member is right to be concerned about what is happening to that listed building. Two of the classic pieces within the power station—the directors' staircase and the control room—are in perfect condition. The building was last examined on the afternoon of Tuesday 6 December and will be examined again before Christmas. Its condition is fine at present, but we shall be keeping a close eye on it because we share the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his latest estimate of the percentage of national lottery funds that will be devoted to charities.
    Mr. Sproat: In common with the other four beneficiary areas, 20 per cent. of the national lottery proceeds for good causes will be devoted to charities.
    Mr. Flynn: Nought out of 10 for that answer—the question involved only charities, not good causes. Is not the donor fatigue suffered by charities such as Children in Need and others a result of misleading adverts by the national lottery suggesting that large amounts of money would go to charity? Would it not be better for charity givers to buy lottery tickets from the St. David's Foundation in Gwent, where 100p in every £1 goes to charity and not merely a few pence, as with the national lottery, from which no money will go to charity until 1996 anyway? Is it not true that the charity money from the national lottery will be very little, very late?
    Mr. Sproat: No, I do not agree with that. So far, £53.4 million has come in for good causes, of which the charities will receive their 20 per cent. If people want to give money to charity as well, they can continue to do so. I think that most people in this country will very much welcome an extra source of funding for charities.
    Mr. Hendry: Will my hon. Friend give consideration to what should be done when the jackpot is not won and is rolled over for a second week? Does he agree that it might be better to give half the sum to good causes and charities and perhaps a quarter to smaller prizes, leaving a quarter or a third to be rolled over to the next week's jackpot? Would that not make it more attractive to punters and result in more money going to good causes?
    Mr. Sproat: I do not think so. The House of Commons made a decision on the matter last year. I take my hon. Friend's point, but if there is a very big prize, many more people buy tickets, which increases the turnover and means that good causes receive more money in the end.

    Arts (North-west)
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met the chair of the North West regional arts board to discuss the level of financial support for the arts in the north-west.
    Mr. Dorrell: I have had no such meeting. Decisions on the allocation of grant in aid to the regional arts boards are a matter for the Arts Council.
    Mr. Miller: Does the Minister agree with me about the importance of theatre and the arts in the regions? If he does, what is he doing about the serious problems facing theatres such as the Liverpool playhouse, which is suffering a large deficit? Does he not think that he should take direct action in the interests of protecting arts in the regions?
    Mr. Dorrell: I very much agree with the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the arts in the regions. That is why I was pleased to go to Manchester last week to celebrate the success of the city of drama year in Manchester—some fine and important drama was being celebrated there. The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about Liverpool and I share his enthusiasm for ensuring that the city of Liverpool has a vigorous artistic, theatrical, musical and cultural life. That is delivered partly by state funding, which is why we have increased the money available to the Arts Council, and partly by ensuring that there is extra business support and extra support from people who visit the city as tourists and contribute to the city's artistic life through the box office. As Secretary of State for National Heritage, I intend to pursue all those avenues, not just one.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the places where arts in the north-west are particularly strong is Blackpool, particularly at the Grand theatre, one of Frank Matcham's masterpieces? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important for his Department to continue with strong support for the arts in the north-west, exemplified by the support that he and his predecessor have given to theatres such as the Grand theatre, Blackpool? I hope that he will confirm today that he is able to continue to do so.
    Mr. Dorrell: I can confirm that the Arts Council has continued in the current year to give very large sums of its budget to North-West regional arts. Indeed, it is the largest recipient of Arts Council grant outside London. That reflects the importance that the Arts Council attaches to stimulating and catalysing an active artistic life in the north-west of England. I stress to my hon. Friend the point that I made to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller): this is a matter not just of public subsidy, but of using all the weapons at our disposal to ensure that the artistic life of the nation thrives and expands.
    Mr. Maclennan: We recognise that the Secretary of State regards his business and his job as serious and important. Could he also tell us whether he enjoys the arts?
    Mr. Dorrell: I enjoy the arts in all their many and various forms; but my job is to allow others to enjoy them, rather than regarding them as a private passion.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Secretary of State now deal with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere
    602
    Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) put to him about the size of the deficits of the major regional theatre companies? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman understands that those deficits cannot be met by his recipe of increased box office receipts or by sponsorship. Those might help with running costs and yearly costs, but the deficits are enormous. Our major regional theatres have cumulative deficits of more than £7 million. That is a testimony to the Government's lack of a policy and lack of concern. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away from his responsibility for dealing with those deficits.
    Mr. Dorrell: I am at a loss to understand how I am supposed to deal with the issue of deficits separately from that of running costs funding and the expansion of the arts economy to which I have referred. The way to solve a deficit is by ensuring that activity grows, generating revenue from the taxpayer, through the Arts Council, from the box office, and from the business community. That is our strategy; that is how we deal with deficits.

    National Lottery
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to keep under review the national lottery policy of only giving awards for capital projects.
    Mr. Sproat: I shall be keeping all the section 26 directions under review.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that small organisations—charities and good causes—do not necessarily need money for capital projects? They need support for sustainable activities. Crossroads, in my constituency, and voluntary "sitters" organisations, need administrative help to sustain their work of serving the community.
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes a good point. At this moment discussions are taking place between the Home Office and the National Lottery Charities Board to decide on the exact split between capital and revenue. My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that the charity sector will get, and deserves to get, much more revenue funding than capital funding. I shall see that her interesting comments are passed on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Maxton: Although most of us would accept that the provision of sports facilities is essential and should come from the national lottery, would it not be useful if some of that money were allocated to specialised training and support for our elite young sportsmen, who find it very difficult not just to secure the use of facilities but to get time off work and proper coaching?
    Mr. Sproat: That is a good point. The Sports Aid Foundation already gives some money to elite athletes, though not a great deal, I agree. We are looking at ways in which capital projects could have a revenue tail, so that there could be revenue funding for the sort of thing that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I have also asked that the new United Kingdom Sports Council, when it gets going next year, should look into this sort of issue as a matter of priority. I certainly take it very seriously.

    Cross-media Ownership
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about the Government's review of cross-media ownership.
    Mr. Dorrell: I have received 64 written representations from a wide range of individuals and organisations. These have been supplemented by a number of meetings at ministerial and official levels.
    Mr. Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the making of programmes for broadcasting is now a very competitive international industry, and that there is therefore a strong case for relaxing the present rules on cross-media ownership to enable British companies to compete effectively in that international market?
    Mr. Dorrell: That view has been argued by some in the context of the review, and we are currently examining that argument along with many others. Whatever happens in future to the cross-media ownership regulation, the programme-making industry in Britain will continue to grow substantially. It provides a major opportunity for Britain in business terms, because of the employment that it creates and the wealth that it generates. It is also important in terms of the wider exposure that it gives to our way of life and ideas. The programme-making industry is one of the success stories of recent years, and whatever emerges from the cross-media ownership review should be determined, at least in part, by a commitment to ensure that that continues.
    Mr. Grocott: Before the Secretary of State makes any further decisions on media ownership, would it not be a simple matter of prudent common sense to have a thorough review of the disastrous decision on media ownership that was made by his predecessor almost 12 months ago today when he relaxed the rules on the ownership of television companies? The consequences of that have been a massive 51 per cent. increase in profits by Carlton since it took over Central, bosses making a great deal of money, studios closing, many people losing their jobs and many others moving to short-term working. In view of that, does it not make simple common sense to ensure that, before changes for the future are made, one looks to the mistakes that one has made in the past?
    Mr. Dorrell: It is an interesting reflection on the hon. Gentleman's presentation of his case that he spoke about the impact of the change on the company, the shareholders, the directors, the employees and the company's cost base, but did not volunteer a word about the impact on the viewer. It is the viewer who should be the driver of our policy on cross-media ownership.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some British companies are suffering disadvantages compared with companies in Europe? Does he not think it better that, if there is to be an expansion of cross-media ownership and the communications industry, it should be by British companies, and specifically not by Italian and German companies?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the opportunities for British companies to expand and fill the fast-growing international market for programme making. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), I spoke about our success in
    604
    that endeavour to date and about my commitment to ensuring that whatever emerges from the cross-media ownership review should be consistent with our continued future success in that sector.
    Mr. Allen: Does the Secretary of State accept that we understand why he wishes to delay the cross-media ownership review further? Given the media coverage that his Government are getting at the moment, he does not want to upset anyone in the media. Will he look at two areas in the review? First, rather than imposing an inflexible solution, will he consider talking to those in the industry to see whether there is a possibility of securing agreement throughout the different branches of the media? Secondly, will he consider the viewers, readers and listeners who are the consumers of these various products and understand that they want clear plurality and diversity—a choice of different mediums? Will he ensure that whatever emerges from the review he will sustain that choice?
    Mr. Dorrell: Yes and yes.
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his consideration of the problems of cross-media ownership and predatory pricing.
    Mr. Dorrell: The Government are actively considering the way ahead on media ownership, and will make an announcement in due course. Alleged predatory pricing is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Dalyell: What possible purpose do the right hon. Gentleman and the President of the Board of Trade imagine that Mr. Murdoch has in mind other than putting in jeopardy The Guardian or The Independent or even The Daily Telegraph by pricing his copies of The Times at 20p?
    Mr. Dorrell: With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am not sure that Mr. Murdoch's motives are my concern. My concern is the enforcement of the law and the application of principles of public policy. The suggestion that Mr. Murdoch has been engaged in predatory pricing of The Times was examined by the Director General of Fair Trading within the terms of the law and he concluded that there was no evidence to support that. That seems to me, within the law as it stands, to dispose of the issue.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy that money from the national lottery will not affect the provision of public funds to sport and the arts.
    Mr. Sproat: It is not intended that the money provided by the lottery should substitute for that provided by the Government in other ways.
    Mr. Cunningham: Does not the Minister understand that companies such as the Coventry Theatre in Education and the Coventry Belgrade theatre could be in jeopardy because of the series of cuts imposed by the Government

    605
    in recent years? Will he speak to the West Midlands Arts Council and ensure that the future of those two companies is secured?
    Mr. Sproat: I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of the board he mentioned.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend also remember the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, a body about which none of us has anything but good to say? It has great experience and expertise and has a number of projects in the pipeline. Will he ensure that neither the public purse nor the national lottery do anything but add to the work that the foundation has done so well and should continue to do with a bigger budget?
    Mr. Sproat: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The Foundation for Sport and the Arts and Mr. Grattan Endicott and his board have done a wonderful job, giving some £40 million to sport and £20 million to the arts. Long may that continue.

    Sports (Young People)
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about sports provision for young people.
    Mr. Sproat: The Sports Council provides financial and other assistance to enable governing bodies of sport, local sports clubs and schools to enhance their sporting provisions for young people. One of the objectives of my current proposals for restructuring the council is to strengthen the links between governing bodies and schools so that young people have wider opportunities to develop their sporting skills.
    Mr. Hain: Does the Minister accept that those are mere words because the figures show that the number of physical education teachers has been cut by more than 40 per cent? There are also reduced facilities because of opting out and cuts in local government provision. Why do not the Government invest in a major national programme to boost youth sport? If we did that, as the Australians do with their cricket academies, we might start winning some test matches and other sporting events that appear to be beyond our grasp at the moment.
    Mr. Sproat: I have been following with great interest the hon. Gentleman's series of questions on PE teachers to the Welsh Office and the Department for Education, which he has tabled over the past few weeks. He certainly has a serious problem in his sights. He knows the answers—such as, more teachers used to take sports but now PE teachers tend to do that; that there are fewer pupils, and so on. However, I hope that the future of PE training will be looked at in the joint paper being prepared by my Department and the Department for Education.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about Australia and I am going there some time in January to look at exactly what the Australians are doing and to see what lessons we can learn.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to meet the revenue consequences of capital projects funded through the income from the national lottery.
    Mr. Dorrell: It will be for applicants for lottery funds to demonstrate that they will be able to secure on-going revenue funding for their capital projects. It is important that projects can show that they are financially viable and that they command wide support. However, in exceptional circumstances, distributing bodies do have the power to give revenue grants to lottery funded capital projects. This will ensure that good projects do not founder for lack of funding.
    Mr. Gunnell: The Minister's answer is not quite satisfactory. Many projects will be started as a result of the funds available through the national lottery. When they get going, some will meet consequences that were not foreseen and were not in their business plans. The need for revenue funding will be much greater than the right hon. Gentleman suggested. Should not some lottery money be put into a trust to generate revenue funding? Many organisations working in the national heritage area are already short of revenue.
    Mr. Dorrell: We have said that, in exceptional cases, the model which the hon. Gentleman anticipates—a fund-generating revenue to look after the capital asset—can be envisaged. It would not be right for us to create a fund at large to cover the generality of risk in the projects that are being backed because the responsibility for covering that risk and making viable business plans, with an element of flexibility to cover the unknown, rests on the people who sponsor the projects. I would not wish to do anything that would create among them the impression that events that were unforeseeable when the project started would be covered by an emergency fund of the kind anticipated by the hon. Gentleman. That would not be a sensible way forward. The responsibility for managing flexibility within the future life of a project must rest unambiguously on the project's sponsor.
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if it is Government policy to use proceeds from the national lottery to support opera in its London centres as well as in the regions; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dorrell: Decisions on the allocation of lottery funds will be entirely for distributing bodies to make, within the framework of the directions issued to them under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. The Arts Council will make the funding decisions in response to the applications it receives. It has recently issued guidelines for applicants which give details of its funding strategy.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our opera centres in London provide extremely good value for money compared with national centres in other major countries? Would it not therefore be worth while to tip the Arts Council the wink and encourage it to push some money in that direction?
    Mr. Dorrell: I do not engage in tipping winks. I engage in giving policy guidelines, which I have done.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    National Science Week
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about preparations for National Science Week.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert G. Hughes): Preparations are well advanced for the second science week, starting on 17 March 1995. It will be bigger and more comprehensive than this year's.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as part of National Science Week, it will be necessary to emphasise the quality of science teaching? Does he agree that science teaching has improved since the introduction of the national curriculum, especially in grant-maintained schools.
    Mr. Hughes: Indeed, science teaching is improving. The fact that the national curriculum requires pupils to learn about science for so many years is a big improvement. Improvements in facilities are also important, but so is the excitement of science. Therefore, schools' participation in science week—I urge all schools to do so—is an important part of the public's understanding of the science curriculum.
    Mr. Battle: While I welcome the Government's National Science Week initiatives, we cannot let the Minister get away with trying to con us into believing that that is all that is needed. Can he confirm that, although the Office of Science and Technology budget was riot cut last week, the budgets of every other Department—the Department for Education and the Departments of Trade and Industry, Health, Transport and the Environment—all had their research and development spending reduced in the recent Budget. Is it not a classic case of a teaspoon of aid for National Science Week while, with the other hand, the Treasury is firmly grasping the windpipe of every other Department's science spending? It was not a Budget for science, was it?
    Mr. Hughes: It was a Budget for science. The Labour party apparently finds it impossible to welcome good news. Labour Members do not understand good news when it gets up and hits them. The science budget is at a record level and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy protected and increased it, which has been warmly welcomed in the science community.
    Mr. Dykes: I wish my hon. Friend well because at the end of March he will be the Minister in charge of that programme for schools throughout the country. Can he confirm that we shall have a major programme throughout the borough of Harrow and that, although it is early days, schools are already responding well to that initiative?
    Mr. Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I know from the work which my hon. Friend and I have been doing that there will be a large programine in Harrow. Indeed, our work has been mirrored by other hon. Members of all parties who have responded warmly to the letter that I sent all hon. Members. They have been
    608
    contacting their schools and companies in their constituencies, so that everyone concerned in the subject will make a large input to National Science Week.
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consideration was given to animal experimentation in his sponsorship of the recent National Science Week.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: We welcome contributions to the week from any bona fide organisation that seeks to promote greater public understanding and appreciation of science, engineering and technology. No area of research, including medical research, is excluded.
    Mr. Cohen: Surely the Minister does not pretend to be neutral on the issue of animal experiments. Millions of animals are destroyed unnecessarily each year in the so-called interests of science. Why do not the Government take the opportunity provided by the week to listen to the public's views on unreliable, unethical and inhumane treatment of animals in experiments, and to promote the genuinely scientific alternatives to those awful experiments?
    Mr. Hughes: I know that the hon. Gentleman is seriously concerned about the issue and pursues it with equal seriousness. I am sure that he accepts that my voting record in the House indicates that I also take a serious view of it. The Government share public concern that animals should not suffer unnecessarily. We are committed to finding alternatives and the Home Office funds research to that end. The British Association's declaration on the use of animals in medical research is an important contribution, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that thousands of eminent doctors and scientists, including 31 Nobel prize winners, signed that declaration.

    Duchy Benevolent Fund
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will transfer responsibility for the disbursement of moneys from the Duchy benevolent fund to Lancashire county council.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. David Hunt): No.
    Mr. Prentice: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the way that the fund's decisions are made is opaque? Last year, three of my constituents received just over £700, yet figures for each of the past five years show that one school alone—the Royal grammar school in Lancaster—receives money from the fund year after year. Should not responsibility for disbursing those funds be transferred to a democratically accountable body, rather than be vested in the few people who advise the Chancellor of the Duchy?
    Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to announce that over the past 10 years, the Duchy has donated more than £1 million to charitable causes. I am not one of the trustees, so I cannot comment on their deliberations and decisions—but all three Duchy Lords Lieutenant are trustees and they comment on requests for support from their respective areas. That seems quite satisfactory.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I assure my right hon. Friend that transferring to Lancaster county council responsibility for allocating any money would be frowned upon by my constituents. Is he aware that the county council has never been fair in funding Lancaster schools, including the Royal Lancaster, and could not be trusted to be fair with Duchy money? How much money has Pendle received from the fund?
    Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supplying the correct background to the question by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). This year grants totalling £2,600 have been made by the fund to charities and individuals in his constituency, from a total of £168,000.

    Science and Technology
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures his Department is taking to encourage partnerships between different sectors of the economy in the areas of science and technology.
    Mr. David Hunt: Many.
    Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the work of Campus, the campaign for Salford university—one of the leading universities in the north-west? It involves 150 different businesses from large multinationals to small local firms, who have formed a partnership with the university to develop research and research funding. Is not that a perfect example of the way forward, and should it not serve as a model for other universities and businesses in the north-west?
    Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The answers to his questions are yes, yes and yes.
    I am impressed by the work that Salford university has done in partnership with industry, particularly the work done by Campus. Into my hands has fallen a brochure produced by the campaign to promote the university of Salford: it fell into my hands because my chief scientific adviser visited the university last October and was most impressed by all that my hon. Friend has described.
    Mr. Miller: The Minister will know that I approve of the idea of increasing the number of partnerships in the science communities, especially on university campuses, but how will he avoid the potential conflict between the interests of science and those of the private sector in subjects such as genetic research?
    Mr. Hunt: It is important for us to seek a positive partnership between industry and science. That is why my predecessor set up the technology foresight panels, which enable leaders of private industry to sit down with some of the country's leading scientists to discuss genetics and many other subjects right across the spectrum, and to try to look five, 10, 15 and 20 years into the future. The results achieved by the panels will emerge next spring, and will be reflected in the "Forward Look" that my Department will publish next year.
    Mr. Streeter: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the partnership between the university of Plymouth and various private sector companies which are setting up the science park at Derriford, making Plymouth a centre of
    610
    scientific excellence? Is not that exactly the kind of initiative that the Government should support? I shall send my right hon. Friend a brochure in tonight's post.
    Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I look forward to reading the brochure, and to hearing more about Plymouth's efforts. They reflect the record amount of money that is being spent through the science budget, which will be more than 30 per cent. higher in real terms next year than it was 15 years ago.
    The most important way ahead, however, must lie in a more positive partnership between science and industry. That is reflected in many of the efforts mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House in letters to me.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Is not the Minister aware that it is extremely foolish to be complacent about the issue, especially when Britain's industrial base has shrunk so badly over the past 15 years? Surely the most urgent need for better partnerships between different sectors of the economy, and in science and technology, is in the development of information super-highways. Will the Minister acknowledge that unless the Government change direction in that vital regard, Britain will be left behind again?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Lady should recognise that the United States has followed our example in developing the super-highway in many important and material respects. As for her general point, I am very proud of the fact that the United Kingdom is in the premier research league. Again, the science budget shows our commitment to staying in that league.

    Cultures and Microbes
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consideration he has given to the report of the working group under the chairmanship of Professor Roger Whittenbury, commissioned by the Office of Science and Technology, into the safeguarding for the nation of the collection of the 42,500 cultures and microbes used by the country's science research bodies and institutes; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: We are grateful to Professor Whittenbury for his report, and we are considering it carefully.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Minister accept that that will not reassure scientists who greatly value the preservation of those cultures and microbes, which are the product of 100 years of research? It really is in the interests of the British research and scientific community for the Government to take an initiative to ensure that the microbes are preserved for the nation, and for British scientific research.
    Mr. Hughes: That is the whole point of the report. The history is as follows: the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee report on systematic biology research expressed a number of concerns, and in our response, to meet those concerns, we set up an independent study. We now have' its report, and are considering its recommendations carefully. We consider building on United Kingdom strengths in systematic biology a very important part of overall Government plans.

    611
    Let me set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. Three years ago, we commissioned similar studies examining the conservation of plants in culture collections. That has worked well, and I believe that the current project will also work well.

    Civil Servants
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what new proposals he has to improve the job security of civil servants.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Our public service reforms, which the Select Committee recently endorsed, mean that the civil service continues to offer rewarding careers and job security which compares well with other sectors.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware that I and my constituents who work at the Patent Office were told that a decision would be made and published by Christmas—Christmas 1993? Was not that prediction as reliable as that made by the Home Secretary today that the Conservatives would win the Dudley, West by-election? Is he aware that the staff of Companies House in Cardiff, at the Accounts Services Agency in my constituency, at the Passport Office, the Central Statistical Office and the Patent Office in my constituency have the sword of Damocles in the form of possible job losses hanging over their heads for another Christmas? Will he guarantee that, if the Government privatise the agencies, the jobs involved will be secure in Wales and not moved to other parts of the United Kingdom, Europe or the far east?
    Mr. Hughes: Just to fill in the background for the hon. Gentleman, the next steps agencies represent a significant improvement in the organisation of government. Although I understand that prior options reviews are unsettling for staff, and prolonged reviews are even more difficult, the Government are still considering the review of the Patent Office to which he referred. An announcement will be made as soon as the review is complete. As for the Accounts Services Agency, a decision has been made to contract out its work. It may be valuable to the hon. Gentleman's constituents who work there to know that it is expected that the staff and assets of the agency will transfer with the work.
    Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend will be aware that the civil service is an extremely significant employer in Blackpool and on the Fylde coast, as many parts of the civil service are based there. Does he agree that job security for those civil servants will be best assured by a high quality of service to customers as exemplified by that offered by the Information Technology Services Agency, the new headquarters of which is on the outskirts of my constituency and which employs many of my constituents? Does he further agree that civil service job
    612
    security will not be improved by the type of scare stories manufactured by civil service unions of which we hear far too many?
    Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is right. It is because of the high quality of work done by many of the agencies that so many bids have been won in house. The fact remains that people employed in agencies are there to deliver a public service; that is their primary function and it is the delivery of a high quality public service that we should all have in the forefront of our minds.

    Post Office
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to reconsider a citizens charter for the Post Office.
    Mr. David Hunt: The Post Office publication, "Putting the Customer First" sets out the Post Office's commitment to charter standards.
    Mr. Hain: Will the Chancellor join me in congratulating the post office workers who took a day of action today to defend the public who do not want their local high street post offices closed or dumped in the back of supermarkets? Is he aware that a MORI poll published this morning shows that 79 per cent. of the public support the strike, which is an unusually high percentage for a public service strike? Does not that show that the people of this country have no confidence in Government policies?
    Mr. Hunt: No, it does not. Ninety-five per cent. of all post offices are already successfully run as private sector businesses. They offer their customers a substantial and excellent range of services. I feel strongly that today's action has no justification and I am sad that it should have taken place against the background of the most recent figures, which show that, in the past 12 months, the United Kingdom had the lowest number of strikes on record and the lowest number of working days lost on record. I am sad that today Post Office workers are seeking to add another strike to the incredibly low total. That low figure demonstrates the commitment of the vast majority of people who continue to put the customer first.
    Mr. Waterson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in my constituency are very happy with the Government's commitment to securing their future? They need no advice about running their businesses from Labour Members who are sponsored by the postal workers.
    Mr. Hunt: Yes, I agree. It is evident that the service in post offices has improved tremendously. More than 95 per cent. of post office customers are now served within five minutes. In the past 10 years tariffs have risen less than the rate of inflation. Thanks to the commitment of all those who work in post offices, the quality of customer service has improved beyond recognition.

European Council
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the European Council at Essen which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Council's conclusions have been placed in the Library of the House.
The European Council achieved five key British objectives: strong support for the peace initiative in Northern Ireland, including additional funding of £240 million; commitment to an intensified fight against fraud and mismanagement; solid progress on subsidiarity, and it was agreed that next year the Council will complete its review of the existing Community statute book; priority for labour market flexibility and deregulation to make Europe competitive and create jobs; and a strategy to prepare for accession to the Union of the six central and eastern European associate members.
At the request of the presidency, I briefed the European Council on the peace process in Northern Ireland. There was unanimous agreement for a Commission proposal to provide an extra £240 million over three years to help urban and rural regeneration in Northern Ireland and the border counties of the Republic. I am grateful for the strong support President Delors has given to Northern Ireland in recent weeks.
I raised the subject of fraud, waste and mismanagement of the budget following the Court of Auditors report. I said that the European Union would not enjoy popular support unless it took vigorous action against these abuses. I made a number of proposals which were agreed by the Council. These were: the Council must ensure that reports from the Court of Auditors are rigorously scrutinised and followed up; each member state must report to ECOFIN, the Economic and Finance Council, on what it is doing to combat fraud in its own country; and agreement should be reached rapidly in Brussels on measures now under discussion—these include a British proposal put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary which would oblige member states to co-operate and act effectively to fight criminal fraud against the Community budget—and the new powers given in the Maastricht treaty, as a result of British initiatives, to the Court of Auditors, the European Council, the European Parliament and the Commission should be used to the full.
I made it clear that taxpayers' money must not be misused. The fight against fraud, waste and mismanagement will remain high on our agenda. That view was strongly endorsed by the Commission and a number of member states, and it echoes points that we have been making for some time in the European Council.
The European Council confirmed again that subsidiarity—the principle of minimum Community interference—must be a guiding principle of the European Union's future work, as agreed at the Edinburgh summit. I am encouraged that so far in 1994 there have been only 42 Commission proposals for significant legislation compared with 185 in 1990. But the new Commission must keep up the fight against unnecessary interference.
Discussion of the economy focused on the need to create jobs. Yet again the policies that we have been following in this country were widely accepted to be right
614
across the European Union. We agreed that Europe must be more competitive. We agreed on the need for more flexible working arrangements for the reduction of labour costs and for better education and training. There was nothing in our discussion to suggest that socialism had triumphed over market liberalism. The reverse is plainly the case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Test it."] I will test it with the conclusions, which show that clearly.
The European Council added three new priority transport projects to the list of trans-European networks agreed at Corfu. Four out of the 14 are United Kingdom projects: the channel tunnel rail link, the west coast main line, the rail route from Cork to Larne and the Holyhead to Felixstowe road link.
The Essen Council effectively rejected the long-debated proposal for a European Union-wide carbon energy tax. It supported instead the approach which Britain has advocated all along—a flexible framework allowing the member states hat wish to introduce a carbon energy tax to do so. We will not wish to do so.
Enlargement of the European Union has long been a British objective. At the Edinburgh and Copenhagen Councils, the decision in principle to open membership to the six countries of central and eastern Europe was taken. At Essen, leaders of the 15 European Union states, including Austria, Finland and Sweden, met their central and eastern European counterparts. Agreement at the Council on a strategy to draw the six associate members closer to the Union was another important step to help prepare for their eventual accession.
On Bosnia, there was strong support for the protection force commanders and for the work being done by the brave men and women whom they lead. They are saving lives and bringing better living conditions to many parts of Bosnia than would otherwise be possible.
We agreed that the United Nations protection forces must be allowed by the Bosnian Serbs to get on with their job without obstruction and that they should stay, provided that the risks were acceptable. It was our unanimous view that the enforced withdrawal of UNPROFOR could have disastrous consequences—above all for the people of Bosnia. But we agreed that we needed to plan for all eventualities and to keep in close touch with other troop contributors and interested Governments.
The European Council gave strong backing to the Contact group's efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement. The immediate need is for a durable ceasefire as a prerequisite to a successful negotiation.
Over dinner, the Heads of State and Government had an informal discussion about the future development of the European Union, taking account of the need for further enlargement. This was the first such wide-ranging discussion I can recall, and it was very welcome.
I emphasised the Community's achievement in helping to bring 50 years of peace and prosperity to western Europe. In squabbles over other matters, that priceless achievement is often overlooked. I also commented on the fact that 40 years ago, the founders of the Community had a broad vision of their objectives many years ahead, and that those objectives had already been exceeded.
Within a few years, we shall have around 20 members and, some time later, perhaps as many as 27 members of the European Union. The Union is changing beyond recognition. I said that it was time to rethink the Union's

615
future constructively and I set out the need for realism in the period ahead. That is essential if the European Union is to regain popular support.
I do not underestimate the difficult tasks the Union faces, but I was greatly encouraged by the general acceptance of the need for flexibility and for substantial changes so that the European Union can successfully meet the challenges that lie ahead.
Mr. Tony Blair: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I welcome the £240 million economic aid package for Northern Ireland, which was announced last week and agreed at the summit. It is another significant step on the road to peace and a recognition across the entirety of Europe of the historic opportunity to bury old hatreds.
On Bosnia, while no one can fully understand or understate the magnitude and complexity of the problems, no one can be proud of the European Union's record in dealing with the break-up in the former Yugoslavia. The inability of the west to agree or enforce clear aims and objectives for its role in Bosnia has contributed to a situation today where our troops are vulnerable, civilians are murdered, undemocratic and violent forces are in command and war crimes are, as yet, unpunished. It is particularly important that the European Union now acts in a concerted way. Will the Prime Minister insist that the economic blockade and political isolation of Serbia will not end until the Bosnian Serbs withdraw from the territory allocated to the Muslim community?
The security of our troops, whose bravery we greatly commend—I entirely agree with what the Prime Minister said about that—must come first and foremost. With that said, will he continue to impress on all our allies the disastrous consequences of a withdrawal of United Nations troops without a viable peace plan in place, not merely for Bosnia, but for the authority of the UN generally?
On the economy, may I thank the Prime Minister first for his effusive praise of Mr. Delors at the summit—something that is welcome at least on the Opposition side of the House? In particular, may I congratulate him on his welcome for the Delors paper on job creation? We agree unreservedly with the new emphasis that it places on tackling long-term unemployment and other measures, including intensive education and training; an active re-employment service; flexibility in the organisation of work, to balance family and employment responsibilities; tax rebates and other measures to counter long-term unemployment; equal rights for part-time employees; and special measures to attack youth unemployment.
I am extremely surprised, however, that the Prime Minister should represent that paper as a success for his views, as it bears out many of the points that we have been making for some time. While the document rightly stresses reducing unnecessary costs and a flexible and adaptable work force, is not the principal difference between the Conservative Government and our European partners, whether Labour or Conservative, that they see such a modern work force resulting from investment in people and technology and view it as entirely compatible with decent standards and fair treatment at the work place?
If he continues to claim that the rest of Europe is moving his way, why is his Secretary of State for Employment still having to go to the Council of Ministers
616
to veto social legislation? Why does he alone out of all Heads of Government, whether Conservative or Labour, veto the social chapter of fair treatment and work for people in Britain?
As the Prime Minister made such a play of that, may I raise one aspect of economic and monetary union? The presidency conclusions, which I assume he fully endorsed, say this about such a union:
"The new instruments of the"
Maastricht
"Treaty for strengthening the convergence of our economies are being consistently used in order energetically to advance the European unification process in the economic and monetary fields".
What is the role of the Government in relation to that statement? What steps are they taking, energetic or otherwise? I am sure that that will be of interest to the Opposition parties not merely on this side of the House, but on the other side, too.
On subsidiarity, may I again welcome the communiqué's endorsement of that as the key to democratic legitimacy? Would not the Prime Minister's support for that principle abroad be more credible if he acted in accordance with it at home in the United Kingdom, instead of centralising power?
On enlargement, there is no doubt that the actual, and potential, enlargement of the Union is changing the context in which its future develops. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we fully support the concept of enlargement. Is not the single biggest handicap to widening the European Union and including the eastern European countries, however, the existence of the tariff barriers that keep their goods out and, above all, of the common agricultural policy? Does not the process of enlargement make wholesale and fundamental change to the common agricultural policy not merely desirable but essential to its future progress? Will he confirm that the CAP still adds around £20 a week, or £1,000 a year, to the average family's food bill?
Indeed, does not that bear on the issue of fraud? Is not the CAP the main focus for such fraud? While we can all agree with the right hon. Gentleman's general sentiments and the measures he suggested on fraud, would those not carry greater weight if the Government had not recently and for the second year in succession voted for cuts in the Union's anti-fraud budget?
Although the summit was, of course, not without its successes, does the Prime Minister accept that it was low key and uncontroversial in part at least because it identified problems rather than resolved them? The big questions confronting Europe's future remain. Does he agree that, for those of us who genuinely believe in Europe and Britain's place at the heart of it, a precondition for further European co-operation is that it is decided through a debate involving the people of Europe, not merely their political elite? The debate about Europe's future should be open and the Government and other Governments within Europe should be candid about their views. They should seek to explain and justify further progress, rather than simply demand it. In short, is it not the case that the next stages of the development of Europe will come through persuasion, or not at all?
The Prime Minister: I can agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman had to say—not least because much of it was what I have been saying for most

617
of the past two years. I am glad to see the attention to detail which the right hon. Gentleman gives to so many of my speeches.
Let me pick up on the many points which the right hon. Gentleman raised, starting with his welcome for the £240 million over three years for Northern Ireland, which is a welcome gesture. This is additional money for Northern Ireland which is likely to be extended beyond three years provided that progress is made in the peace process during that period, as I passionately hope it will. It is a remarkable contribution which was unanimously agreed without difficulty at the European Union summit. I am delighted at the Union's support for the process in Northern Ireland, which has been evident for some time.
On Bosnia, the right hon. Gentleman was right to say that there has been an inability to enforce peace. When the whole imbroglio started, I sought advice immediately as to what would be necessary to enforce peace. The military advice which I received right at the outset—long before troops of any sort went in—was that to go in and enforce peace, we would need several hundred thousand troops who would perhaps have to be there for a very long period. Even if peace was enforced, there would be no certainty that peace without a political settlement would continue once the troops had left.
There was a possibility of huge troop commitments in the most alien territory imaginable, with the troops having to stay there even after peace had been enforced unless a political settlement had been reached. It is not possible to enforce peace, and no sensible political or military strategist ever thought that that would be possible. As far as the blockade is concerned, there will certainly be no further sanctions relief, and I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on the economy, he would have seen—if he had been present at the debate—the extent to which the debate has changed during the past two or three years. Many of the fashionable shibboleths of two or three years ago have been utterly and completely ditched. The European Union knows that, increasingly in many parts of the Union, it is becoming less competitive compared with the rest of the world. That is less true of this country than others, but it is true across the European Union as a whole. That is becoming increasingly apparent to political leaders, not only with regard to their own economies but to their own unemployment figures as well.
That is why the Union is turning towards more liberal approaches in terms of economic management and generally greater competitiveness. The whole thrust of what was said—the right hon. Gentleman picks out little bits here and there—was an endorsement of what we have been arguing for in the European Union for many years with increasing success.
Mr. Terry Lewis: They will not be voting for you in Dudley.
The Prime Minister: Not a lot of people out there say that—certainly not with regard to the policies which the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues advocate.
On economic and monetary union and the convergence criteria, the right hon. Gentleman may not know that the convergence criteria were originally put in the Maastricht
618
treaty at the insistence of the British Government—not least because they are sensible economic criteria in any event, quite apart from convergence. Convergence is necessary before economic and monetary union could be a practical economic step, apart from its political or other desirability. As of today, there are probably only three nations—of which this is one—which are likely, in the foreseeable future, to meet the economic criteria set out in the Maastricht treaty. Luxembourg already does, and we are one of two others which are likely to. Those criteria are correct in their own right, not just as a means of moving towards economic and monetary union.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's conversion to subsidiarity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I see the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who is squatting in the aisle, scoffing again at subsidiarity. That is consistent behaviour, because when I first raised the issue of subsidiarity, scoffing was precisely the reaction of the Opposition. They said that we would never get it; that it would never happen; and that it was not desirable. We have got it; it is desirable; it is central to what the Community is doing and every other nation has signed up to it. The Leader of the Opposition has signed up to it, but, alas, there seems to be a split between leader and led on the question of subsidiarity.
I share the right hon. Gentleman's view about the desirability of enlargement, not just for economic reasons, but for security and other reasons. He will know that we were the first to advocate enlargement at the Edinburgh summit. That is true of enlargement to include the EFTA countries and enlargement to include central and east Europeans. He will also know that I have repeatedly made clear my belief that the common agricultural policy was under sentence of death, provided that we enlarged to the east, so he did not have to press me on that today. I welcome him on to my ground, yet again, on that issue.
On the question of anti-fraud measures across the union, the right hon. Gentleman claimed that the budget to combat fraud had been cut. If he looks carefully at that budget, however, he will see that certain capital items that were put there last year have been paid. The revenue to deal with fraud continues at a satisfactory level and it has been agreed across the Community for that purpose.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman's final point about the elite and Governments being out of touch with the views of the electorates across Europe. I pressed that precise view on my fellow Heads of Government in the discussion that we had on Friday evening in Essen. That remoteness has been shown by the difficulties experienced with referendums across Europe and in a raft of other ways. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that further development of the European Union will have to carry with it the support of people across the Union.
Mr. Graham Allen: And their Parliaments.
The Prime Minister: Of course, self-evidently with the support of their Parliaments.
Mr. Allen: Not here, though.
Madam Speaker: Order. This is wasting time.
The Prime Minister: It is not practical for some enthusiasts across Europe to believe that, because they happen to think it right, everyone else is necessarily going

619
to follow them. There are increasing signs that that is not the case. It should not be the case and I share the right hon. Gentleman's view about that.
Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend accept advice from the Comptroller and Auditor General on the question of fraud in the European Union? Will he especially consider the proposition that no money should be given from Community funds until any funds from a proven case of fraud have been fully restored and restitution has taken place? Does my right hon. Friend also accept that if there are to be as many as 22 nations, or one day 27, in the European Union, a profound change must take place and that any notion of political union must become ever more distant? Is not it important that national Parliaments, which are the closest to the grass roots of democracy, should remain the natural form of democratic expression so far as we can see?
The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. On fraud, I shall certainly look at the proposal that my right hon. and learned Friend has made. It is, of course, a first cousin to the proposal agreed at Essen that all the member states will have to report back to the ECOFIN Council on the measures that they are taking in their countries to deal with the problems of fraud. Those measures should cover fraud prevention in the first place and dealing with fraud that arises.
I see political development in the form of co-operation on an intergovernmental basis, not development in the sense of there being a political union, with political decisions centrally taken.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement and, in particular, the progress made in Essen in respect of Northern Ireland and widening the Community. However, does he accept that those people who favour widening European Union also understand, as it seems that he does not, the need to strengthen Europe's institutions and make them more democratic and flexible if that is to be coped with effectively? In that case, does he realise how welcome it is that the Government should be taking, albeit tentative, steps towards defence integration, especially with the French? Do not the failures in Bosnia, and more recently the worrying situation in Chechnya, make that even more urgent? Will he assure the House that he puts that at the front of the Government's agenda for the 1996 intergovernmental conference?
Finally, the Prime Minister has said, rightly, that Britain's policy on Europe should depend on a widespread debate that involves the people of Britain and the people of Europe. It should not depend on the untidy outcome of an unseemly spat led by rebels in his divided party. It will be greatly welcomed that he is now changing his mind on the issue of a referendum. He has said that there might be circumstances in which a referendum would be appropriate. Will he now tell us what those circumstances would be?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support on Northern Ireland and enlargement. He is also right about the European Union itself becoming more democratic, although many people may mean different things when they say it. I certainly
620
think that there needs to be more accountability by the Commission to the European Council. That is the primary democratic focus of the European Union.
Mr. Derek Enright: The European Parliament.
The Prime. Minister: If the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) would do me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say, he might not have had to shout. He could have saved himself some breath.
The European Council is made up of members from the individual democratic domestic Parliaments. The European Parliament is not the primary focus for democracy throughout the European Union. As Labour Members were shouting at me a moment ago, not least from below the Gangway, it is here that the primary democratic institution lies, and not the European Parliament. I am interested to see an apparent divergence between the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends on that matter.
On defence, I think that there is scope for more defence co-operation across Europe. I think that there is a great deal to commend that. It is an aspect that we have been examining for some time, and that we shall continue to examine for some time. I think that it is right on its merits, right for the defence of Europe and right for other reasons. I suspect that that will be an issue in the intergovernmental conference in 1996, although much of it has been developing for some time. We have not generally recognised the fact that we probably have more joint defence co-operation with France than we have had with any other nation in Europe, and perhaps any other nation anywhere, for very many years.
I made it clear that I did not rule out a referendum. One will have to wait and see precisely what the circumstances are. I think that it is wise to wait and see precisely what the circumstances are. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) does not know what will happen in the future, and his past projections of what might have happened today have proved that he does not know what will happen in future. So I have indicated that the circumstances might be appropriate to have a referendum, and if they are, we will.
Several hon. Members rose ߞ
Madam Speaker: Order. Those initial exchanges have now taken something like half an hour. I am now insisting that Members restrict the length of their questions to the Prime Minister. I am sure that, for his part, the Prime Minister will respond briskly, so that I can call as many Members as possible.
Mr. John Biffen: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the part that he played in keeping the Council meeting in a low key. May I ask one question? In the discussions that took place at the dinner meeting, and which touched on the complexities and challenges of enlargement, how many Heads of State expressed the opinion that the single currency would impede rather than facilitate enlargement?
The Prime Minister: Most Heads of Government pitched their remarks to what was likely to happen in the next 20 or 30 years, rather than looking at each individual item, so no one directly either supported the necessity for

621
a single currency or specifically objected to a single currency. The debate ranged a good deal wider and a good deal further than that.
However, I think that my right hon. Friend knows the Government's position on a single currency. We sought in the Maastricht treaty to retain a freedom for the House to decide at a later date whether it was in the interests of this country to join. I am sure that that is the right position for the House to maintain.
It is clear that one of the reasons why a single currency has tended to fall away from the standard European debate that we have known so much over the past couple of years is that there is now no doubt in anyone's mind that the original timetable for a single currency is not remotely likely to be met—it will be a good deal later. Although some people are still flirting with the possibility of a single currency among some countries by the turn of the century, others have their doubts about the desirability of that.
What is clear now is that, whereas before the Maastricht treaty many people had in mind the concept of a single currency right across membership of the European Union, that is plainly fatuous if the Union is to be extended to 27 members. It will be almost totally unlikely if it has 20 members and extremely unlikely for 15 members. Most people are concentrating on a small core who may or may not decide to proceed. That carries a good deal more with it than simply an economic judgment. If a small core went ahead without the others, it would materially change relationships within the European Union.
I apologise to you, Madam Speaker, for that lengthy reply and shall try to obey your injunctions in future.
Mr. Peter Shore: We can all welcome the steps towards extending the European Union towards central and eastern Europe, but it is a rather different matter when we turn to the institutional changes or conditions that are referred to as a prerequisite for extending the Union. Is not a phrase such as "institutional conditions" just a code for the further tightening and centralising of the decision-making process inside the European Union?
The Prime Minister: Coming from where he does on the issue, I understand why the right hon. Gentleman thinks that. But I would say to him that, no, that is not the case. I shall give but one illustration of the sort of thing that we have in mind. Every time nations have joined the European Community in the past, one or two extra Commissioners have been added, which is patently absurd and cannot continue. There are too many Commissioners now and we should cut the number. I fervently hope that that will happen in 1996. Clearly, we shall have to have a smaller number. One of the institutional changes to be discussed is a change of that sort, which I think that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome. I think that he would welcome many others, too.
Sir Terence Higgins: Is it not absurd for those who argue that the authority of the House is being undermined by Brussels to argue for a referendum—an alien concept that is incompatible with a representative parliamentary democracy? In that context, would it not be particularly absurd to have a referendum on a single currency when most people do not know the difference
622
between a single currency and a common currency? In addition, as my right hon. Friend has said, because of enlargement, that is not likely to be an issue for many years.
The Prime Minister: It is certainly not likely to be an issue for many years. As my right hon. Friend will know, I advocated the principle of a common, as opposed to a single, currency some time ago, and I still believe that that would have been the best way forward. It would benefit business and industry—the prime beneficiaries in terms of the economic advantages of a single currency—without the disruption, both politically and historically, to the domestic currency that has become so familiar and beloved of people across the European Union. I remain of the view that, if it is possible to persuade others, a parallel currency is the right way ahead—I am sure that that is right.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Was anything said about sanctions against Libya by either the Germans or the Italians, who do not observe them, in view of the fact that 5,000 British nationals work there and British industry is greatly disadvantaged?
The Prime Minister: That was certainly not discussed by the Heads of Government and, to the best of my knowledge, it was not discussed by the Foreign Ministers in their meetings.
Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend say no now to a single currency, given the fact that, under section 2 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act passed last year, if there were a Labour Government with a massive majority, they would put into effect a single currency through the mechanism already provided? Therefore, when my right hon. Friend considers whether there should be a referendum, will he ensure that the referendum takes place before the next intergovernmental conference so that we can ensure that we preserve the very rights that my right hon. Friend mentioned in his opening remarks?
The Prime Minister: The IGC will have nothing to do with the single currency—it is not likely to be on the agenda at all.
Mr. Robin Cook: Come off it.
The Prime Minister: It is not likely to be on the agenda—the shadow Foreign Secretary can be reassured about that.
As for ensuring that a future Labour Government would not take us into a single currency, my hon. Friend's complete support to ensure that there is no future Labour Government would perhaps be the most agreeable way to ensure that that does not happen.
I think it right for us to determine what the circumstances are, in the longer term, when the question of a single currency will arise. That must be in our national economic interest. It is why I think we reached the right conclusion at Maastricht: not to sign up now to something in the unknown future, in unknown economic circumstances, and to keep open the option if it is in the economic interests of this country at the time.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: If the Prime Minister is serious in what he says about power residing in national Parliaments, will he advocate giving

623
the European Committees the power not only to amend suggestions from Ministers but to vote on them on the Floor of the House as a matter of routine?
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady, or any Government, did that, they would make any discussions or negotiations in the European Union almost an impossibility, the more so given the size of its membership, as it widens, which we all want. Whatever the underlying democratic desirability of what she suggests, it would be impractical. It would effectively be a way to kill any activity and almost any progress in Europe.
Mr. Winston Churchill: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the forthright way in which he fights to defend British interests in the European Union—and on the way in which he survives repeated political assassination attempts by certain quarters of the British media?
If there were a clear prospect of a transfer of sovereignty away from this country to the European Union, would my right hon. Friend ensure a referendum before such a transfer took place?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind words and for his concern for my physical and political welfare. I am very touched indeed, and I look forward to his thoughts spreading.
Constitutional change is not a matter to be taken lightly or trivially. I have said in the past that I do not traditionally favour referendums in a parliamentary democracy, but I recognise that there may be occasions—Northern Ireland was a recent one—when a referendum would be appropriate.
A referendum has been suggested for two matters: one is the outcome of the IGC; the other is the single currency. We do not yet know the agenda for the IGC, and a single currency is still a long way off, and possibly getting further away. On matters of such exceptional importance, as I have said, a referendum cannot be excluded.
Mr. Enright: Is not the Prime Minister aware of how incensed Christian Democrats, as well as socialists. on the continent are at his continued attempts to frustrate directives that seek to treat workers as human beings? Does he not realise that the attempt last week by the Secretary of State for Employment to block the directive on building firms that exploit cheap labour has infuriated the general populace on the continent?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute codswallop. This country has the best health and safety record in Europe, and he should know that. If there is frustration across Europe, it is likely to be found in the countries where unemployment is still rising because they are not following the policies that we are in Britain, where it is falling.
Mr. Ray Whitney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the successes of the Essen summit underline again the benefits of British membership of the EU? Does he share my hope that the British media, just for once, will report those successes fully and honestly, so that our people can understand that Britain's future does indeed lie at the heart of Europe?
The Prime Minister: I travel hopefully on the substantive part of my hon. Friend's question. I wish our
624
membership of the European Union to be a success for this country. Thus far, over the past 20 years or so, economically it has been an immeasurable success. I think that there is no doubt about that, and the European Community, now the European Union, has undoubtedly been a dramatic success for living standards and for security and peace across western Europe. Those are much bigger issues than many of the matters which engage us in trivial and sometimes not so trivial arguments with our European partners. I want our membership to be a success. I intend that to continue, and I have no intention of acting in a way that would damage that.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: How many more summits does the Prime Minister expect to attend? Did he tell them, including the other Prime Ministers who are also teetering on the brink in the Common Market, that if he had not got rid of those eight Members by removing the Whip, there would have been 34 votes against him and he might not even have made that journey?
The Prime Minister: Dear, oh dear, oh dear. I think that the hon. Gentleman is aging. I assure him that that was not discussed in the European Union discussions at Essen. To my knowledge the hon. Gentleman has been making remarks like that since before the last general election. Much to his great dismay, no doubt, he has been wrong all the time.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on defending the legitimate as opposed to the hysterical interests of the United Kingdom in the European Union? If ours is the most competitive economy, why is it that of the big four we are the only one with a trade deficit? As the pound has been repeatedly devalued since the war, what fantasy are we defending?
The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend looks at the growth pattern and in particular the export growth pattern, he will find that we are doing far better than any other nation in the European Union at the moment. As we came out of the recession the fashionable view was that our balance of payments gap would be very wide. It was often advanced by the shadow Chancellor in his moments of gloom—indeed, he has nothing but moments of gloom—that, as we emerged from recession, the balance of payments gap would widen and widen. It has, of course, narrowed and narrowed, and the reason for that is our competitiveness.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not an exercise in self-delusion for the Prime Minister to conclude from this inconsequential summit that our partners are moving on to his ground? Surely the reality is that France and Germany and others are moving ahead behind the scenes with economic and monetary union proposals, and that at some stage he will have to choose between pandering to those behind him, whose paternity he has doubted in the past, and the interests of the country.
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wants to look at self-delusion he should look in the mirror. As for the summit being inconsequential, I refer to the £240 million for Northern Ireland, the fraud commitment, developments on subsidiarity, deregulation and competitiveness, the strategy on enlargement, and the historical impact of having another six nations attending

625
the European Union summit. If those are inconsequential, heaven help us from what the hon. Gentleman thinks would be consequential.
On monetary union, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman compares some of the more recent speeches by European leaders with those of two years ago. He might, for example, look at Mr. Balladur's recent speech and at what President Mitterrand had to say at our joint press conference in Chartres. If he had done that, he would be better informed and would not have asked that question.
Sir Teddy Taylor: In view of the continued uncertainty in the fishing industry, would the Prime Minister care to clarify the statement by Mr. Gonzales in Madrid this morning that he was overjoyed at what he saw as a crucial breakthrough over fishing? Is it true that he forced this issue on to the agenda, that a crucial breakthrough was achieved, and that he got what he came for? Does the Prime Minister accept that, when such statements are made by foreign Prime Ministers, and particularly in the context of our fishing industry, it is helpful to have the issue clarified and a statement made so that the whole House knows what is going on, or whether a statement is a load of rubbish?
The Prime Minister: I have not seen that remark by Prime Minister Gonzales, but it is not entirely unknown for Prime Ministers abroad to make statements for domestic reasons—[Interruption.] That does not, of course, apply to British Prime Ministers. It applies occasionally to Prime Ministers elsewhere who do not find themselves subject to the same rigorous questioning in their Parliaments as we do in ours. Indeed, I must say that some of my fellow Heads of Government could scarcely find their way to their Parliaments with a guide dog.
On the point about fishing, it has been agreed that the new rules must lead to no increase in effort, including for the Spanish fleet. There was no great breakthrough, no great change, and the issue will be debated in the House later this week.
Mr. Denis MacShane: That last insult to every Prime Minister in Europe really takes the biscuit. More seriously, if, as we know, the Prime Minister cannot speak for his party but claims that at least he speaks for his Cabinet, why is there not a single Europhobe Cabinet Minister sitting on the Front Bench with him today?
The Prime Minister: Dear, oh dear. I am not really sure why the hon. Gentleman bothered to ask that question and it certainly does not merit a reply.
Sir Wyn Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the undoubted successes that he achieved at Essen, which were grudgingly welcomed by the Leader of the Opposition, will be warmly welcomed in many parts of the country? He should be congratulated on his part in achieving them.
On the economic front, is it not a fact that last week Mr. Delors described the policies pursued by my right hon. Friend and his predecessors as ultra-liberal economic policies which he was happy to thwart with socialism?
626
Have not Conservative policies been well and truly vindicated as the only possible policies to be pursued in Europe to reduce unemployment and create jobs?
The Prime Minister: Not only do I believe that to be overwhelmingly the case, but I believe that that is the view of most of the people who attended the Essen summit.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: As the Prime Minister is in candid mood today, will he tell us how he would pitch his enthusiasm for a strengthening of the EU's common foreign and security policy, in view of recent comments by the Foreign Secretary? What institutional changes within the EU would be required to allow such a strengthening?
The Prime Minister: A common foreign and security policy in the European Union is a relative novelty, following the Maastricht treaty. It is still in its infancy. We think that it can easily be further developed, but on the basis of co-operation, not qualified majority voting. Therefore, it would continue on an intergovernmental basis, but based on co-operation.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I welcome the announcement on the trans-European projects, especially the funding for the channel tunnel rail link. Not least, it will fund some of the environmental improvements already agreed. May we have an assurance that European environmental funds will not be excluded from further environmental improvements in Kent?
The Prime Minister: I think that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Of course, I cannot guarantee that more funds will necessarily become available. I do not know whether they will or what priorities will emerge, but they will certainly not be artificially excluded.
Mr. Llew Smith: Has the Prime Minister read the report in The Times today, which states that the summit decided that job security and welfare benefits should be reduced to cut the queue of 17 million unemployed? If the report is true, why did he not mention it? Can he explain how cutting job security and welfare benefits will increase employment?
The Prime Minister: I do not know precisely what The Times is referring to—
Mr. Smith: Here it is.
The Prime Minister: I am not quite that long-sighted. I did not read that report, but I suspect that it is an extrapolation of the argument that unless we are competitive we will lose jobs. That has been happening across the whole EU, where 18 million to 20 million people are unemployed. If the number continues to rise, it will be an extremely serious long-term problem for the EU. The number has been rising almost consistently since the 1950s as we have become progressively less competitive. I suspect that the article which the hon. Gentleman has in mind indicates the need to retain competitiveness across Europe to ensure that more people are put back into work.
Mr. Edward Gamier: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what might be described as a dull and businesslike meeting at Essen?

627
Will he confirm that quiet confidence at such meetings will achieve what this country needs: enlargement, competitiveness and subsidiarity?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that.
Mr. David Winnick: It was a difficult one, was it not?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's wise words on that subject, and he is right to stress them. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) might have put it differently, but I prefer my hon. Friend's formulation.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: In his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), the Prime Minister suggested that the institutional conditions before enlargement were largely mathematical—matters such as seats. Has not the presidency, in the form of Chancellor Kohl and his friends, advocated increasing the powers of the European Parliament? Does the Prime Minister agree, therefore, that even if his Government do not believe in increasing those institutions' powers, other members of the reflections group at the 1996 conference probably will?
The Prime Minister: Yes, some of them will certainly want more powers, as the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) said earlier, although I was not entirely sure whether he was in favour of or against them.
Mr. Enright: In favour.
The Prime Minister: He is in favour of them on this occasion—good. So some people will argue for that in 1996. The illustration that I gave the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) was just one example of the sort of matter that will be discussed in 1996. One could give others. I have no doubt that some will argue for changing the powers of the European Parliament. There will be a range of proposals, but whether they will be agreed is a separate matter.
Mr. David Harris: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to refute completely the allegations and suggestions made by the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties that a backstage deal that will do down our fishing industry was stitched up at the summit? Will he assure the House that, at the Fisheries Council meeting next week, which is particularly vital to south-west England, we shall retain our position and robustly defend our fishermen's interests?
The Prime Minister: No backstage deal has been done. We have succeeded in setting aside the complex solution put forward by the Commission in September, which was not in the interests of British fishing. Instead, the Council agreed in its conclusions that a non-bureaucratic solution would need to be found. We shall continue to consult the fishing industry. Our objectives remain to ensure the following: that British fishing interests are protected; that only necessary
628
measures are agreed; that fishing effort should not increase; and that the ability to take quotas is uninhibited.
Mr. Tony Banks: Before it develops into a story throughout Europe, would the Prime Minister care to rethink the gratuitously insulting words that he offered his colleague Prime Ministers on their inability to know where their Parliaments are, not to mention his insult to guide dogs? Other Prime Ministers may have their Parliaments under greater control than he has his own. Why does he object to the European Parliament having greater democratic powers? Why should it not be the democratic institution for Europe? After all, its members are elected as well, and national Parliaments seem incapable of getting democracy into the European Union.
The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's words will gain wide currency. If he implies that he wants a significant movement of authority from this House to the European Parliament—
Mr. Tony Banks indicated assent.
The Prime Minister: I note that the hon. Gentleman is nodding. He therefore wants a significant movement of powers from this House to Europe.
Mr. Skinner: No.
The Prime Minister: There seems to be slight dissent from other Labour Members.
Mr. Skinner: We may disagree, but at least we all have the Labour Whip. [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister: Perhaps the difference is not so slight. There is a fundamental split between not just Opposition Members but left-wing Opposition Members, with Opposition Front-Bench Members no doubt sitting uneasily in the middle. Thank heavens that that sort of thing only happens there.
Mr. Michael Spicer: I agree with the tone of much that my right hon. Friend said, particularly in respect of the European Commission, Parliament and Council. However, I believe that my right hon. Friend said that a single currency is unlikely to come about in the near future. Is not that difficult to square with the treaty, which states that a single currency must come about by 1 January 1999? Was my right hon. Friend implying that the treaty must be amended, so that the timetable will not be fixed?
The Prime Minister: Originally, in 1972, there was agreement on a single currency by 1980. That patently did not happen because neither the economic circumstances nor the political will were right. It is certainly the case that the economic circumstances will not be right for 1997. It is extremely improbable that the right economic circumstances will be widespread in the Union in 1999—and they, too, are written into the Maastricht treaty as a necessary precondition for a single currency. That certainly applies to a European Union of 12, 15 or whatever number of states. It is conceivable, though no one yet knows, that a smaller group of member states might be ready by 1999. Even if that were the case, they would need to consider carefully the implications for the whole European Union

629
if they adopted a single currency when the others—whether or not they wanted to go ahead—were not economically in a position to do the same.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Prime Minister reported that the summit agreed to abandon the proposal for a carbon tax. Did the summit reaffirm commitment to the Rio targets? If so, how will the British Government meet their commitment?
The Prime Minister: A European Union conference on environmental matters will be held in Berlin in the near future. The summit touched on environmental matters only in general because it agreed that those matters and the Union's position at the Berlin conference should be discussed at the Environment Council next week.
Mr. George Kynoch: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does not it demonstrate the United Kingdom's great influence on European affairs? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be disastrous for all parts of the United Kingdom if that single, strong voice were put at risk—as it surely would be under Labour's proposals for constitutional reform?
The Prime Minister: That is undoubtedly the case. I have forcefully expressed my views on that issue in the past. If the United Kingdom did not have a single, unified voice in the European Union, it would not have the same force of argument. That does not apply exclusively to the Union, because it would also be the case in the United Nations, G7 and every other international forum where Britain currently sits at the top table. A divided United Kingdom, perhaps leading to parts of it being separated, would not allow it to retain that position.
Mr. Barry Jones: Did the Prime Minister raise at the summit the difficulties confronting the British aerospace industry? Did France and Germany raise with him the need for the British Government to purchase the future large aircraft? I hope that they did. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents,
630
who manufacture the European Airbus, are terrified that the Government will buy Hercules and not place orders for the FLA?
The Prime Minister: No, the British aerospace industry was not discussed—although it is, of course, important. Much of the present Hercules fleet will need either substantial refurbishment or replacement. We must consider whether to go wholly or partly for refurbishment, buy new planes now, or buy some new planes now and develop the future large aircraft. Those matters are under active consideration and no conclusion has yet been reached.
Mr. Tim Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a warm welcome for the additional funds destined for Northern Ireland? Did not President Delors take a particular personal interest in the Northern Ireland peace process? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the funds will genuinely be additional and directed at areas of greatest economic and social need?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. From the moment of the Downing street declaration, President Delors has been particularly helpful in regard to developments in Northern Ireland. I am very grateful to him for the personal effort that he has put in, and the personal part that he played in ensuring that this substantial package of extra assistance for Northern Ireland and the border counties of the Republic would be made available. It will be used for projects to promote reconciliation, encourage economic growth and expand job opportunities.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is it not disappointing that nothing was done at Essen to tackle the democratic deficit? Should not powers move to the European and national Parliaments, and away from secret bodies such as the Council of Ministers?
The Prime Minister: I am not sure that I would describe the Council of Ministers as a secret body. No one who attends its meetings would regard them as at all secret. Given that everyone holds press conferences immediately after the meetings, that conclusions are published, that some of the meetings are open nowadays and I will answer questions about them—as, no doubt, will others—I do not think that they are terribly secret. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is on the strongest ground.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We shall now move on.

Points of Order
4.30 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last Thursday I reminded the House that the implementation order relating to local government reorganisation in the county of Cleveland was still before the courts. At that time, the Lord President of the Council effectively withdrew the assurance that he had given in June this year that progress on the order would await resolution in the courts. I submit that that in itself was a hindrance to proper procedure.
On 10 March, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Environment assured the House that his Department would
"place in the Library a summary of all representations received by the Secretary of State about the Commission's final recommendations"—[Official Report, 15 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 577.]
when the Government laid the implementation order for Cleveland. He repeated that promise on 31 March. The order was laid last Thursday—nine months after that promise was made to the House, and 13 months after the Banham commission made its infamous recommendation. Despite repeated telephone calls from Library staff to the Department throughout Thursday, Friday and today, the summary of submissions has not yet been deposited in the Library.
Not only has the Secretary of State for the Environment treated the people of Cleveland with cynical non-concern by denying them a proper means of registering their preference; he has breached faith with the House by failing to keep his word, thus depriving hon. Members of information that could be crucial to the making of proper representations. May I ask you, Madam Speaker, to make the appropriate investigations of this disgraceful breach of faith?
Madam Speaker: From what the hon. Gentleman has said, the Department appears to have been very lethargic. Ministers will have heard that exchange, and I hope that they will report it to the appropriate Department without delay.
Ms Angela Eagle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A couple of hours ago, I heard that the North West gas board had introduced a £21 call-out charge for gas leaks. I am extremely concerned that that may lead to dangerous circumstances in the north-west. Will you advise me, Madam Speaker, on how I might raise the issue in the House as a matter of urgency?
Madam Speaker: Advice on procedure is not given across the Floor of the House, but I am sure that the hon. Lady—who is wily in the ways of getting things done in the House—will find methods of doing so before the House rises: indeed, in the next day or two.

Orders of the Day

  Health Authorities Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.32 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill represents the final steps in the programme of national health service reform that began with the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. When we embarked on those reforms, there was a clear consensus that the NHS needed to change. Despite the substantial extra funds that the Government had committed—increases unprecedented in its history—the service was still often inefficient, inflexible and unresponsive to the needs of patients.
  Management was exercised through a cumbersome, command-and-control bureaucracy; staff were trapped in a system over which they had little or no control; the vested interests, whether they be the trade unions or the Sir Lancelot Spratts of this world, had too much power. The patient had little say, and even less choice.
  The background to the Bill is four years in which—
  Mr. William O'Brien rose—
  Mrs. Bottomley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to share reminiscences with me, as someone who was a member of the Standing Committee that debated the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 five years ago. However, I must make progress.
  The background to the Bill is four years in which the balance of power in the NHS has changed. We have effected a fundamental and irreversible shift in favour of the patient. Before I outline the detailed provisions of the Bill, let me remind the House of some of that progress.
  We said that we would devolve power and responsibility to the local level, so that decisions would be taken as close to the patients as possible. We have done that by establishing NHS trusts, by creating a new and distinct role for local health authorities, and by giving family doctors more power through fundholding.
  The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), whose dodgy predictions we always enjoy on these occasions, foretold that the trust movement would be like a bicycle with a flat tyre. Well—some bicycle, some tyre. Not 30 per cent., not 50 per cent., not 70 per cent., but 96 per cent. of hospitals and community health services are now run locally as trusts.
  I am delighted to be able to inform the House that I have approved a further 13 applications from hospitals and ambulance services wishing to become trusts from next April. That will mean that not 96 but 98 per cent. of services will be in trust hands.
  Mr. O'Brien: Will the Secretary of State comment on the proposals for the Yorkshire and Northern regional

  633
  health executive, which covers an area equal to that of Scotland but which will have fewer than 140 people to administer it and ensure fair treatment in hospitals? Will she consider allowing the existing Yorkshire regional health authority boundaries to remain in place, which would mean a better service for the people of the region?
  Mrs. Bottomley: That is evidence of the Opposition's hypocrisy when they claim that they wish to reduce bureaucratic layers of management. We can achieve savings by reducing the number of regional health authorities and, what is more, because of the nature of the responsibilities devolved to the districts, we do not need the large command-and-control regional health authorities. The Opposition are always hankering after regional government, tiers of government and layers of officials. That is their idea of paradise, but it is not the right way forward for the health service today.
  I cannot finish with the subject of trusts without offering the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) one last opportunity to clarify her party's policy on NHS trusts. Would they stay or would they go under Labour? Will she say yes or will she say no? She recently had breakfast with David Frost, and she made a proper meal of it. I have the transcript of the programme here.
  The right hon. Lady was asked whether she would keep the trusts, and she replied:
  "You can't simply tear the plan up and start again".
  That seems perfectly clear, but, two pages further on in the transcript, she has changed her mind—
  "By the way"—
  she added as an afterthought—
  "we're not talking about keeping the Trust hospitals".
  She is after all thinking of tearing up the plan and starting again.
  I know that, in her defence, the right hon. Lady will say that she is consulting. She told Mr. Frost that a Labour Government's first dramatic act in respect of trusts would be to do even more consulting. To be fair to her, she also said that she would "consult fast", but that is not good enough. Labour has a third health spokesman, but the party is still consulting.
  I doubt that the right hon. Lady could tell us the day of the week without gathering views from the length and breadth of the Labour movement and issuing a discussion document. It has to be said that the right hon. Lady is the author of the biggest waiting time scandal in the national health service—the length of time that the public have been kept waiting for the Labour party's health policy.
  I was referring to the progress made in implementing the Government's health reforms which form the backdrop to the Bill. As part of the reforms, we promised more consultants to reduce waiting times, to improve the quality of services and to cut long hours. In those three years, more than 1,000 new consultant posts were created. Thirteen thousand on-call rotas of 83 hours for junior doctors were eliminated, and in the past six months there has been a 46 per cent. reduction in the number of on-call rotas of more than 72 hours. That is real progress, which will lead to benefits for patients as well as staff.
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Is one of the 13 national health service trusts that the Secretary of State is announcing today the proposed new trust which
  634
  is a merger between the Broadgreen hospital trust and the Royal Liverpool university hospital trust? The two NHS trusts are struggling financially, but the proposed merger offers no solution to their financial problems.
  The people of Liverpool have waited a long time for a decision. They have been "consulted"—according to the Secretary of State's understanding of the word—and we are now waiting for her announcement. Will she clarify the situation?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I confirm that that trust is one to which I have been able to give approval today. It will join the other trusts in providing excellent quality of care for patients. The hon. Member is particularly fortunate to live in a part of the country which, under the leadership of Sir Donald Wilson, has delivered waiting time achievements which are the envy of the country. Most of my hon. Friends think that the people of Mersey are extremely fortunate to have their health care controlled by the health service rather than by political appointments and local councils which have not had the same achievements or praise. But I do not intend to provoke Labour Members, as I have to make a great deal of progress, and I know that they want to make their own speeches.
  We said that general practitioner practices would be allowed to manage their own budgets. Fundholding has proved to be one of the biggest reform success stories. Fundholders are expanding services and shaping the services that others provide in order to respond to patients' needs. They are cutting waiting times, improving the quality of services and showing others the way.
  The House does not need to take only my word, or that of my hon. Friends, for it: hon. Members should consult the report released last week by the National Audit Office. It states:
  "There is evidence that the direct involvement of general practitioners in health care purchasing has led to improvements in the services provided for their patients and made fundholders more aware of the cost implications of their spending decisions."
  By being good stewards of available resources, GPs have been able to make the resources go further and work harder for the benefit of all patients.
  The report, like the independent evaluation of fundholding by Howard Glennerster before it, is further evidence that fundholding works. The report recommends that the benefits of GP involvement in purchasing should be extended to all patients. That is our policy, and it is why I recently announced a radical extension of fundholding.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: Is there not a problem with the right hon. Lady's argument? The National Audit Office report also says that, at the time of the field work, none of the regions it visited was able to compare directly the funds allocated to fundholders and the resources available to districts to purchase equivalent services for the patients of non-fundholders. In other words, the NAO says that direct comparison is not possible.
  Mrs. Bottomley: It is quite clear that the methodology behind setting budgets and the details of the reforms' implementation are improving all the time.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Compare like with like.
  Mrs. Bottomley: It is comparing like with like. The report says that there is scope for improving the

  635
  methodology behind the allocation of the budget. It also says that, as we move to capitation funding for GP fundholding, it will be more possible to make tight comparisons. There is overwhelming evidence of the benefits of GP fundholding in independent report after independent report. It is also evidenced by the number of people who are seeking to become GP fundholders, and recent Government announcements have made that even more possible.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Is it not extraordinary that the Opposition will not accept the National Audit Office's genuinely objective and independent assessment of the situation? It has completely vindicated the decision to establish fundholders, as well as making the more general point about pushing down decision making in the health service as far as possible.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Characteristically, the Labour party has a lowest common denominator approach to everything. Labour Members dislike excellence and innovation. They think that any change must be a change for the worse, and that is a tragedy. GP fundholding has been commended by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, by Professor Glennerster's report, and now by the National Audit Office. Labour Members are deaf and blinkered; bad news is the only news they favour.
  The Government have achieved the objectives which we set out in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Trusts are here to stay, and fundholders are leading the drive towards our goal of a primary care-led health service. The power to take decisions has been put in the hands of those closest to patients.
  But in one vital respect, we want to go further than was envisaged in our original reforms. The principle purpose of the Bill is the abolition of regional health authorities. The RHAs played a necessary role in the old NHS. That fact has been recognised by many of my colleagues, not least by the late Lord Joseph, to whom I pay a very warm tribute. He was a most distinguished predecessor in this office and a major contributor to the well-being of this country.
  In the first stages of the reforms, regional health authorities assisted the successful development of trusts, of fundholders and of district health authorities in their new purchasing role. I express my appreciation, and that of other Ministers, of the work of regional chairmen over the years. I am pleased to say that they will have a continuing and important role as regional members of the policy board.
  The successful devolution of responsibility to local level inevitably meant that the role of RHAs would reduce. To put it slightly more bluntly: they were the last bastion of the old command and control system from which we have now escaped. By abolishing RHAs, the Government will sweep away an unnecessary tier of NHS management. The Bill is part of our concerted move to streamline management, to eliminate unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy, and to save money on administration which we can then spend on patients.
  We estimate that the savings from the Bill will total £150 million every year in England, and at least £3 million a year in Wales— substantial savings, which will result in even better patient care. Those savings will result from the abolition of RHAs and from bringing together
  636
  and halving the number of DHAS and family health services authorities. In Wales, 17 health authorities will be reduced to five. A further £50 million will be saved from reductions in the size of the Department of Health. We are determined to ensure that we set an example from the centre, and we expect streamlining to take place throughout the service.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: If the Secretary of State's Government are leading the fight against bureaucracy and are streamlining management, why has bureaucracy in Doncaster increased by 48 per cent since the changes were introduced? Spending on bureaucracy has increased from £4 million to £6 million—and that is only in Doncaster. Where is the Secretary of State's streamlining there?
  Mrs. Bottomley: A less than worthy characteristic of the Labour party is its knee-jerk attacks on NHS managers at every possible opportunity. People who go into NHS management are committed to the national health service and to the improvement of service provision to patients.
  The Government's achievements have included strengthening management in NHS trusts and health authorities; ensuring that there is better financial control, so that health authorities do not run out of money nine months into the year; and, above all, managing waiting lists so that progress can be made on waiting times. The hon. Member for Doncaster, North should realise that, because of the Government's reforms, his region has received a further £139 million this year for the benefit of patients. Those are the achievements that really matter.
  In line with our manifesto commitments, substantial efficiency savings, amounting to £200 million, will be spent to improve the quality of services further. Thanks in part to this Bill, we will be able to make even further cuts in hospital waiting times.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: On the question of NHS administrators, does the Secretary of State agree or disagree with the views expressed on that subject by her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I certainly agree with the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), who makes a very important contribution to the decision-making process. It is a great asset to have a colleague in the territorial Departments who takes a close and detailed interest in the matter, and I am delighted to see that he is in the Chamber today.
  Mr. Robert Banks: I am especially glad that my right hon. Friend has paid tribute to the work of employees in the regional health authorities. Will she, however, give full recognition to the talent, expertise and knowledge of the work force during the reorganisation? In particular, will she consider carefully before moving the headquarters from Harrogate, which has one of the best possible offices? If the headquarters was retained, the pool of expertise could continue its valuable work in the enlarged area.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I know what a great champion of that cause my hon. Friend is. I have visited the headquarters to which he refers, and his local trust hospital. I have seen some excellent mental health project developments there. Detailed consideration is, of course, given before final

  637
  decisions are made. The region under consideration is large, so it is important to have the headquarters somewhere that is accessible not only for the area my hon. Friend represents, but for those in the north and the east of the region.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Bottomley: I will not give way now, because many hon. Members may be fortunate enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  In short, the changes will ensure that we have a local service which is locally accountable to health authorities and trusts providing the service, and not the great command-and-control, hierarchical, bureaucratic service of the past. It is because of that change that the service is so much more flexible and so much more responsive to local circumstances than it would be with a command-and-control system.
  It is not a coincidence, of course, that Labour Members belong to the party that produced that great document, the national plan, in 1965. That is how Labour Members would like to run the health service. They would like one document in the centre—
  Mr. Morgan: A Stalinist approach.
  Mrs. Bottomley: Exactly—a Stalinist approach to these matters. The hon. Gentleman has helped me with the word. We believe in devolution and flexibility.
  Mr. Morgan: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Bottomley: No. The hon. Gentleman will be able to address the House on his Stalinist ideas at great length later. He will understand that I must now make progress—[Interruption.] I will not be tempted on the matter now.
  The Opposition's amendment refers to cancer services. Thanks in part to the Bill, we shall be able to make further progress on that front as well. We shall build on the excellent cervical and breast screening programme that we established. I again place on record my commitment to take forward the principles set out in the report on cancer by the chief medical officer's expert advisory group. I want to see them sensibly implemented throughout the service. Facing changes, as we do in the Bill, will enable us to do precisely that.
  This is the difference between the Government and the Opposition. Labour's policies are in turmoil, and its policies threaten turmoil for the national health service. We have introduced this sensible measure, which will improve the management of the NHS, improve its efficiency and improve services for patients. Let no one be in any doubt that, if the Opposition vote against the Bill tonight, they will be voting for bureaucracy and inefficiency, and voting to put patients last.
  I turn now to the detailed provisions of the Bill. It is essentially a straightforward measure, with one major provision in clause 1, which will abolish regional health authorities. It will also remove the existing district and family health services authorities and replace them with a single body—the health authority.
  It is a further measure of the success of the reforms that the merger of DHAs and FHSAs now seems an obvious and inevitable step. Many DHAs and FHSAs already work in an integrated way under a single chief executive.
  638
  Those joint health commissions eagerly await formal merger and other authorities are not far behind. It has become clear that the whole NHS will be ready for this change by 1 April 1996. We have decided, therefore, to establish all the new health authorities on the same date. That will make it absolutely clear where we stand and where the future lies.
  As all hon. Members are probably aware from their constituency mail, many people outside the health service cannot tell the difference between DHAs, FHSAs and RHAs. I am pleased to tell them that they will not have to bother in future. From 1 April 1996, there will be just one health authority at local level, and the system will be simple, clear and accessible. The new merged authorities with their wide span of responsibility will have real influence at local level.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: We suggested that.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to offer advice to the Government on these matters. I know that he will vigorously support the legislation when it is in Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health has noted the hon. Gentleman's enthusiastic support; he may be able to help to move some of the amendments.
  The local authorities will have real influence and a vital role. They will be the single authority responsible for ensuring that the entire health needs of their populations are met. For the first time, their job will to be to ensure that the hospital, the community and the family doctor services are planned together in a coherent and co-ordinated way. I expect the new health authorities to work especially closely with the family doctors in their areas—fundholders and non-fundholders alike.
  General practitioners, as my hon. Friends are well aware, have always had a crucial role as the gatekeepers of the national health service. Their position is a hallmark of our health service and is recognised, at home and abroad, as one of its great strengths. Our reforms have, rightly, enhanced the role of family doctors. We have given them new powers and new authority to shape services according to the needs of patients. The Bill will build on that.
  The Bill will ensure that family doctors are even more at the heart of the new NHS. The new health authorities will be better placed to support GPs in the move towards more primary care-led health care, and they will ensure that family doctors, as the National Audit Office report again suggested, are fully involved in the crucial task of purchasing secondary care.
  Schedule 1 makes the consequential changes required to reallocate functions. The new health authorities will bring together responsibility for both primary and secondary care—[HON. MEMBERS: "And dentists."] Indeed, as hon. Members say, dentists will also be included. As a result, the new authorities will be able to take on some of the roles previously carried out at regional level.
  We shall be able, for example, to pass down to local level functions such as purchasing specialist services, public health, midwifery supervision and some aspects of education and training. Where tasks need a wider perspective than a single health authority, several will be able to work together, supported as necessary by regional offices. I know that this is a point of concern to many of

  639
  my hon. Friends. The new system will retain the necessary overview to ensure that the health service continues to deliver its objectives efficiently, effectively and coherently.
  We have today published a guide to the operation of the new system, which sets out some of the issues in more detail. It builds on good practice and experience so far. Among other things, it describes the role of the new regional offices. The proper implementation of key national policies, such as our objectives in "The Health of the Nation", the reduction of junior doctors' hours, teaching and research, and the development of regional and supra-regional specialty services, requires strategic direction. The NHS executive, operating through its regional offices, will discharge that role. It will support the development of local policies and, where necessary, ensure effective co-operation across service, education and research.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: The Secretary of State referred to the Yorkshire regional health authority office in Harrogate. Will she undertake to publish the full and detailed option appraisal on whether the new regional offices should be based in Harrogate, York or Durham, so that hon. Members within the new region can express opinions on the merits of each case and so that the public can be consulted? Or does she intend that the new decentralised health service should deny the public the opportunity to express views on the health service? Will decisions simply be taken behind closed doors in the NHS executive?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I regret having given way to the hon. Gentleman. It is the case that decisions about the delivery of services are open to public consultation, and the papers are made available. For decisions about the organisation of NHS staff and people in the Department of Health, that is not the process followed. Our duty is to ensure that the taxpayer's money is used as effectively and efficiently as possible for patient services.
  I regret giving way to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley). I thought that he might have something interesting to say about the role of the regional office and that vital aspect of delivering a local service but also managing to pursue a number of national priorities. We believe that we have got that balance right in this important Bill—through detailed consultations and consideration within the service.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mrs. Bottomley: I have lost patience. I was so disappointed with the comments of the hon. Member for York that I am not prepared to give way. I am afraid that my patience has withered away. I shall try to be more forgiving in due course, but now I have lost patience.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Do not give way.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I am deeply in awe of my hon. Friend, and will follow her instructions.
  What matters is to establish a more effective, streamlined management, so that the executive can better fulfil its role. That will ensure that we continue to deliver national policies by getting the best out of the local flexibilities that are at the heart of the new NHS.
  640
  The regional offices will not be RHAs by another name, however. They will be considerably smaller, and totally different in outlook. Two years ago, the regions employed around 3,900 staff. Today they employ 2,600. The new regional offices will employ no more than 1,100, which is less than a third of that original size.
  Their work will focus on the key functions that have to be exercised at regional level. There will be no unnecessary duplication of functions between the regions and the centre, or between the regions and NHS trusts and health authorities. The executive will give proper strategic management to ensure accountability of health authorities, fundholders and trusts. The simplified structure means that information and advice can flow more freely between the NHS executive and local level. There will be a clear line of accountability from the NHS in the field through to Ministers.
  The new system will further promote freedoms at a local level. It recognises the importance of innovation and will nurture it. We utterly reject the Labour party's model of a health service—rigid, monolithic and crawling along at the pace of the slowest. We believe in the rest learning from the best and in levelling up, not levelling down. That is the culture that the Bill will reinforce.
  I do not need to take the House through the functions in schedule 1 in detail, as most of them are straightforward consequential amendments, but I must highlight two areas, not least because they are of direct relevance to the Labour party's amendments. They are the role of professionals and the future of education and research.
  On the latter, we are committed to maintaining and improving the essential partnership between the universities and the NHS. I have already had productive discussions with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and we will monitor progress carefully during and after the reorganisation.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I trust that my right hon. Friend is not referring only to universities, as there is a very good Project 2000 in St. Martin's college in my constituency, which is not a university, although it is as good as most, or better.
  Mrs. Bottomley: Again, my hon. Friend has the right of it. She will know that that revolution in the training of nurses is one of the changes since the introduction of the reforms. The Project 2000 course is now available throughout the country. As my hon. Friend rightly says, we are leading in that area. The courses are especially good for training nurses to work in the community as well as in a hospital setting. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing that fact to the attention of the House.
  As I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellet-Bowman) will agree, the training of doctors and dentists has certain special aspects—the long training, the rotations and the links with research. Because of the importance of maintaining those contacts, I asked the eight regional policy board members to take special responsibility there.
  Some of the changes that the Bill introduces are to enable consortia of health authorities and trusts to work more closely together in informing the purchasing of education and training over time and, in due course, taking on some purchasing themselves. That will no doubt apply to the college to which my hon. Friend referred. That change will take place within a national framework, which will be carefully overseen by the NHS executive.

  641
  Similarly, because medical research in this country is, frankly, outstanding—some of our centres receive commendations from around the world—it is important that we have the right balance between local and national input. Many of my hon. Friends will be aware of the important work undertaken by Professor Michael Peckham, the first ever director of research and development for the NHS.
  I was recently able to underline the Government's commitment to teaching and research by announcing an additional £40 million support in the coming year. In passing, it is only possible to make such announcements for the health service because the Government are taking such good care of the economy that we have such sums to invest.
  Following the publication of the detailed document "R&D in the New NHS" and of the important Culyer report, we have been holding discussions with the research and academic communities, with a view to introducing a new single stream of funding for NHS research. I am pleased that, so far, that has been welcomed. I shall be able to make more announcements shortly.
  Finally, when we make regulations on the membership of the new health authorities, we will require them, where they have a medical or dental school in their area, to have a university member on the board. In doing so, we shall continue the present arrangements, which recognise how vital is the partnership between universities, medical schools and the NHS.
  On health authority membership, when our changes created district health authorities, with their new and distinct role, we paid special attention to who should sit on their boards. Frankly, I regret the fact that so many of the non-executive members have had to face the vituperation of the Opposition, who constantly denigrate their contribution, regardless of the way in which appointments to health authorities were made by the Labour party when it was in power, and of the arbitrary way in which 32 health authority chairmen were dismissed at one stroke by a former Labour Secretary of State for Health because he did not like their political colour.
  More important than the non-executive appointments, however, we brought in executives for the first time. It was absurd that, under the old system, the agenda was often dominated by overtly political interests, such as the prospective local Labour party candidates in Greenwich who sat on the board of the health authority, while those who had to do the work had to sit on the sidelines. In the new health authorities, we propose that the executive members will include a director of public health. The Labour party's amendment—characteristically missing the point—mentions regional public health directors.
  Of course, the new local health authorities should be the focus of action in a decentralised system. The public health function should properly reside there, closer to the public whose health is the key issue. That is why, in an important advance on the old system, we will establish for the first time as a statutory requirement an executive director of public health at the local level.
  Health authorities will continue to be unified boards, bringing together executive and non-executive members working towards a common purpose. It is important that
  642
  they comprise the best people locally to give them the balance of skills that they need. People should be selected for the personal qualities they bring to the boards, and not to represent sectional interests. As the House will know, we are opening up our appointments procedures so that both health authorities and trusts have access to an even wider range of skills and experience.
  I have asked the right hon. Member for Derby, South before to take her embargo off the trusts and to encourage people to serve on them, instead of putting them in the appalling position in which, if they serve on trusts, they are apparently supposed to be working for her to bring them to an end.
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I must have told the right hon. Lady at least three times that there is no such embargo. Will she cease making such a silly point?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I am to some extent reassured by the right hon. Lady's comments, but members of her party have been worried about taking on such appointments, when approached to do so by Ministers, because of their fears of offending the party they support. If that happens again, I shall refer the details to the right hon. Lady.
  The Bill will build on the practice that we have already established with district health authorities, so that the new boards have the best people to help them to discharge their vital role.
  We expect that a growing number of both health authority and trust members will have backgrounds in nursing, medicine or any other relevant profession, and we are already seeing examples of that.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and I served on the Standing Committee on the National Health Service and Community Care Act a long time ago—[Interruption.] We were all young then. The hon. Gentleman, and my hon. Friends who served on the Committee, will be aware that the president of the Royal College of Physicians at that time was Dame Margaret Turner-Warwick. I am pleased to report to the House that she has for some time contributed her considerable talent as chairman of the Royal Devon and Exeter trust.
  I am delighted to be able to announce today that the then chairman of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, Dame Audrey Emerton, is now to take up her post as chairman of the Brighton hospitals trust. I think that that is very good news indeed.
  Sitting on boards is not the only way for professionals to be involved, nor is it sufficient. I commend to the House the views of Professor Cyril Chantler, who is principal of the United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St Thomas's, and is a policy board member. He described the old medical advisory committees as
  "functioning as a sort of Greek chorus, commenting on what was going on the stage but not taking part in the play."
  He says that doctors need to contribute to
  "the strategic and operational management of the service, in hospital, in the community and in practice, and in the commissioning role at district and central level, rather than doctors simply seeing themselves as there to give advice."
  I strongly agree, although I would extend the analysis to nurses, dentists, pharmacists and the full range of health professionals.
  As Professor Chantler suggests, the existing professional advisory structure is not firmly integrated into the work of regional and district health authorities. It

  643
  is peripheral, and that is why we will not be incorporating it into the new structure. We want professional advice to be integral in the new structure, and we want professional advice to become professional involvement. We require the new health authorities to promote a constructive partnership between health professionals and managers, as many of the best DHAs and family health service authorities are doing.
  Teamwork is vital to the NHS, and I have been at great pains to point that out during my tour of the regions during the past six months. The Bill will make teamwork easier by removing some of the organisational boundaries, and enabling us to build on the considerable progress which has been made during the past four years.
  The House will want me to address the question of accountability. There will be a full and accountable partnership between health authorities and the public on whose behalf they act. The Bill marks an important boost for accountability by cementing the devolution of decision-making to local level. The closer to patients that decisions are taken the more accountable the service will be to them. Health authorities are beginning to work much harder at explaining to the public what they do, and asking how they could do better.
  I believe that they could be doing better still, and I shall insist that they do so. In the new structure, the public will have access to a single body which will be responsible for securing health care for them. The new authorities must work even more closely with the public—consulting, communicating and involving them in key decisions.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: As a Member who is sponsored by Unison—the union pays me personally nothing, in case the Secretary of State wishes to misrepresent that fact—may I press her on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) about a very important issue for the northern region? Why cannot we, and the health service workers and administrators throughout the region, have access to the appraisal documents which were produced in conjunction with departmental officials upon which the decision to move the regional headquarters has been taken?
  Is it not significant that, when the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) intervened, he did not ask that pertinent question? He asked a safe question, which he knew the Secretary of State could answer.
  Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend may wish to raise that point in his own speech. I have made the position clear. There is a requirement for consultation when there is a proposal to change services for patients. As many hon. Members will know, that consultation can be extremely lengthy and often delays necessary change, but it is important in terms of changing services for patients. Ministers have a duty to make sure that taxpayers' money is effectively used, and the streamlining outlined in the changes will result in better patient care. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will know that another £139 million will go to his region in the year ahead. The changes will mean that we can do even more.
  I was talking about the important role of the new health authorities in making sure that they involve local people in decisions. Authorities must consult and encourage local visibility. We are making much more information about the organisation of the service available to the public than
  644
  ever before through annual reports, public meetings and the important NHS performance tables. None of that information was ever made available to the public when the Labour party was in power.
  That is the accountability that matters to patients—information which enables them, or their advocates, the GPs, to exercise informed choices. We shall back all that up through clear lines of accountability between the NHS at local level and Ministers. Those lines will be reinforced by such measures as our codes of conduct of accountability and openness.
  Let me briefly mention clause 3 and schedule 2, which provide for the transition to the new structure. Clause 3 gives health authorities wide powers to work together, so that, by 1 April 1996, they can be completely ready for merger. We are taking steps to manage the process effectively to minimise any disruption to services. The significant degree of joint working which is already in place will help, and some of my hon. Friends have referred to that.
  Schedule 2 provides for the effective reallocation of the staff, property, rights and liabilities of the authorities which are being abolished. We will do all we can to minimise the distress to health authority staff. I take the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and by the hon. Member for Workington—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Workington, having made his intervention, is no longer interested. He talks about being interested in staff, but when I talk about minimising the disruption to staff, he cannot even be bothered to listen. [Interruption.]
  Mrs. Beckett: Is it not rather bad parliamentary manners for the Secretary of State to chide my hon. Friend for not listening when the hon. Member for Harrogate—to whom she referred—is not even in the Chamber?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Member for Workington was talking through my speech. That is a great discourtesy, particularly when the hon. Gentleman protests his interest in health service staff. But that will not surprise any of my hon. Friends at all, and I only regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) is fast asleep.
  Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend did not intervene during my speech. The hon. Gentleman persistently made attempts to intervene, and he has proceeded to have his own conversation while I am discussing what we are doing for health service staff. I shall move on, as clearly we will have some fascinating speeches from Opposition Members, and certainly my hon. Friends are longing to get in.
  I began by setting out the background to the Bill, and the enormous progress which has been made in a short time in implementing the health reforms. What is truly remarkable is that, throughout the period of substantial organisational change, the NHS has not only maintained its services to patients, but improved and enhanced them.
  For every 100 patients treated in 1990-91—the last year before the reforms—118 were treated in 1993-94. [Interruption.] I find it extraordinary that Opposition Members cannot be bothered to listen to the staggering achievements of Health Service staff during the process of transition. I suppose—as ever—that the news is so

  645
  good they cannot bear it. In 1994, we expect the number of patients treated to rise to 122 for every 100 treated before the reforms.
  Whereas, before the reforms, 170,000 patients were waiting for more than one year, today that figure is just 60,000, and it is coming down. The figures which have been published only today show that, in the past five years, the number of hip replacement operations has risen by nearly one quarter, the number of cataract operations by 44 per cent., and the number of heart operations by 65 per cent. Those are impressive figures, and they mean an improved quality of life for many thousands of people.
  While the implementation of the reforms has been a substantial management success, the changes should only ever be seen as a means to an end, and not an end in themselves. The real challenge lies in realising the full potential of the new NHS at a time when it must respond to profound changes in clinical practice, the aging of the population and the rising expectations of patients. Those changes have been recognised not least by the medical profession in its recent welcome statement on core values.
  The measures contained in the Bill will draw our organisational changes to a successful conclusion. They are based on our experience so far, and on evolving practice. They reflect widespread consideration and discussion within the service and beyond. They provide the basis for a period of stability and constructive partnership. They will streamline and improve management; cut bureaucracy and costs; and ensure that even more power and responsibility is passed down to where it belongs—to those closest to the interests of patients.
  The independent evidence that our reforms are working is mounting up. The OECD, the Audit Commission, the National Audit Office, the British social attitudes survey, and independent experts of all persuasions and none, say that the Government are getting it right.
  The Bill is important and timely, and a good one. It confirms our commitment to a comprehensive, high-quality health service, which responds to the needs of patients and is true to its founding principles. It puts in place the final building block to create the first-class health service we need, fit for the 21st century. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.20 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a second reading to the Health Authorities Bill; notes widespread concern over future provision of cancer screening services, the independence of regional public health directors and the delivery of medical education for doctors; fears that claims for reduced bureaucracy and savings to public funds will prove ill-founded; and believes that far from completing the NHS reforms the Bill fails to address the problems of hospital closures, waiting lists over one million, commercialisation of trusts, a two tier service with general practitioner fundholding and the fragmentation of a National Health Service into hundreds of health businesses."
  I salute the extraordinary efforts of the staff of the national health service to maintain the level of that service in the face of the Government's enthusiasm for the anarchy of the internal market, the fragmentation of the service and the commercialisation of health provision. I
  646
  make that point deliberately at the outset of my speech because I have observed from previous debates that if the Opposition do not mention what a wonderful job the staff of the NHS are doing the Secretary of State accuses us of attacking them and not appreciating their work in the public service.
  Let it be clearly on record that the Labour party believes that the ancillary workers, nurses, dentists, physiotherapists, dieticians, cleaners, radiographers, radiologists, doctors, anaesthetists, consultants, clerical workers, managers and physicists—to name but some of the categories of staff—are unstinting in their loyalty to the health service and to the notion of public service.
  Mr. Keith Mans: What about Ministers?
  Mrs. Beckett: No, definitely not the Ministers.
  Let our admiration for the level of patient care that is still provided in the health service be clearly and explicitly on the record. And let it be accompanied by an equally explicit and clear statement that it is, remains and always will be our view that the NHS is a public service which should not be—and by the Labour party never will be—regarded as a business.
  It should not be necessary to detain the House by making such relatively simple statements about our support either for staff or for patients. I do so only because the Secretary of State has developed a rather tedious habit: if the Opposition fail to mention the staff of the health service, the right hon. Lady accuses us of attacking them and not appreciating their work. Yet if we mention them, she accuses us of being in the pockets of the trade unions. That is scarcely a sophisticated debating technique, and it has become deeply boring; as we are discussing a new Bill, I urge the right hon. Lady to turn over a new leaf and just drop it.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: On that point, by all means.
  Mr. Streeter: Will the right hon. Lady make one further thing clear today? Would the Labour party abolish NHS trusts—yes or no?
  Mrs. Beckett: We have made it clear repeatedly that we certainly do not intend to work with the current structure of NHS trusts, but we are exploring how to knit those trusts—
  Mr. Streeter: So the Labour party will abolish them?
  Mrs. Beckett: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "abolish"? Those trusts exist, and the hospitals and services that they run exist; of course we do not want to get rid of those services—no one does. If the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether we intend to continue with the structure of those individual health businesses, as set up by the Government, the answer is most certainly not—everyone is aware of that.
  What causes huge resentment in the House and widely outside is the Government's attempt to outlaw the questioning and criticism of their policies towards the health service by insisting that anyone who attacks those policies is attacking the service itself. Let me, once again, put it clearly on the record that the Opposition are not attacking the health service, whether that means the staff, the patients or anyone else involved in its efficient

  647
  operation. We are, however, attacking what the Government are doing to the health service and we have not the slightest intention of being deflected from that attack.
  Part of the problem is that the health service is under attack—from the Government. In particular, all the staff who work in the health service, at every level, are under attack because the Government are attacking them. They are under attack by threats that their pay will be linked to their individual performance. They are also under attack because that performance will obviously be measured, at least partly, against the yardstick of loyalty to the organisation and the extent to which staff are prepared, as they were recently urged by one of the Secretary of State's most loyal supporters, to put the interests of the organisation before the interests of the patient.
  They are under attack because, should they dare to speak out about their concerns and anxieties in relation to patient care, their very livelihood is threatened by the new gagging contracts issued by so many of the trusts which have been set up by the Government's legislative changes. Finally, and perhaps most insidiously of all, staff feel themselves to be under attack when they hear people like Professor Caines say that the very notion of public service is at an end, when it was exactly to engage in the service of the public that most of them joined the health service in the first place, and they still take pride in that concept.
  The Secretary of State is seeking wide powers in the Bill—in many cases, wider powers than those available to previous Secretaries of State through earlier legislation under Governments of every political shade. Much of the detail of what is intended to be done with those powers is left unstated in the Bill. Yet again, we are witnessing sweeping enabling legislation from the Government, with an immense amount of the detail and execution of it left to regulations which, of course, cannot be amended. We are greatly concerned about that aspect of the Bill and we shall seek to explore it in Committee.
  One thing that is clear from the Bill and the schedules to it is that, apart from taking substantial powers, the Secretary of State seems potentially to be removing from the arena others who might possibly have a different point of view or a different perspective to express. For instance, I was surprised as well as dismayed to see that the Government intend to abolish local advisory committees. According to another proposal in the Bill—exactly the type that will cause public concern—in future when a local hospital is thinking of applying for trust status, consultation—which in the past had been compulsory—will be carried out only if the Secretary of State thinks that is necessary, and then under terms that the right hon. Lady will decide sometime between now and when the regulations are published. The Bill contains no suggestion as to what those criteria might be.
  One thing that I should have thought that everyone in the House had learnt, at least from the experience of the workings of the Child Support Agency, is just how dangerous it is to leave all the detail—the framework of proposals—to regulations rather than just matters such as exact figures or precise dates, which have always been properly matters for regulation.
  I listened with care to what the Secretary of State eventually said about the Bill. There are elements in it to which we can offer support—in particular, the proposal that district health authorities and family health services authorities should be merged. As my hon. Friends pointed
  648
  out in sedentary interventions, the Labour party has long advocated that. Like the Government, we believe that such a merger could and should lead to more efficient management of resources, better planning and ultimately a better service for patients. We shall look forward to exploring in Committee the detailed implementation of that proposal.
  That proposal, however, sits alongside the proposed abolition of regional health authorities. The removal of some functions from regional level and the apparent intention to devolve them to local level is a matter of concern not only to the Opposition but to people throughout the health service. We shall want to explore that issue, too.
  As I am sure that the Secretary of State must be aware, widespread anxiety has been expressed about the loss from regional level of the maintenance of cancer registries or the handling of national confidential inquiries. However, the main matter that I shall first discuss is the Secretary of State's claim that those proposals and that aspect of the Bill are not merely part of the Government's so-called reforms of the health service, but a necessary part of completing the process of reorganisation.
  It seems to us that that specific proposal is neither necessary nor desirable, and it leads us to have grave doubts about the real intentions behind that part of the Bill. We treat with considerable cynicism the Secretary of State's assertion that the changes that she proposes will automatically lead to improvements in patient care.
  The Government appear to be managing the operation of the national health service with the same level of competence that they apply to managing the Conservative party. Indeed, if the Government were a privatised trust and not a publicly financed, publicly accountable, publicly run Administration they would definitely be in severe difficulty. Their public relations consultant, Mr. John Maples, has just advised them that the British electorate are unwilling to renew their contracts and that they, the Conservatives, can never win on that issue. In consequence, he advises:
  "The best result for the next 12 months would be zero media coverage of the National Health Service"—
  not the best result for the national health service, but the best result for the interests of the Conservative party, to which alone the Government's concern appears to be directed.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: I am delighted to give way to the Secretary of State on the subject of the interests of the Conservative party.
  Mrs. Bottomley: The right hon. Lady's account is bizarre. As I told the House this afternoon, in five years there has been a 65 per cent. increase in heart operations, a 44 per cent. increase in cataract operations and a 24 per cent. increase in hip operations. Those are dramatic achievements. The number of patients being treated now—
  Mr. Morgan: What was the increase in the previous five years?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the increase in activity during the 1970s, when the Labour party was in power, was about 1 per cent. a year. The

  649
  increase in activity throughout the 1980s was about 2.5 per cent. a year. Since our reforms, the NHS has been increasing the number of patients treated by about 5 per cent. a year. It is a much better, more efficient service, delivering much better quality.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I address these remarks not just to the Secretary of State but to everyone in the House. This afternoon it seems that the interventions have been speeches and not to the point. In future, let us have interventions to the point and on the subject in question. [Interruption.] Order. I was directing my remarks not only to the Secretary of State but to everyone in the House.
  Mrs. Beckett: The Secretary of State tells us, as she did in her speech, about some of the achievements of the national health service. However, she was selective in the figures that she gave, quoting areas in which new technology is coming into play as well as changes in the manner of treatment. It is not at all clear to me that the figures that she gave my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) were for a comparable area of health care, but never mind—we are used to Ministers not giving accurate figures in the House or, indeed, anywhere else.
  Although the Secretary of State highlights some of the genuine achievements of the staff of the health service and the development of health care, not only Labour Members but people throughout the country resent the Government claiming credit for those improvements, as though they all flow from the Government's reforms and changes. In fact, they have absolutely nothing to do with the Government's reforms and changes. Indeed, in many cases, those changes have seriously impeded the development of better health care, as everyone in the country recognises, except those on the Conservative Benches.
  The Conservatives are seeking to avoid media coverage for the national health service, and if they were an organisation like a national health service trust they would be in serious trouble. Their professional team cannot be relied on any longer. As a result of a revolt last week by junior members of the team, senior board members found themselves unable to raise the finance necessary to run the business of Government. No private company worth its salt would survive in the marketplace after such a debacle. I suppose that, if the Government were not a public undertaking—if they had been privatised—we would expect them to do what Mr. Cedric Brown did recently and choose the moment of the lowest public esteem to award themselves a 75 per cent. pay increase, or at least something substantial.
  The Secretary of State says that the Bill will complete the reforms that were begun in 1990. The phrase has a neat, tidy and finished feel, as though she were a ship's steward, conscientiously dashing about, reordering and rearranging the deckchairs on—no, not the Titanic on this occasion, but perhaps the Achille Lauro. The impression created by the Secretary of State's public statement, which she sought to reinforce in her intervention a few moments ago, is that soon everything will be satisfactorily completed and after her spate of demented and feverish
  650
  activity she will be able to sit back and relax in her deckchair as the national health service liner continues on its voyage.
  The reality, of course, is quite different. Like the Achille Lauro, the national health service has sunk—and public confidence in the Secretary of State's captaincy at the Department of Health has gone down with it, just as public confidence in the Government has descended to the depths. Contrary to the cheery picture that the Secretary of State tries to paint of the tidy, scrubbed deck of a floating national health service, all that we see are survivors trying to cope in the 485 separate leaky lifeboats of the individual health businesses that are the real result of the Secretary of State's reforms.
  The Secretary of State asked why we were criticising the performance of the health service under her administration, and talked about all the improvements that she detects and the figures that she gives for specific operations. One of the reasons why we take what the Secretary of State says not with a pinch but with a bag of salt is that scarcely a day goes by without an NHS survivor contacting my office and the offices of my Opposition colleagues, alerting us to yet further deterioration in the service as they experience it.
  Mr. Tim Smith: "It wasn't like that under the last Labour Government."
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. That is exactly what they say on every occasion—"The health service is nothing like it was. Our health service is disappearing before our very eyes and we bitterly resent the speeches of Conservative Members who do not seem to understand what is happening in our health service." That is what they all say.
  Mr. Smith: My experience is that complaints about the NHS were never greater than in 1976, 1977 and 1978, when the Labour Government cut capital expenditure on hospital buildings by 20 per cent. In comparison, there are very few complaints today.
  Mrs. Beckett: I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that none of the people who have telephoned my office so far have been aged less than 18. They are all people who experienced the national health service and were treated by the national health service in the days that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. They all say what everyone except the Conservative party says—that the NHS is worse than it used to be, and that they are deeply upset and worried about the way that it is disappearing before their eyes.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: As my right hon. Friend knows, I have been in hospital for some fairly long periods in the past couple of years, and it is interesting that, every time that I have been in hospital—sometimes for as long as three weeks—nurses, doctors, consultants and administrators have always come to my bed when they learned that I was a Member of Parliament, to tell me how worried they were about developments in the national health service. How can the Government possibly deny it?
  Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and he knows that his experience is shared by every Opposition Member. I find it extremely difficult to believe that people avoid saying the things to Conservative Members that they say to every Opposition Member.

  651
  I will give some further examples of reasons why we express anxiety—to which the Secretary of State seems to take such exception—about the service that is provided. Three thousand seven hundred operations were cancelled on or after the day of admission in the three months between July and September in London and the south-east alone. Recently, the surgical directorate at Whittington hospital in London decided to cancel all—yes, all—non-urgent surgery except for patients of GP fundholders. In Staffordshire last week, eight out of 11 consultants cast a vote of no confidence in the chief executive at the Foundation trust. A study carried out in Britain, France, Canada and the United States showed that British doctors were the most overworked, half of them wanted to practise abroad and one third wished that they had chosen another career.
  Senior hospital doctors recently made a statement about the "disintegration" of the health service—their word, not mine—and drew attention to what they saw as the distortion of clinical priorities. They said that, although patients should, as the public expect, be treated on the grounds of clinical need and priorities and their sickness, rather than the finances of the trust, that was ceasing to happen. They alleged that patients of fundholders were being treated preferentially and that non-urgent patients were taken from long waiting lists at the expense of urgent patients, who then had to wait longer. That was all being done for financial reasons—to keep hospitals solvent—rather than for reasons of medical priority. In addition, it was being done at the direction of managers because of financial concerns rather than on the basis of clinical decisions made by the medical profession.
  Mr. John Gunnell: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I will illustrate the point that she has just made. One of my constituents had his operation stopped after he had received the anaesthetic and was waiting outside the theatre. It turned out that the operation had been stopped on the direction of the hospital administration because of the overtime that would be involved if it were completed.
  Mrs. Beckett: I just do not believe that no Conservative Members are told similar stories or are aware of similar concerns.
  Lady Olga Maitland rose—
  Mrs. Beckett: I admit that I might well believe it of the hon. Lady.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Surely it is time to balance the debate. Is the right hon. Lady aware that whenever I meet constituents they tell me how much they appreciate the treatment that they receive in our local NHS hospital trust of St. Helier? They say how much they appreciate the dedication of the doctors and nurses, and the speed of delivery of treatment. Does the right hon. Lady agree that, as a result of health service reforms, 3,000 more patients a day are treated than before? Surely that is something of which to be proud.
  Mrs. Beckett: First, that is not the result of the health service reforms. Secondly, as the hon. Lady must be well aware, those figures are nonsense. We are talking about finished consultant episodes, not people. All that the British public care about is when people are treated, the length of time that they have to wait and how their concerns are handled. Of course we are well aware of the
  652
  dedication of national health service staff. In the hope of preventing questions such as those asked by the hon. Lady, I went out of my way at the outset to make it plain that we do not question that dedication.
  I was speaking about the concern of senior hospital doctors at some of the changes they see. I am sure that the Government and Conservative Members must be well aware that it is not only those doctors who are concerned, but every patient who uses the health service and who objects to the outcome of care being determined not by the medical profession on grounds of clinical need, but as a result of Government policies. As well as the more general reports of what is happening, my office is contacted daily by people expressing fear and anxiety as a result of their personal experience of how the health service works today.
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is the only person in the debate so far to have given statistics about what is happening in the service and improved patient care. The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has relied on nothing other than anecdote. When will she provide facts? When will she make anything other than general assertions that the facts that we are providing about the health service and improved care are wrong? When will she say, in detail, why they are wrong, rather than simply making allegations? It would be extremely helpful to the debate if we could have no more anecdotes and a few facts.
  Mrs. Beckett: I do not know what all that was about. The Secretary of State gives statistics about details of operations. What is the Minister of State asking for—alternative statistics? He knows perfectly well that there is widespread concern about the validity of the Government's statistics—everyone knows that. At the last Department of Health Question Time a Minister admitted that the Government's figures do not count people, but episodes of treatment.
  Mr. Malone: We all know that.
  Mrs. Beckett: The Minister of State says that we all know that. I rest my case and propose to go on with my speech.
  Mr. Malone: There is no point in the right hon. Lady trying to be astonished about things that are well known facts. Of course such statistics are counted in completed consultant episodes—that has been the basis on which treatments have been considered for some time. On that basis, it has been shown that treatments have increased by a record number. The right hon. Lady cannot get away with trying to say that that is an astonishing revelation—it is well known.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am delighted that the Minister of State has put that even more firmly on the record. It is certainly the Opposition's understanding that for a considerable time Ministers have sought to cloud the issue. When the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) spoke a few moments ago, she talked of people being treated and said that the number of people who had been treated had increased. But the figures that she was quoting did not relate to people, but to finished consultant episodes. We are pleased to have it on record that those

  653
  are well known facts. I hope that Ministers will not trot out such statistics as proof of how many people have been treated in future.
  The Minister of State mentioned levels of throughput. We are seeing changes in the method of delivery of health care, including new technology—everyone recognises that. But not one jot or tittle of the credit for any of that belongs to the Conservatives. It belongs to staff in the national health service and developments in medical technology. The attempts of Conservative Members to take the credit for it offends not only the Opposition but the general public.
  The conflict between managers and clinicians is growing. There are increasingly regular reports of clinicians declaring their lack of confidence in the chief executive of their trust. Nothing in the Bill changes those concerns. On the contrary, it further centralises bureaucracy in the health service and further concentrates power in the hands of the Secretary of State. Waiting lists are still at record levels. Hospital in-patient waiting lists still stand at more than 1 million. We all know—I hope that this, too, will soon become an uncontested fact—about the many people who are not on waiting lists as they are yet to have their first out-patient appointment, but who are none the less waiting for treatment. Nothing in the Bill will assist them in their plight. Instead, the Bill's effect will be to withhold still further information from the public as regional staff become civil servants, bound by the Official Secrets Act and responsible only to the Secretary of State.
  There is nothing in the Bill to address the number of complaints about the NHS. The Minister of State asked how we could raise certain issues without giving statistics, so I will give him this one: complaints about the health service rose by 57 per cent. between 1991 and 1993—so much for the Conservative party's contention that everyone is perfectly content with the progress of the service. The Bill does not respond to any of the issues. It responds to a different set of demands and a different agenda. We have seen the commercialisation and fragmentation of the health service and are now seeing the drive to introduce competition at all costs when it is co-operation in the provision of a public service that the public and staff wish to see.
  There was an interesting report in the Health Service Journal at the end of last week suggesting that guidelines to be issued soon by the NHS executive would take a harder line. It said Ministers would take a harder line on the internal market and seek to
  "clamp down on 'anti-competitive developments' such as hospital mergers."
  The article continued:
  "Contrary to the softer official line adopted in recent months, the guidelines reassert the efficiency gains which can be generated by competition".
  In fairness, the article also stated that
  "Minimum intervention to protect the interests of patients" might occur from time to time. But the public want co-operation in the provision of health care.
  It seems that the ultimate agenda is the privatisation of the national health service in so far as it can be said that that has not already taken place. We are seeing its removal as a public service, and we are not the only ones to say that: the chairman of the British Medical Association also
  654
  did so when he spoke on behalf of that organisation at its conference. He expressed surprise at the Prime Minister's lack of understanding of the fact that the health service is already being privatised. We are witnessing the virtual floating off of the national health service executive from the Department of Health.
  If the changes contained in this Bill are laid alongside the structural changes taking place in the Department, it seems to me that the provision of health care is slowly being transferred to a quango. The NHS executive has been given responsibility for policy development in health care, a responsibility that surely ought to rest with Ministers and the Department. If they are not paid to set policy, what are they paid for? By further detaching functions from the Department and placing them under the NHS executive, the Secretary of State is in effect floating a separate arm of the health care business.
  The danger, we believe, is that the same loss of parliamentary and public accountability will occur as occurred with the other Government Departments from which major functions were devolved. As a result of the creation of the Benefits Agency, hon. Members now have to take up queries and complaints not with the Secretary of State, who takes no responsibility for the service as it is provided, but with the chief executive of the agency.
  One of the knock-on effects of that change was that information that had been given in parliamentary answers and published in Hansard—and thus been available to all hon. Members and the public, not just the person raising the query—was, for a long time, given only by letter to the hon. Member making the complaint or raising the query. It took a long campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) before Parliament and public again gained access to this valuable information.
  What the Secretary of State is doing by means of this Bill cannot be reconciled with what has been said here today. She is not devolving power. Far from it: she is just shifting the centre of power, floating service delivery off into separate businesses and thereby creating opportunities for privatisation. Shifting the centre of power in this way serves the second item on the Secretary of State's agenda. Rendering power and responsibility more diffuse shifts blame and disperses responsibility. There is nothing the Secretary of State would like better than to shift blame and responsibility elsewhere, so that they do not rest with Ministers.
  Today the Secretary of State argued that organisational changes, particularly incorporating regional health authorities in her Department as offices of the NHS executive, would lead to more effective streamlining, to greater efficiency in the treatment of patients and to greater savings. She has tried to convince us that she is abolishing one tier of bureaucracy. All she is doing, however, is replacing one statutory tier of bureaucracy by another, more centralised bureaucracy. She is not even abolishing an entire tier. The Bill reveals that mental health review tribunals are to stay, on the basis of the existing regions. That is just one example of the fact that some regional functions are to continue, although it is not altogether clear how they will be managed, or what will happen to some of the other functions.
  The substitution of the existing tier by another will create a bureaucracy that is to be more secretive. Staff will now be bound by the Official Secrets Act. They will be more tied to the Secretary of State's patronage and thus

  655
  more tightly controlled by the centre. In other words, under the powers granted by the Bill, far from removing bureaucracy the Secretary of State is giving herself the opportunity, through patronage, to create a more pliant and amenable bureaucracy—all of which ties in with the Maples memorandum which issued instructions to stop up the leaks and silence any criticism of the service.
  While the Secretary of State increases centralised control over the allocation of resources direct to health authorities, through a new formula, there will be top slicing of money for strategic development, research and development, and education and training. It is not clear what the new formula will be; it is not clear what the degree of top slicing will be. All those decisions rest in the hands of the Secretary of State, who is taking substantial enabling powers in clause after clause.
  There are references in the Bill to the orders that the Secretary of State will lay. We shall want to explore and debate the possible contents of each order very carefully.
  There is a real question as to whether this recycled organisational tier—recycled, not abolished—will do what the Secretary of State promises and will slim down the burgeoning bureaucracy of the health service. There is a growing belief, which I am coming to share, that there may be an increase in bureaucracy at the lower levels of the health service, because regionally based services will now have to be run by smaller units. The British Medical Association has argued that removing the strategic planning tier will mean that hundreds of trusts and authorities will have to acquire the skills to agree on regional specialties, public health policy and a host of other issues previously dealt with by the regions.
  Local authorities will have to do this with a loss of economies of scale, and will have to combine with the contracting process inherent in the internal market. We believe that that too is bound to generate more bureaucracy. That would be entirely in line with current trends under the reforms, which show that the number of senior and general managers in England has shot up since 1986, from 5,000 to more than 20,000; and that total bureaucratic costs since 1987-88 have more than doubled.
  Despite these unhelpful precedents, the Secretary of State said today that there will be savings. None of them were properly costed here today, and we have some doubts about them—partly because of the context of the overall effects of the Secretary of State's reforms, which have cost the British taxpayer will over £1 billion. We also doubt them because there is a planned reduction of staff of about 1,500, and we doubt whether the savings that have been identified could come just from those staff reductions.
  We also doubt the savings because of the Secretary of State's remark—or so I thought—and the idea in the Bill that possibly as much as £150 million could be saved. A press release issued after the publication of the Bill contained a revised figure of nearer £60 million. The notes on clauses and the Bill itself actually make it clear that provision has been made for an increase in the short term in the money spent by Parliament as these changes are made.
  It is just over two years since hundreds of civil servants were moved at considerable cost, not to mention disruption to them and their families, to Leeds. Now 200 of them are to be made redundant, thereby creating a great deal more cost and difficulties for their families. How can it be that only two years ago these people were so needed
  656
  by the NHS that it was prepared to go to great lengths and considerable cost to move them all to Leeds, yet now, out of the blue, they are no longer needed? It is either gross incompetence or part of a different agenda.
  Will the end result be that regional functions—for instance, advice on information technology, currently carried out a regional level—that will still be necessary will be contracted out? Is that the Government's secret agenda? If the functions cannot be performed owing to staff losses, will that be an opportunity for contracts in the private sector? There is certainly a widening circle of waste of public money—public money spent to take staff to Leeds, then spent to make them redundant and then, almost certainly, spent on the contracted out functions that could have been performed by those staff had they not been made redundant.
  We question why the Government have proceeded with the changes in this Bill. Is it just that a further fragmentation of the health service will make it easier to privatise, as well as making it easier to bring private companies into the operations of the service? Certainly, if the Secretary of State's record is anything to go by, it is neither to slim down the bureaucracy nor to save money. She has been catastrophically bad at both.
  We expect the changes in the Bill to lead to growth in bureaucracy at the expense of patients and of clinical care, but there are also wider concerns. We shall be looking closely at the allocation of responsibilities and functions as between health authorities and the regional offices. The Bill abolishes the local advisory committees, and any replacement will be dealt with by regulations. Here and elsewhere in the Bill it seems ever more clear that what the Government have in mind is dispensing with much of the expert advice that they currently receive. We do not believe that clinicians should be given excessive power to veto changes and improvements in the health service, but we do not believe either that it is advisable for management on the ground to do without the advice of experts in health policy and practice.
  Who, under the terms of the Bill, will hold the contracts of junior doctors? Who will monitor the cancer screening service? Who will oversee the vocational training of GPs? Who will deal with complaints about trusts? It seems to be suggested that functions such as the oversight of communicable diseases and the handling of national confidential inquiries will mostly, or perhaps completely, be dealt with by the new, more local health authorities. However, there is deep disquiet as to whether that is the right place for them to be handled and whether such authorities will be able to or should deal with such matters.
  There is alarm at what seems to be the loss of independence of the regional director of public health. The Secretary of State expressed surprise that we had drawn attention to that in our motion, although I notice that she did not go so far as to suggest that what we said was incorrect. It is an honourable part of the history and tradition of Britain that the holders of posts such as that of director of public health are whistleblowers in the interests of the general public. But in this new regional structure anybody at that level who blows a whistle will find himself on the street. There is widespread concern not only about what that will mean for the structure of the public health service below the level of regional director, but about to what extent the public will get the degree of oversight to which they have become accustomed.

  657
  As I said earlier, throughout the Bill the approach seems to be to discard in-house expertise whose impartial advice should be needed when judging the quality of information or advice which might be bought in from outside. That is only one example of ways in which long-standing and successful partnerships seem to be at risk. Despite what she said, the Secretary of State must know that the deeply held view of those in medical education, whether at undergraduate or postgraduate level, is that the combination of academic and clinical roles is an essential prerequisite of the training that has been provided hitherto. That view is held by the universities and by the health service.
  Despite what the Secretary of State said about the consultations that have been held, she must be aware that that structure is perceived by people, including the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, to be put at risk by the changes. She must also be aware that there is real anxiety about the nature and scale of future medical education not only in the medical profession but in ancillary professions. Despite the impression given by the Secretary of State, that anxiety has not been dispelled.
  The most professionally anarchic proposal of all is the Government's aim to devolve pay to local level. If anything will lead to increased costs and bureaucracy, it is that ill-thought-out policy. The time of managers will be used up in lengthy local negotiations on pay and conditions. Doctors, nurses and other staff will find themselves neglecting patients because they will be expected to attend to their own pay negotiations. The National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts has already said that the administration of local pay schemes alone will cost an extra £40 million.
  The Secretary of State talked about people wanting to reduce matters to the lowest common denominator. No Opposition Member wants to do that, but that is what local pay is all about and that is what the Government are trying to achieve. They are trying to create a scenario in which pay and conditions can be cut, although where scarce skills are needed competition between trusts to attract and retain professional staff seems likely to lead to options for those specialties in which more than 480 different bargaining units will have to engage in competitive bids.
  We do not intend to let the Government or the public forget what is already occurring in the structure for which the Government make such claims. An example of such an occurrence is to be found, I believe, at the Royal Marsden hospital, where a circulated memorandum suggested that someone should be hired not merely because he was the best in his clinical field but because removing him from another hospital would destabilise a competitor. Competition rather than co-operation will be further enhanced by local pay, which will also distort clinical priorities.
  Skilled clinicians will no longer move from hospital to hospital for professional development reasons alone. Hospitals with research teams and research facilities will no longer seek to attract people primarily because they are innovators at the frontiers of scientific development: they will also depend on the pay that the chief executive can offer.
  658
  Some trusts will not be able to enter that competition. The director of personnel at the Havering Trust has already announced that he has to save £3 million in the next three years. How will that trust be able to attract or retain scarce skills during that period with the anarchy of purely local pay bargaining? How will patient care be delivered in that locality in those circumstances?
  The Secretary of State expressed surprise that we wished to move a reasoned amendment rather than simply supporting the Bill. As we have made plain, we did so because we oppose the abolition of the NHS regions in their present form, although we welcome some of the Bill's other proposals.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Ah!
  Mrs. Beckett: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman says that; I made our position clear at the outset, but perhaps he was not here at that time.
  Above all, oppose the way in which the functions of the regions will be dispersed and broken up. We oppose further fragmentation of the health service and we believe that behind the Bill lies the hidden agenda of breaking up and floating off different NHS functions and making them ripe for picking by commercial interests. As Mr. Maples advised, the intention is to silence the staff while that is happening.
  At best, the Bill fails to address the real problems of health care in Britain. At worst, it exacerbates the problems that Government reorganisation has created. The Secretary of State repeated phrases that she has used in every speech that I have so far heard and read. There is the suggestion that under what she calls the old NHS there was a command and control structure, which she attacked. A command and control structure of a kind that no previous Secretary of State has enjoyed is precisely what the Bill introduces to the health service. For the sake of our national health service, that process, like the Government, must soon be brought to a halt.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am pleased to be called to speak so early in the debate. Those of us who take an interest across the spectrum of activities in our constituencies have to address the issue of health service delivery against the background and the experience of our constituencies. The changes that have been made in Herefordshire over the past few years, and especially the change in the make-up of the county's health authority and the bringing in of executives with particular expertise, have been beneficial. Therefore, the Bill is a logical next step and I have no quarrel with it in principle. I shall certainly support it in the Lobby.
  I support the Bill's concept of endorsing local decision making in the NHS. That is very much at the core of the admittedly constituency interest that I wish to put before the Secretary of State and the Minister of State. We are greatly worried about how health services in Herefordshire could be affected if there is unsympathetic implementation of the Bill's proposed changes. I emphasise that the reforms must make sense to people if they are to be supported and understood.
  My worries are about the imminent decisions that will be made by West Midlands regional health authority in its dying days. That authority has been charged with the

  659
  responsibility of predicating the shape and number of health authorities in what is currently the west midlands region.
  My Herefordshire health authority—I take the proprietorial "my" on behalf of my constituents—is already the smallest in the country, with the exception of that for the Isle of Wight. It is working fairly well and is consistently meeting all the national targets. It is financially sound, it is at the top of the efficiency index in the west midlands, its management costs are well below the average for equivalent-sized authorities, and it has taken more steps to identify further reductions in those costs. This year, it knocked £200,000 from its management costs.
  What is worrying is that, on this coming Thursday, 15 December, the regional health authority will decide its policy for the counties of Hereford and Worcester. It is anticipated that the recommendation will be that there should be just one new health authority covering the two counties.
  The authority has arrived at its recommendation—although I think that "decision" would be nearer the mark—without very much consultation, and certainly not without its own walls. Its own statement says that consultation is
  "limited at this stage primarily to Health Authorities".
  I inquired where the consultation had taken place and discovered that there had been little in Herefordshire. Indeed, I am not entirely sure who has been consulted.
  The two county Members of Parliament—myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris)—had a meeting with the health authority chairman and the director of performance management, at our request. It was certainly not a consultation because we were making representations. I understand that the chairmen of the health authorities were not even consulted. The general managers of the four health authorities concerned were summoned to the regional chief executive and told what was to be the case.
  What the matter boils down to is that, without much consultation, the regional management executive has determined what is to be the case and, presumably, will go out to consultation. What will be the value of that consultation if, as I perceive, decisions have already been made and written on tablets of stone?
  I am not alone in feeling great hostility towards the proposed move. Everything in me shrieks against it. I do not believe that it is necessarily in the best interests of my constituents in Herefordshire. I am not alone in that view—the general practitioners and their council in Herefordshire are unanimous in their opposition to that particular shape for the health service. The clinicians, the consultants, the joint operation of clinicians and general practitioners, the Hereford medical forum and everybody else involved in the medical sector are unanimous in their opposition.
  The foundation for that opposition comes from 20 years of local government experience. It shows that where Herefordshire has been linked to the larger population base of Worcestershire there has been an inexorable suction effect away from Herefordshire and into the heavier weight of Worcestershire. A classic example of that is the eight years of the Hereford and Worcester area health authority between 1974 and 1983. It was like trying
  660
  to get hold of a cotton wool cloud. We could not get hold of the authority; it simply was not there in tangible form—it was too busy sitting in committees.
  I am told that circumstances have changed and we have moved on, that I must not lock myself into 1974-type thinking and that I must adjust myself to today. However, our experience over the past 20 years is that, whenever small Herefordshire has been linked to large Worcestershire, because the demographic weight of population is to the east of the county, we have not benefited.
  We actually made progress from 1983 onwards when we were given our own health authority. It was identifiable and small. At the time, we were told that it would be too small, but we said, "Let it run." It has been very successful and it has made progress. From my point of view as a Member of Parliament dealing with constituents and the health authority, I have found the lines of communication both short and effective. There have been good results in sorting out problems and unscrambling messes when they have occurred.
  In Wolverhampton on 26 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the chairmen of health authorities and trusts in the west midlands region that the new health authorities would be the stewards of the local community. The question being asked in my part of the world is: how local is local? The west midlands—. Birmingham—is light years away. I must inform my right hon. and hon. Friends that Worcester is also light years away. That might seem very parochial, but our area is sparse and large distances are involved. There is a range of hills in between. We are not the same. Over the years, we have tried to work in many different forums on a Hereford and Worcester basis, but none has been effective in its operation.
  Where is the sensitivity to local needs? We need reassurance on that point from my hon. Friend the Minister. Herefordshire has a high elderly population, a low ethnic population and an old town. Redditch, on the other side of the joint county arrangement, has a high young population and a new town. Worcester has an old town and a high ethnic population. If the weight of population is to the east, how will sensitivity to the west be recognised?
  In terms of finance, we are worried that the loss of sensitivity to the Herefordshire population profile will leave us at a disadvantage. We are very worried about the potential lack of sensitivity to the more rural parts of Herefordshire and beyond. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for health matters in Wales knows full well how far into Wales runs the catchment area for Hereford, which is looked to as the centre for the provision of acute hospital care.
  I am aware that my right hon. Friend said that we must not look for sectional interests on the area health authority, but unless there are people who come from the Herefordshire side of the hills there cannot be a recognition of what Herefordshire needs. I am not making sectional interest pleading; I am asking how Herefordshire's needs will be understood. It is not all number crunching. It might look very tidy from the inside looking out, but from the outside looking in it is not quite so tidy and comfortable.
  All our experience suggests a shift of services to the centre of gravity of the combined area. Our worry is that that would be detrimental to the range of hospital facilities

  661
  that will be available in Hereford—not immediately, as these things take time—and that over the years there will be a migration of services as people rationalise and strategic decisions are taken about what is done where and how. In 10 years' time we could find ourselves not with the present acute hospital unit providing a broad range of clinical services, but with a hospital providing an accident and emergency service and the ancillaries that go with that. That worry must be laid to rest.
  I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in his place. When I explained my fears to him, I am afraid that his reply merely underlined them. My fears reflect those expressed to me by my constituents. I very much hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure us.
  The regional health authority will put a paper before the meeting on Thursday. The reasons given in that paper for its decision seem to me to be self-justificatory bull.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Not Herefordshire bull.
  Mr. Shepherd: Definitely not Herefordshire bull—Birmingham bull.
  It appears to me that the authority's attitude is that a decision has been taken, so it must make everything fit it. I am told that the new authority will operate best against
  "a sensibly sized strategic canvas"—
  marvellous; furthermore:
  "Local sensitivity will be assured by Primary Care-led purchasing, and the extensive development of GP Fundholding"
  covering 87 per cent. of the population. I wonder what the sensibly sized strategic canvas will be. I was told that Hereford is too small to support both a strategically focused health authority and an extended range of GP-focused purchasing. When I met the regional health authority chairman and his colleague, I was told about the "theology of numbers" for a successful operation, which is somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 residents.
  When the Herefordshire health authority started, we were told that the population was too small at 140,000. I pleaded with the then Minister and he accepted my arguments, and we have a successful health authority as a consequence. It covers 160,000 people, and the mid-Wales dimension takes the figure to 250,000—not far short of the bottom limit of the theology of numbers. However, having pursued that matter with my hon. Friend the Minister, I understand that there is no bottom limit but that it is a matter of what makes sense. The regional health authority seems to be making rules to suit itself. What is the foundation for that theology of numbers?
  It is suggested that a single health authority would attract high-quality staff and administrative savings of £1.5 million, which would be available, if it materialised, for reinvestment in local health services. I understand that the Price Waterhouse report is distinctly suspect and that if there were a single commissioning authority or health authority for Worcestershire and one for Herefordshire, the savings would be not £1.5 million but £500,000.
  I am worried about the numbers that will be put before the regional health authority on Thursday. The regional chief executive's report dated 21 July stated that the situation in Hereford and Worcester is much more complex and that local ownership and accountability within any arrangement is more important than financial considerations. That is intriguing, because it implies two lines of thought.
  662
  We have marvellous clinicians in Hereford. They like working there and do not wish to leave, and there is no reason for them to do so. The quality of life in Herefordshire is darn good, and they do a good job.
  The third argument is a wonderful piece of jargon. It is that NHS providers in particular will find it easier to shape their future against a clearer purchasing and commissioning strategy. That is true whether the authority is large or small. The argument is also made that the functional clinical links developing between providers across the county make a clear purchasing view all the more important and urgent. Those links will be made whether there are one or two authorities because they make sense. That is not a reason but a reflection of something that will happen as a matter of logic.
  It is said that the business cases for the Hereford and Worcester hospitals are nearing completion, and that the Hereford scheme in particular should have its outline case approved by the regional office by the end of December.
  I have been pursuing the establishment of a hospital since 1974. Hereford has three clapped-out building sites, one of which has finally been identified as a site for redevelopment. It is expensive, maintenance is bad, and it is difficult to see how services could logically be provided. In addition, the site is dangerous. A cardiac arrest on the operating theatre in the general hospital would necessitate an ambulance run to the county hospital's intensive care unit, which is unacceptable. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to press for the completion of that hospital at the earliest possible moment.
  Although the business case was presented in Birmingham today, I received from Mr. Brian Baker, chairman of the regional health authority, a note saying, "Hold on a second. We cannot go now on the shape of the Hereford hospital—not until such time as we know what is to happen in Worcester." That emphasises my worst fears. The two are interdependent, but decisions are being taken before we are ready.
  I support the Bill's principles because they are right, but I urge my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to make a sensible arrangement for my part of the world, because it is different by virtue of its geography and demography. The reforms must make sense for people if they are to secure support.
  What message are the Government sending my constituents? At 9.30 am on Thursday morning, the Local Government Commission will make an announcement, which I would bet heavy money will say that there should be a unitary authority for Herefordshire. It will recognise that the connection with Worcestershire over the past 20 years has not been to Hereford's advantage, and that its people think that they can do better. At 10.30 am, the regional health authority will say, "We are taking away Hereford's independence and will tag it on to Worcester to make a big merged health authority."
  Although Hereford's health authority is small, it is good. It could be nicely merged with a family health services authority to form a new authority that is responsive to the needs of the people and understands them. The logical way for my hon. Friend the Minister to progress is to say, "I hear you, Herefordshire, and your worries. You will have a health authority in your own right." He can enter the caveat that, if that does not work, he will exercise the Bill's inbuilt powers to put Hereford together with another health authority, possibly

  663
  Worcester. He can do that if, in the light of experience, shortcomings are identified, and the individual authority is perceived not to make sense. I urge my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, as I support them tonight, to listen to us in Herefordshire.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. John Heppell: The Secretary of State said that the Bill exists to take account of Government reforms, but all those made so far have been utter failures. I see no reason why the Bill should not also be a complete failure.
  The Secretary of State asked for facts and statistics. Government health reforms so far have cost £1.2 billion, which has meant that the cost of NHS bureaucracy has risen from £1.44 billion to £3.02 billion—an increase of 110 per cent. or £1.5 billion, which could have been spent on patients rather than on administration.
  The right hon. Lady spoke about streamlining management. In 1986-87, the national health service had 500 managers. In 1989, it had 4,600 and by 1993, it had 20,010. That is an increase of 1,800 per cent.—not quite as large as the increase in prescription charges, but almost. In 1987, management costs were £25.7 million. Today, they are £49.8 million. That is what the Government's reforms have meant; those are the statistics for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was asked.
  The Government say that they want to introduce further reforms that will save more money and make the NHS more efficient and effective. Does any Conservative Member seriously believe that we seriously believe what the Government say? They say that they plan to remove a tier of the health service, but when we examine the small print we find that they do not really mean that. They plan to remove regional health authorities—the section of the service that secures accountability at regional level.
  It is no use for the Secretary of State, and other Conservative Members, to talk about the way in which people are appointed to trusts or regional health authorities. Every hon. Member—and, I suspect, everyone in the country—now knows that one overriding criterion ensures appointment to trusts, district health authorities and regional health authorities: allegiance to the Conservative party. More than half the 240 health authority chairs come from businesses, consultancies or financial institutions. They are directors and employers in firms that donate money to the Conservative party. Only 15 of those 240 have any medical background, but more than 120 have financial backgrounds.
  If the appointees are not directors or other members of firms that give money to the Conservative party, they are members of the party. I know from experience—as, I am sure, do other hon. Members—that prominent members of Conservative associations are repeatedly appointed to trusts and health authorities. The same applies to Conservative candidates, both national and local. They are usually failed candidates, but what does that matter now? If a candidate cannot persuade the country to let him put his ideas across by means of the ballot box—if he cannot secure the changes that he wants democratically—it does not matter. As long as he has an allegiance to the Tory party, the Government will appoint him to a quango, such as a trust or health authority.
  664
  Not only those people themselves but their wives, brothers and brothers-in-law may be appointed. They have this in common: they are all yes-men, or yes-women, in relation to what the Tories want to do. In fact, regional health authorities do not pose much of a threat to the Government; they produce little opposition to the Government's proposed changes. Every now and again, however—not very often—we see a bit of independence and initiative, and hear a few murmurs of discontent and disagreement. For that reason, RHAs will have to go. The Bill is not about removing a tier of the NHS; it is about removing accountability.
  Are the Secretary of State, the Minister and other Conservative Members trying to tell me that nothing needs to be done at regional level any more? I have taken time to read research paper 94/124, produced by the Library. A section beginning on page 11 asks:
  "Who will do what in the new NHS?"
  I have highlighted the instances in which it is still necessary for the region to act, and almost every part of the section has been highlighted as a result.
  The regional officers will still set the local research agenda within a national research and development strategy developed by headquarters, and will manage research and development projects. When the revenue allocations are made directly to health authorities, surely the NHS executive will use its regional tier to establish what those allocations should be. When the responsibility for public health functions goes to local health authorities, regional offices will ensure
  "that effective arrangements have been put in place".
  When the professional advisory machinery is at local or multi-district level, the current sub-committees—the specialty sub-committees—at regional level will retain their responsibilities:
  "regional offices will be responsible for performance management of health authorities and for monitoring Trusts".
  After that, they will have new responsibilities for GP fundholding. The regional tier will still have to do a great deal of work.
  I find it hard to accept that the changes at regional level will save £150 million. How can 1,500 jobs disappear when all that work will still have to be done—unless, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South suggested, the plan is to contract the work out to private companies which are probably making large donations to the Conservative party? In any event, why are the RHAs being targeted in connection with bureaucracy? Bureaucracy has not increased in the RHAs.
  Between 1992 and 1993, regional staff numbers fell from 7,845 to 3,905—a massive drop, as everyone would surely agree. Moreover, in the following year the numbers fell to 2,613. Meanwhile, bureaucracy has increased in the trusts, in the FHSAs and at district level, but predominantly in the trusts. If bureaucracy is to be tackled, they should be tackled. It is nonsense to abolish the tier in which bureaucracy has been slimmed down—the tier that has been made lean and mean—and preserve organisations in which bureaucracy continues to flourish.
  A limit of 135 staff has been set for each region. Can anyone tell me how that number was arrived at? Is there no difference in the size of the regions? Is not the regional authority represented by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) smaller than some others? If the size indeed varies, will not differing staff numbers be required?

  665
  The truth is that the figure was plucked out of the air—and, even if it is met in the short term, I am certain that it will not stay the same in the medium and long term. As I have said, the work that needs to be done at regional level will continue. I guarantee that no future assessment of the number of staff required will produce a figure of 135, if it is done correctly.
  Although I agree in principle with the amalgamation of the district health authorities and the family health service authorities, I have very strong reservations about whether the Government will carry it out efficiently and effectively. I have evidence that in some areas it is not being carried out efficiently and effectively.
  Mr. Malone: It would be a little presumptuous if it were being carried out wholesale while the Bill has not yet received a Second Reading. There are a number of co-operative arrangements in place, which is very different from sorting out the amalgamation once the House has sanctioned the Bill. Surely the hon. Gentleman understands that.
  Mr. Heppell: I understand it, but it seems that the Secretary of State does not. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) wrote to her pointing out that the Nottinghamshire FHSA and the Nottinghamshire health authority had combined—informally—to form a health commission and had proceeded to pick a new chief executive who is already in post and being paid. The chief executive of the Nottinghamshire FHSA has been sent home on what is described as "gardening leave". That person is on a salary of perhaps £50,000 or £60,000 but has been sent home before Parliament has even debated the necessary legislation because someone else has been given the job of taking over the new amalgamated health authority, which the Minister says should not yet be in place.
  Perhaps the Minister will tell me that he proposes to take action against members of the health authority or the FHSA or against the chief executives of both bodies for proceeding without parliamentary approval. The Minister shakes his head. He clearly accepts that inefficiency has been engendered by the attempted amalgamation of two bodies without there first being in place a proper structure and without there first being a proper debate with the medical profession and members of other services involved. I am sure that the Minister will therefore accept that I am bound to have some reservations about the Government carrying out the reforms and achieving the savings they seek.
  The Bill will be a failure because of what is not in the Bill as much as for what is in it. It does not tackle the real problems in the NHS. It does not deal with the fact that there are now 1 million people on the waiting list and that there is a secondary list of 1 million people waiting for out-patient appointments. The Bill does not tackle the fact that, since 1979, 147,790 beds have disappeared from the health service and that some people are now finding it impossible to get a bed.
  The Bill does not deal with the fact that, in 1993 alone, 10,637 beds disappeared from the health service or that since 1979, 538 hospitals—or one in five—have closed. It does not deal with the patients charter. We learned only this week that the charter's targets are not being met. Nor
  666
  does the Bill tackle the problems of increased prescription or dental charges or the cost of eye tests. It does not tackle the fact that we now have fewer nurses than ever—in 1989, there were 397,650 nurses but by 1992 the number had dropped to 361,460.
  The Bill does not solve the problem of perks going to the most well paid people in the NHS or the excessive pay rises that some people award themselves. Last year, the average pay claim by chief executives was 8.5 per cent. although some awarded themselves 33 per cent. even while the Government were telling public sector workers that their pay should not rise by more than 1.5 per cent. How can the Government in all honesty say that to ordinary NHS workers while some chief executives award themselves 33 per cent.?
  The Bill does not deal with complaints which have increased by 57 per cent. to 58,000 a year and nor does it tackle staff morale. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South mentioned the fact that the Government were trying to introduce locally negotiated pay. Only today I had a visit from a member of the British Medical Association, Dr. Gill, who is on the local negotiating committee. I am sure that he will not mind my mentioning that he told me that locally negotiated pay would be disastrous. It would mean that, in addition to their management and administration duties, hundreds if not thousands of doctors would have to attend one or two meetings a week to negotiate pay, whereas, at the moment, it is negotiated nationally and effectively and no one has complained.
  The Bill gives the impression that it will cut bureaucracy but it will not; it gives the impression that this is the end of the NHS reforms but it is not; and it gives the impression that it will help the NHS but in reality it is a collection of bogus measures which are, if anything, simply a public relations exercise for the Government. The Bill's provisions are a smokescreen for the NHS reforms that have already taken place, and for the Government's betrayal of the service.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. John Whittingdale: I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) will forgive me if I do not agree with him entirely. I find extraordinary the Opposition's constant desire to denigrate dedicated individuals who are trying to improve health care in their communities and especially strange is the idea that anyone who has had any association with Conservative politics—or who happens to be related to anyone in Conservative politics—should not be allowed to serve on a regional or district health board.
  I shall not take up too much of the House's time because, despite the speeches that have been made so far, I do not think that the Bill is especially controversial. It is quite narrowly defined and technical, although that might not be immediately apparent—I note that schedule 1 will require 45 Acts to be amended, including the Polish Resettlement Act 1947, the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988 and the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Despite the wide-ranging nature of the Bill, I do not think that it is controversial, and it has received wide support, especially outside the House.

  667
  I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the Bill is the logical consequence of our national health service reforms which were undoubtedly the most radical change to the structure of the NHS since it was created. Much of the attention since then has been given to the establishment of NHS trusts, and I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend announce today that the coverage of the trusts is to be extended further to take in, I believe, 98 per cent. of patients. Attention has also been given to GP fundholders whose numbers have been growing steadily, but the biggest NHS reform was the creation of the internal market and the separation of purchasers and providers.
  The Bill reforms the structure of the purchasing side of the national health service, which I have always believed is at the core of the NHS. I do not take the ideological, rigid view that the NHS should use only publicly owned providers. I am happy to see it use privately or publicly owned providers, as long as they deliver the best possible treatment to patients. The core of the NHS is its purchasing function, and the Bill concentrates upon that.
  Three and a half years on, we can now begin to make a judgment about the results of the NHS reforms. Despite what the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said in her speech, I have absolutely no doubt that the reforms have worked. NHS trusts have been an unqualified success. General practitioner fundholders are providing better care to patients and, as a result, the number of patients being treated has increased and the quality of care has improved.
  A couple of weeks ago, The Guardian stated that the NHS reforms had achieved "considerable success" in helping to restore confidence in the NHS. I take it that that was not written by the KGB.
  Inevitably, when reforms as great as the NHS reforms are introduced there will be some problems. I accept that one such problem is the number of layers of management created and the amount of money spent on administration. I do not accept the more simplistic charge that the reforms have simply created layers of management. An organisation the size of the NHS must have strong management. It spends the equivalent of a small country's gross national product, and it must have properly qualified, good managers to ensure that we receive maximum value for money.
  One of the reforms' main intentions was to devolve responsibility downwards—to give real decision-making power to those who are involved in running hospitals and to the GPs who have chosen to become fundholders. Devolution of responsibility has led NHS trusts, quite correctly, to recruit more management staff. The problem is that that increase has not been matched by a corresponding reduction in the number of administrative staff employed elsewhere within the NHS. The recruitment of more managers in NHS trusts should mean that many managers are no longer needed at the upper level of the health service. The Bill is designed to address that problem.
  The disappearance of regional health authorities will require one or two of their tasks to be performed elsewhere. A traditional responsibility of the regions was the allocation of funds within a region using a weighted capitation formula.
  668
  The House has heard me talk previously about the consequences of that funding allocation in the North Thames region. I do not wish to go over familiar ground in detail, but I repeat that there has been a problem. Although there is a national formula to distribute funds between regions, when a region such as mine adopts a different formula for the allocation of resources within a region it leads to unfairness, particularly in my district of North Essex.
  Because the national formula does not take full account of the social deprivation factors which the region uses to distribute funds within North Thames, North Essex has been doubly penalised. I have raised the problem with the Minister previously, so I do not wish to spend too much time on it tonight. However, as a result of the changes introduced by the Bill, I hope that the Department will implement a single national formula to allocate funds between districts. That will remove the present unfairness and ensure that all districts are treated equally.
  The regional monitoring role must continue to be performed. It has been suggested that part of the role can be performed by the new health authorities— in particular, that they will be responsible for monitoring GP fundholders. As the British Medical Association has pointed out, the new authorities will also be competing purchasers. It concerns me that they will be not only competing with GP fundholders, but given responsibility for them. Will the Minister explain how the system is intended to operate?
  At district level, I believe it must make sense for a single body to be responsible for ensuring that patients receive the proper degree of health care. The division between primary and secondary care has always been pretty artificial; it is now breaking down even further.
  More and more treatments can be performed in a GP's surgery and no longer require a visit to hospital. When hospital treatment is needed, it is often performed on a day-case basis and no longer requires an overnight stay. In some cases, GPs will come into hospitals and use their facilities to treat patients and, as a result, consultants and registrars do not need to be involved.
  These changes—many the result of technological change within the health service—will inevitably alter the profile of the health service. In future many people will not need to go anywhere near hospitals; their local GPs' surgeries will become mini-hospitals. Judging the performance of the health service, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, East did, on the basis of the number of beds available or the number of operations performed will become increasingly irrelevant.
  I congratulate the Secretary of State on the speech that she made earlier this year—I think it was to the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts conference—in which she drew attention to the changes that will take place in the health service. She highlighted the report by the United Kingdom chief nursing officers, who predicted that in future 60 per cent. of operations are likely to be performed on a day-case basis, 40 per cent. of specialist consultations will take place outside hospital and, as a result, 40 per cent. fewer beds will be needed.
  The figures caused great uproar when they were first published, but it is an inevitable consequence of the technological change which is taking place in health

  669
  care. It is important that we should recognise it and debate now the consequences for the shape of the health service in the future.
  Separation of the body responsible for the purchase of secondary care—in other words, the district health authority—from the body responsible for primary care is becoming increasingly daft. Many areas have recognised that already: commissioning agencies have been formed, with close co-operation between the two bodies.
  In North Essex relations between the family health services authorities and the two DHAs are very good. Following my right hon. Friend's statement earlier in the year, the FHSA and the two DHAs talked about the structure of future health provision in the county. Clearly, the main question was whether future health authorities should be divided into two or three different bodies, or whether a single body should have jurisdiction over the whole county.
  As well as engaging in wide consultation, the FHSA and the DHAs commissioned the King's Fund to investigate and make recommendations on that point. I was sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), who did not feel that sufficient consultation had taken place in his constituency.
  Very wide consultation has taken place in Essex and, as a result, there is almost universal agreement that the most sensible structure is to divide the county along existing district health authority boundaries and to have two health authorities in future. I congratulate the three chairmen—Major-General Robert Wall of the FHSA, Alec Sexton of the North Essex health authority, and David Micklem of the South Essex health authority—on the way in which they conducted the investigations into future health provision in Essex. I think that their recommendations will enjoy widespread support and prove a great success.
  I will touch upon one or two concerns that have been raised already in the debate. The first concerns accountability within the health service. I agree entirely that it is essential that the public have confidence and feel that they are fully involved in decisions affecting patient health care. The Bill is not entirely clear about the membership of the new health authorities—although I welcome the Secretary of State's clarification in her speech. I hope that members of the future health authorities' boards will be widely drawn from within the local community.
  Clearly, the membership should include medical professionals. I especially welcome the announcement that the director of public health will be a mandatory executive on the health board, but I believe that a wide range of individuals who have specific skills to bring to bear should also be involved. I especially hope that there will be full involvement of the primary care sector. It is important that the new authorities should not be based mainly on the existing DHAs and that they should properly reflect the responsibilities of both the DHAs and the FHSAs.
  As I have said, it is essential to try to increase public involvement in the provision of health care. North Essex health authority has been extremely good at trying to involve the public. I cite the public consultation
  670
  exercises that the authority has carried out on the provision of cancer services in the county which has recently led to the recommendation that there should be a new cancer centre in my town of Colchester. I also cite the consultation exercise on the provision of orthopaedic services. The original proposals for orthopaedic services to be centred on a single site in Broomfield were dropped as a result of the consultation exercise and new proposals have now been introduced for two centres, one in Chelmsford and one in Colchester.
  I also cite the exercise in determining public priorities for medical treatment within the county. Many consultative documents were issued by the health authority, but, unfortunately, there was a lack of response to the documentation. I know that the director of public health was rather disappointed by the number of responses he received. One parish council in my constituency complained about the number of consultative documents it received and said that it was unreasonable for it to spend so much time answering them. That is a problem. I hope that consultation exercises will be phrased in simple language so that they will generate a proper response from those who wish to participate.
  One of the interesting results of the recent visit by members of the Select Committee on Health to Oregon, where a wide-ranging consultation exercise has been carried out, was the discovery that the people who came along to the public meetings were not members of the public at all. They were health professionals. There must be the danger that a limited response to a public consultation exercise may not properly reflect public opinion in the locality.
  I commend the fairly novel approach of Alec Sexton, who is the chairman of North Essex, one of the health authorities. He has started to hold public surgeries and he invites members of the public to raise with him any concerns they have about the provision of health care. That is an extremely welcome innovation and I hope that his example can be followed widely by the new health authorities.
  Another problem has arisen in my area which the new authorities will need to consider—the growing number of patients who are being removed from GP lists. In Essex, there has been a slow but steady rise in the number of removals, from 977 in 1991 to 1,154 in 1993. I entirely accept that the figure still represents only seven out of every 10,000 patients, but I believe that it is a cause for concern.
  It has been claimed that the increase is the result of fundholding practices seeking to remove patients who will be costly to their budgets. There is no evidence to support that claim. Indeed, the evidence in Essex proves precisely the reverse. In my mid-Essex area, there are fewer removals by fundholders than by non-fundholding practices. I accept that a doctor must have the right not to have on his list a patient with whom his relationship has broken down, but it is not acceptable for a doctor arbitrarily to remove a patient from his list, especially if no proper explanation is given to that patient. In rural areas such as mine, real problems can be created if the nearest alternative practice is many miles away. I should like there to be a requirement for doctors to justify the removal of a patient from their list and,

  671
  perhaps, for an arbitration scheme to be established to try to prevent the problem where possible. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that point.
  I now turn to the responsibility of the new health authorities for long-term care. As the House is aware, lead responsibility for the provision of community care rests with the local authorities. However, the availability of social care is, obviously, a paramount consideration in determining whether a patient is to be discharged from hospital. If adequate social care does not exist, patients will have to be kept in hospital, thereby putting additional strain on the health authority's budget and occupying badly needed beds. Essex county council, in common with a number of other Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities, has announced that its community care budget is close to exhaustion. That will cause real difficulties for the health authority.
  It has been claimed that, in Essex, community care has been inadequately funded. That simply is not true. The amount available to spend on social services this year stands at £175 million, which is an increase of 22 per cent. on last year's figure and 7 per cent. more than the national average. The change in the distribution of the special transitional grant, which some local authority social services departments claim has penalised them, has benefited Essex by a further £21 million. The principal reasons why Essex county council social services department is now in that position are simply mismanagement and the council's failure properly to plan its budget in advance.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's comments about community care. The subject does not have a great deal to do with the. Bill, but it is important to make one point. Does the hon. Gentleman recall, that in the first year of the care changes, the Association of County Councils made the point that community care was underfunded? At that time, the association was controlled by the Conservative party.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I simply do not accept that community care has been underfunded. The hon. Gentleman will find that this area of local government responsibility has received better funding than almost any other and that the funding has been steadily increased since the changes were introduced. There is no justification for local authorities to claim that their budgets have been exhausted. Such claims have aroused fears among some of the most vulnerable people in society, which is a disgrace.
  Essex county council's reserves stand at about £25 million. The council should simply transfer some of that money to make up any shortfall and it should take immediate action to ensure that such a situation cannot be repeated. I can see that you are looking at me, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am conscious that I have strayed a little from the Bill. I thank you for your indulgence.
  I have no doubt that the Bill will result in a more efficient and streamlined structure for the NHS. It will consequently result in real benefits for patients.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I
  672
  must point out that, so far, no Back-Bench speaker has managed to make a speech in less than 20 minutes. If that trend continues, there will be some disappointed Members who will not have made a speech at all. I hope that I make the point clear.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I cannot resist starting with a reference to the strong plea that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) made on behalf of the Herefordshire health authority. I have a lawyerly connection with Hereford and, as a Member of Parliament for mid-Wales, I am well aware of the number of patients, especially from the south of the county of Powys, who go to Hereford for the very good hospital treatment in that ancient city. The hon. Gentleman's argument was sound and not merely on a local basis relating to his constituency, although that stands too.
  I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), in his place. In his presence, I ask the Government to ensure that, during the reorganisation, close attention is paid to ensuring that patients who seek treatment, or are sent for it, across the Welsh border will continue to be able to receive it efficiently.
  The consideration that the hon. Member for Hereford mentioned applies equally to constituents in Brecon and Radnor; and to my constituents, who go to Shrewsbury for much of their treatment. Indeed, it applies in particular to the Minister's constituents in Clwyd, many of whom gravitate towards Chester for treatment. Cross-border availability is an important issue. There has certainly been a feeling in my constituency that the Shropshire health authority has tended to look east, to the neglect of the western part of its catchment area. The reorganisation should not allow that trend to continue.
  I have a feeling that, while drafting the Bill, the parliamentary draftsman was reading the Maples memorandum. We have four pages of Bill and 50 pages of schedules. I suspect that the instructions might have been to make it so dull that it would introduce legislative anaesthesia and possibly euthanasia of the Standing Committee—Oregon was mentioned a few minutes ago—so that the politics of the Bill, or indeed the whole Bill, would be forgotten.
  Beneath that textual exactitude, which the draftsman so skilfully incorporated—especially in schedule 1—lies a breathtaking transfer of power. Breathtaking powers are to be placed in the hands of the Secretary of State and of unelected and extremely large public bodies. Of course no one objects to reorganisation if it improves the quality of service, unless one takes a dogmatic view as to whether all health care should be provided by the public or the private sector, which I do not. I hope that we will gain an assurance from the Minister in his reply, especially in answer to the hon. Member for Hereford, that it is improving the quality of service that drives this reform and not some organisational ethos, which is what crept into that remarkable jargon that the hon. Member for Hereford read to us earlier.
  Reorganisation is unacceptable if the quality of service is not improved. We must bear in mind the fact that those extraordinarily large and totally unelected public bodies will take decisions that will affect the fundament of people's lives. They are the organisations that will decide—as some have decided not to—whether to pay for

  673
  extra coronary operations, above the number of operative treatments for which they have contracted. Like the existing Powys health authority, which is responsible for my constituents, they are the authorities that will produce proposals that may mean emergency ambulances only in a large and sparse rural area. No one could imagine a decision—based on financial stringencies, of course—that could be less calculated to serve the large, local, elderly population.
  Those are the authorities that make arbitrary judgments—again like Powys—such as the decision that, as a matter of policy which I believe to be unlawful and capable of judicial review, childless couples will in no circumstances be able to gain fertility treatment on the national health service. Such decisions should never be taken, but the lack of any sort of democratic accountability, whether in the old or the new authorities, renders them more likely.
  Beyond those general considerations, I must deal briefly with six specific issues. The first has already been mentioned—predictably so—and concerns how members of the authorities will be appointed. Will there be yet more epidemic and centralised patronage? I want to be fair. The Labour Government's record on epidemic patronage before 1979 was every bit as bad as that of Conservative Governments since. There is no reason for it to be so. For example, why will the Department of Health and the Welsh Office not advertise for possible non-executive members of the authorities? Why trawl among the great and the good and those with whom they happen to go to cocktail parties, rather than advertising every one of the posts in the regional press, so that the trawl can be made from the widest range of possibilities?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): May I enlighten the hon. and learned Gentleman by telling him unequivocally that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will soon be advertising the posts of chairmen of the new health authorities in Wales?
  Mr. Carlile: That is a small step for mankind and it is right that the trawl should happen in that way, but why not in England, too?
  Mr. Malone rose—
  Mr. Carlile: I will give way in a moment. I seem to be drawing a chorus. Like two choirboys, singing seasonally, the Ministers come to their feet. Perhaps the Minister of State will tell us why every non-executive post on those health authorities should not be advertised.
  Mr. Malone: The hon. and learned Gentleman should be aware that that is increasingly the practice. The availability of posts is advertised. The widest possible representation is sought among applicants, to enable the appointments to be made. That already happens in some
  674
  regions, especially in the south and the west, which I represent. It is an excellent practice, it is being encouraged and it will be expanded.
  Mr. Carlile: I feel a little like a swordsman rather successfully drawing blood. Perhaps I should keep on this tack and in another 10 minutes we might have an announcement that all the posts will be advertised.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Carlile: I am sorry, but I must get on.
  Will the Minister of State assure us in his reply that each authority will have representatives of the executive and medical, nursing and midwifery staff on its board, as well as consumer representatives, who might best be drawn from the community health councils that have been serving the public so well?
  On consultation, will the Minister of State be able to assure the House that the authorities will be statutorily required to consult with community health councils? We face the threat of some health councils being taken out of existence as a result of the changes. The Bill requires at least one community health council for every health authority area. One suspects that that may mean that, in some areas, there will be only one community health council for that health authority area. I hope that community health councils will be consulted, and that we can expect to see very few reductions in the number of community health councils.
  I was encouraged to hear what the Secretary of State had to say about universities. Eloquent representations have been made by the vice-chancellors, and in particular by the principal of St. George's medical school, Sir William Asscher. He has made the point that the regional authorities will, in effect, be replaced by regional outposts, which could mean that the influence of the universities will be reduced. All the research which universities do and the facilities they provide at the clinical frontier may also be reduced.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that we will not simply have a token university representative in each enlarged region, but that the proportion of university representatives will be maintained in the new structure so that the extremely valuable quantum of their influence is not lost.
  The next point I wish to make briefly relates to public health. Representations were made on that issue by Labour Members earlier in the debate, particularly by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). Public health doctors are concerned at the way in which the independence and discretion of members of the medical profession will be affected by the changes. Will they be able to speak freely on public health issues within the range of their responsibility, or will they always have to seek authority from the region—or possibly even from the Department of Health—before they speak on public health issues?
  It is extremely important that consultants in public health medicine should have the liberty to express their medical opinion. There is a danger otherwise that the Government may naturally wish to play down a particular issue because of its political consequences, whereas public health specialists might wish to speak out to make the public aware of the medical consequences.

  675
  One way of dealing with the issue might be to require in the statute that each health authority should produce an annual report on the state of public health within its region, so that the public would at least be able to see the authority offering to make itself accountable on public health issues.
  Midwifery has been subject to statutory supervision, which has ensured high clinical standards. At present, the regional health authority is the local supervising authority. The Royal College of Midwives has called for supervision to be retained on a statutory basis, and I hope that the Government will support and accept that call.
  I suggest that the local supervising authority should be at purchaser level, so as to ensure the effectiveness and directness of supervision. In that context, will the Minister also tell the House whether the Government will retain maternity service liaison committees, which have served midwives and patients well?
  I shall make a brief, but important, point about student nurses. It is right that nurse training has been improved, and that has been beneficial, but the Royal College of Nursing produced a survey within the last fortnight which showed clearly that many student nurses are simply not able to survive without working elsewhere during their courses. In many areas, it is extremely difficult for student nurses to obtain other work. The result is that student nurses—who work long hours and are gaining more and better professional qualifications—are being forced beneath the breadline. I do not think that we should be training nurses in that atmosphere.
  Finally, I wish to mention the future of district general hospitals, and to do so I return to the speech of the hon. Member for Hereford. Hereford is a good example of a city with a district general hospital service—I shall leave the buildings out of it at present—which is extremely good. It does not provide the entire range of medical services, but the broad sweep is catered for by a competent group of clinicians.
  The trend now, which one can understand, is towards emphasising centres of excellence, or specialist treatment centres—it does not matter whether they are in the public or the private sector—which provide good-value treatment in particular specialties. Those centres do, of course, have a role to play.
  The Welsh Office Minister who is present tonight gave evidence to the Welsh Select Committee recently in connection with specialist treatment centres. In that evidence, he made the point that the percentage of treatment within the given specialty which the treatment centres in Wales provide is still very limited. I accept that that evidence is right, but the centres are a burgeoning trend.
  There is a feeling in the national health service that the growth of centres of excellence may prove to be a threat to district general hospitals in cities such as Hereford. Ministers must watch closely as the situation develops. If district general hospital services are significantly reduced, we will inevitably see the closure of a large number of district general hospitals and, by that token, a reduction in services to the community. I hope that the Government accept that around every accident and emergency service there exists the need for a wide range of services which are best provided in a district general hospital.
  During what I hope has not been too long a speech—I am the only hon. Member speaking for my party in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker—I have sought to
  676
  highlight six specific points of concern to me and to my colleagues. I have studied both the Bill and the notes on clauses, and not a great deal of light has been shed upon the clauses as a result of that study. Some light may be shed upon those real live doctor-patient issues by the Minister in Committee. Just a little chink of light when the Minister comes to sum up the debate tonight would be much appreciated.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: The lack of passion from Opposition Members during a debate on a matter that I always thought they claimed as their subject has been remarkable. Indeed, if one looks around the House tonight, one can see three Labour Back Benchers and three Opposition Front-Bench Members in their seats. That is extraordinary from a party that always says that it makes the running on health.
  The reason for the lack of passion is that the Opposition are concerned where to step, because they know perfectly well that they have no real policy on the subject. They also know that the Labour party is moving slowly, steadily and inexorably towards an acceptance of the Government's health service reforms. It cannot do anything else, because—despite the blustering of one or two Opposition Members—it knows that our health reforms are working and that the health service has improved out of all recognition from when the Labour party was last in office.
  Why should not the Opposition accept our recommendations? After all, in recent months they have accepted a great deal of what the Government have done in their period of office. The Opposition appear to have accepted competitive tendering, privatisation and even educational league tables. Some Labour Members even accept the idea of opted-out schools. It is inevitable that the Opposition will slowly move towards an understanding that our reforms have been a success.
  On a more serious note, however, if one digs deeper into the Opposition's lack of policy, the makings of a policy can be found. A clue to it can be found in the Opposition amendment, which refers to "regional public health directors" and their document, "Health 2000", published in February, which spoke about a possible regional form of health service.
  We know that the Opposition are seeking to break up the United Kingdom. We have heard about a parliament for Scotland and what is called an assembly for Wales.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not clear how those points relate to the Second Reading of a Bill.
  Mr. Atkinson: If you will bear with me for a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will prove how they do.
  Just as the Opposition want regional assemblies for England, so they propose their form of regional health authorities. That proposal would re-politicise the health service, when the Government have successfully de-politicised it. Such a shift is extremely important.
  I served on a district health authority for some years in the bad old days, when the DHAs were dominated by local councillors or the placemen of local councils. I must admit to being one of those placemen, because a local authority put me on a health authority board.

  677
  At the time, I had scant knowledge about the health service, but I am pleased that it is now run by professionals rather than those who were appointed to DHAs to politicise that service. That politicisation option had been proposed many years ago, but it had been rejected by the then Labour spokesman, Nye Bevan.
  The result of the politicisation of the health authorities was quite appalling for patients, especially in regions dominated by the Labour party. Those Labour DHA members had at heart not the best interests of patients, but those of the unions and union members. Labour councils also appointed health workers from one DHA area to sit on the DHA of another. They were not interested in looking after the interests of patients; what mattered to them was looking after the interests of their fellow professionals by adopting a "make work, improve conditions" attitude.
  Those DHAs resisted the closure of redundant 19th-century hospitals which should have been closed down years ago. They also opposed root and branch any form of contractorisation or tendering for hospital services. I remember that, when my local DHA eventually succeeded in privatising the cleaning services for one hospital, we were amazed to discover that that hospital worked on a 30 per cent. daily absentee rate. The contracting out of services revealed such arrangements.
  In those days, we had to work with COHSE, the health service union. A greater misnomer for a union one could not find, because that union continually reduced hospitals and their patients to misery through regular strikes at hospital laundries. That action was one of the union's favourite tactics. That union now represents itself as a new union, Unison, but I am sure that its agenda is the same as that pursued in the old days.
  One of the purposes of the RHAs was to sort out the mess caused when local authority boundaries and health authority boundaries were coterminous. That problem arose because of early reforms to the NHS in the 1970s. In those days, patients did not travel within their local authority boundary for treatment but continually crossed to where their doctors wanted to give them treatment, or where those patients wanted to be treated. The RHAs therefore had to have enormous financial departments to sort out the mess caused by such cross-boundary treatment.
  All those problems have been resolved through our creation of hospital trusts. That is why it is perfectly timely for the top layer of bureaucracy in the health service to be abolished. I must commend, however, what RHAs have managed to achieve in recent years.
  If I may be parochial for a moment, I am pleased that the headquarters of the Northern RHA will be relocated in Durham, rather than in Harrogate, as has been argued for today by some hon. Members. Durham
  678
  is the convenient choice, because it is in centre of the region. That RHA has offered an innovative solution to a problem involving my district general hospital.
  Mr. Bayley: Without becoming too parochial, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Durham is equidistant between Newcastle and Grimsby, which will be within the same RHA?
  Mr. Atkinson: Given that the new authority will include Northumberland, Cumberland, Durham and parts of North Yorkshire, I believe that Durham is conveniently close to the centre of that region and has good road links.
  My local RHA offered an imaginative solution to the problem posed by Hexham district general hospital. The solution may interest the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who might be faced with a similar problem in his constituency.
  The small district general hospital at Hexham is rather archaic—it was built as a temporary hospital during the war—but it serves a large rural area, and is loved and appreciated by local people. The difficulty was that the hospital could not provide the wide range of services, expertise and specialties that are available in major teaching hospitals and major city centre hospitals. The RHA's solution was most effective, because it welded Hexham general hospital into a joint trust with the Royal Victoria infirmary of Newcastle, which is one of the leading teaching hospitals.
  As a result of Government reforms, consultants from the Royal Victoria infirmary are now able to travel out to the district hospital to carry out operations. That change will bring the expertise of that major teaching hospital to the district hospital. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who is on the Front Bench now, will pass on to his colleagues at the Department of Health our optimistic hope that a new district hospital will be built on the existing site in the centre of Hexham.
  The RHAs have run their time. They served a necessary and useful purpose, because, in recent years, they have been helpful in establishing the reorganisation of the NHS. The final reform proposed in the Bill will ensure proper independence for the trusts, better financial savings and a better service to patients.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: So far, hon. Members have addressed the issues of bureaucracy and accountability. I accept that they are important and central to the Bill, but the most important issue is whether the abolition of RHAs and the merger of FHSAs and DHAs will improve the health of the people.
  The most fundamental principle of the NHS is that of equity—that patients, irrespective of where they live, should be treated on the basis of need and on their ability to benefit from health care. That is the absolute hallmark of a public-sector, tax-based health system—a system into which we all pay and from which we can all draw health care, when we need it, on the basis of need.
  Under the Conservative Government, however, evidence has grown of stark, widening inequalities in health, both between different regions in the country and between different social classes—inequality in terms of access to health care and in terms of people's state of health.

  679
  Evidence of that appeared many years ago in the Black report, which was commissioned by the then Labour Government, but buried after the 1979 election by a Conservative Health Minister. The Select Committee on Health has also taken evidence of health inequalities. For instance, in our recent study of dental services, we learned that five-year-old children in Scotland, Wales and the North Western RHA had twice as many decayed, missing or filled teeth as children in the West Midlands, South West Thames or Wessex RHAs. What is more, the average number of decayed, missing and filled teeth is actually increasing in the poorest regions of the country, whereas it is decreasing in the richest region of the country.
  There are disparities not simply between regions, but between social classes. In the Health Select Committee, we were told that adults in social classes IV and V, unskilled and semi-skilled manual workers, when compared with those in social classes I, II and IIIa, white collar workers, had more missing teeth and more than twice as many decayed teeth, but fewer filled teeth, showing a lower level of treatment.
  Quite recently, in April 1994, an article by Peter Phillimore and others in the British Medical Journal identified the health inequalities in the Northern region. They found that adults aged less than 65 in the more depressed parts of the region, such as St. Hilda's ward in Middlesbrough or West City ward in Newcastle, were four times more likely to die—they had four times the standardised mortality ratio—than people living in more prosperous parts of the region such as Wylam ward in Tynedale or Whalron ward in Castle Morpeth. In other words, health inequalities are literally a matter of life and death.
  The problem of regional inequalities was first tackled in 1976 by the last Labour Government by introducing the resource allocation working party, which funded regional health authorities on the basis of the populations in the regions weighted by death rates in those regions. That basis of funding the national health service has continued ever since.
  However, the abolition of regional health authorities as a result of the Bill means that a new funding formula would be needed, because one can no longer fund on the basis of regions. Therefore, last year, the Department of Health commissioned research from a group of health economists at the university of York, to develop a new formula to fund district health authorities.
  The researchers found that the current formula underestimates the need for health are in deprived areas, principally in the north of the country and in inner cities, because it takes no account of the health implications of social deprivation. They found that indicators such as unemployment, the proportion of the population who are lone parents, the proportion of elderly people living alone with no carer, and the proportion of ethnic minorities, were good indicators of the amount of health need and the resources required to meet it.
  The York research team published its findings in the British Medical Journal on 22 October 1994. It estimated that, using its formula, the Northern regional health authority should receive 2.8 per cent. more in relation to acute care to meet the health needs of the population in the Northern region, compared with the health needs of populations elsewhere in the country. By contrast, the
  680
  team found that, as far as acute care is concerned, the Oxford regional health authority received 4.8 per cent. more than its entitlement on a needs-based assessment.
  The team also produced a formula for the provision of services for mentally ill people. It found that the North East Thames region received 15.4 per cent. less than its entitlement for psychiatric services, and that the Wessex region received 17.5 per cent. more than its entitlement when the health needs of the population in the region were taken into account.
  The day before the researchers published their results—perhaps the timing was co-ordinated—the Department of Health issued a letter to all finance directors in the national health service in England, departmental letter FDL (94)68, which accepted the main thrust of the York researchers' argument and said that it would apply the York formula to the majority of the NHS budget. The Department made some modifications, but it chose the York formula as a basis for the new allocations to health authorities.
  It therefore shocked me to find out last week, from a Department of Health press release, that next year's resource allocation to the health service provides exactly the same 4.4 per cent. increase for each regional health authority, irrespective of the health needs of the population in the region. That will perpetuate the health inequalities I mentioned earlier, and will undermine the principle of the NHS as a national health service, meeting the needs of patients equally, whether they live in Newcastle or Bournemouth.
  The difference that funding on a straight percentage basis for each regional health authority in the country makes, amounts to very big money. With the help of some of the York health economists, I have calculated over the weekend the target allocations for each regional health authority if the York formula, which the Government have said they will accept, was implemented on the modified basis that the Government laid out in their letter to our health service finance chiefs.
  Compared with the actual allocations that the Secretary of State announced last week, the new combined Northern and Yorkshire region will receive £128 million less than its target, according to the formula that the Government say they will apply. The North Thames region will receive £103 million less than its entitlement under the formula that the Government commissioned, and which the Government say that they will introduce.
  By contrast, the South and West region will receive £40 million more than its entitlement based on the health needs of the population in that part of the country, and the Anglia and Oxford region will receive a massive £286 million more than its entitlement based on the health needs of the population in that area.
  I do not argue for swingeing cuts in the health service in the south. However, if the Government wish to provide a comprehensive health service which provides equal access to treatment for people throughout the country, they should be moving towards the allocation of resources based on health needs. They need a strategy for gradually correcting the imbalance in resource allocation that favours the south at the expense of the north, and this year they had the opportunity to do it.
  The press release last week, announcing the Department of Health's allocation for this year, said that the allocation amounts to a 0.85 per cent. increase in

  681
  addition to the rate of inflation. Significant new money is going into the health service, and that new money could and should be targeted on the regions that are underfunded at present.
  If one draws a line across the country from the Severn to the Wash, according to the formula that the Government themselves commissioned, north of that line the national health service receives £235 million less than its entitlement based on the population and the needs of a population; and south of that line the NHS receives £235 million more than its entitlement based on the needs of the population.
  That is unfair; it is unjust. It is unacceptable to meet the health needs of people in the south by cutting the health care budget for people in the north. If we are to continue to have a national health service, health resources must be allocated on the basis of patient need for care, rather than party political geographical allocation, which benefits people living in Conservative parts of the country.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Following the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), I am intrigued by his discussion of formulae and allocation. I have not studied the York formula, and perhaps he served warning on me, as a representative of a constituency south of the line that he drew from the Severn to the Wash, that I should study it, and with care, but I am bound to say that study of those formulae rarely repays the effort as much as one hopes.
  We in the North-East Thames region have, for some considerable time, perhaps been over-provided as a region. The resource allocation working party set up by the last Labour Government in 1975 started to move resources for a fairer allocation across the country.
  Within the North-East Thames region we have had lengthy arguments about the allocation of resources between the various districts. The most salient point to come out of the discussion about formula is the distorting nature of the regional health authorities. They have not just distorted the allocation of resources across the country—doubtless that argument will continue—but have distorted the allocation of resources within regional health authorities.
  They have done so to such an extent that the national formula used by the Government to distribute resources across the regions is discarded by the regions, which use their own formula. That formula is perhaps closer to the York formula, which reflects social deprivation and other such factors. North-east Essex has thereby suffered a double whammy. We are losing money as a result of the resource allocation working party and the trend towards allocating resources out of the London area. We have been losing money again as a result of finances being concentrated in the London parts of the North-East Thames region.
  Thankfully, the NHS reforms have, over the years, begun to resolve that problem. There was a wide differential between the amount of funding per head allocated to my constituents in north-east Essex and north Colchester compared with those in south Suffolk. As a result of the NHS reforms, that gap has gradually closed, and we are today much closer to attaining parity.
  682
  It is important that bureaucrats, whether in the districts or in the regions, are having less and less influence over the allocation of resources. As we see the growth of GP fundholders, as fundholders attract resources on the basis of their patient lists and their characteristics, and use that purchasing power—not just within the district where the district purchaser has purchasing power, but anywhere—we see developing an NHS that allocates resources more intelligently according to the natural signals developing in terms of the internal market. Resources are used more effectively and carefully by the GPs acting as advocates for their patients and allocating resources accordingly.
  It is no surprise that the Labour party, for all its modernising tendencies, should oppose the Bill. It has opposed every one of our NHS reforms when we have produced them. We no longer hear the scare stories about NHS trusts leaving the NHS. The Labour party is no longer able to make that charge, because it is ridiculous. No doubt the Labour party will make ridiculous and equally fallacious charges about the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said, perhaps the Labour party will eventually come to the same view on the Bill as it did about education league tables and grant-maintained schools. We expect the argument to continue to advance in our direction.
  The achievements in my constituency as a result of the NHS reforms have been considerable. All our provider units, to use the jargon—most people still call them hospitals—have moved towards NHS trust status. As a result, our acute unit has been able to expand and use its resources more efficiently. We have opened a day surgery centre and new surgical wards. It was recently announced that the unit's facilities will be further expanded to include a day surgery.
  That is not to say that those who work in Essex Rivers Healthcare do not have to work extremely hard, often under adverse conditions. We ensure that the money goes as far as it can. I pay tribute to all who work in Essex Rivers Healthcare and give them my moral support. We must not ceaselessly take advantage of the good will of those who work in the health service.
  Perhaps one of the benefits of the continuing devolution of decision-making power in the NHS is that one day we shall get rid of the old Whitley council arrangements for negotiating terms and conditions. We could then apply much more modern terms and conditions, with better pay for those who most deserve it, rather than being hidebound by the existing bureaucratic pay and negotiating structures.
  Essex Rivers Healthcare has to cope with discharge policy in the face of what my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) mentioned—the failure of Essex county council's policy on community care. Despite there having been a 66 per cent. real-terms increase since 1991 in the funding of community care in Essex county council, the Labour party has cocked it up—not to put too fine a point on it.
  That just shows that, for all the caring good will—I am sure that those involved are nice people who care—they are incapable of delivering the policies that people expect and on which the most vulnerable in society depend. That inability has a knock-on effect in the NHS, and ultimately places a strain on the good people who work in the Essex Rivers Healthcare who have to make decisions about discharging patients. It is rich for the Opposition endlessly to say that they would look after the health service better

  683
  than we do. That is another example of Labour policies, even in county councils, having a detrimental effect on the NHS.
  The mental health services in Essex took on NHS trust status soon after the NHS trusts were first announced. We have a trust called New Possibilities, for people with learning disabilities. All the NHS trusts have become innovative examples of what can be achieved. The New Possibilities trust has started an employment agency specifically for people leaving the old-fashioned system of care under the health service. It moves people into the community and ensures that they find a job. That is an example of innovation that we should surely support.
  We also have large numbers of GP fundholding practices that greatly benefit patients in the district. My constituency contains the first single GP fundholder. I urge the Government not to dismiss such innovation. In the initial study, single GP fundholding practices were found not to be cost-effective, but that was because they were given the same start-up funding as multi-GP fundholding practices.
  Although I am certain that the money may have been put to good use, surely a single GP setting up as a fundholder does not need the same start-up money as a multiple GP practice. That must have had a detrimental effect on the cost-benefit analysis of the study. I urge Ministers to continue to study single practice GP fundholders—a good innovation that works extremely well in my constituency. I wish that we had more of them.
  The abolition of the regions is a natural consequence of the NHS reforms. The existing regional structures have done good work over the years, but are part of the old command and control system—the Stalinist system, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State called it. That is no longer necessary, as so many decisions on the allocation of resources at local level are now taken at local level.
  Opposition Members often criticise the rise in bureaucracy in the NHS, but the new policy gets rid of bureaucracy, and it is entirely natural that we should have moved some of the bureaucrats out of the regions and districts and into the hospitals and GP fundholding practices where the decisions are made. It naturally follows that we need to cut out the bureaucracy that has now become obsolete.
  It is only natural that people sitting behind rows of desks in large office blocks feel that they are doing useful jobs; perhaps they are, but they are not as useful as they used to be, and they are certainly less important now.
  I confess that, on my one visit to the headquarters of the North East Thames regional health authority, I was staggered by the size of the building. I lusted after the time when we would have NHS trusts all over Essex taking the decisions, and we would be able to get that distant London-based bureaucracy out of our hair. That has now happened, and we are better off as a result. We do not need regional interference in local policies of the type from which we used to suffer. The job of the regions is obsolete now that we have the trusts.
  The development of specialist services is no longer planned by the regions in the way envisaged when the RHAs were first established. The Opposition amendment obliquely mentions cancer services. Decisions about cancer provision and anti-cancer strategy are being made now by the London implementation group, which is
  684
  taking a more keen look at the general provision of cancer services across the regions—a view that a single region could never enjoy on its own. A much more co-ordinated approach is needed. We are moving towards a health service that takes the day-to-day decisions at a level ever closer to the patient; and strategic decisions are planned unashamedly strategically.
  Although this may raise bogus fears about accountability, the only accountability that really matters is to the patient, when he or she gets the treatment required. As a party, we are happy to remain accountable to the British people. If they are not satisfied with the service, no doubt they will say something about it at the general election.
  All the evidence shows that patient satisfaction has improved. Of course, Opposition Members go on talking up what usually prove to be false fears about the state of the health service, but more patients are being treated and are satisfied with that treatment. If one asks an ordinary person what he thinks about the state of the health service, he will pick up the adverse vibrations sent out to him by—usually—an Opposition Member. If one asks him, however, about his own doctor or hospital, he will say what marvellous treatment he has received at their hands.
  Accountability brings me to the membership of health authorities. I am very pleased that, once again, Ministers have made it clear that we are not going back to the argy-bargy political meetings held by the old-fashioned health authorities at a time when people were appointed to them as part of the process of handing out the political spoils of office to councillors. People used to end up arguing about the PLO and many other things that had nothing to do with the health service. The real decisions were not made, and if they were made, they were made far too late.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: I am not giving way.
  The internal market in today's health service provides the information that is needed to make decisions in the service which allocates the resources. This Bill is a natural consequence of the continuing and successful reform of the NHS, and I commend it to the House.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. John Gunnell: I am one of the few Opposition Members to have served as a member of one of the new health authorities. I should like to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) that I was not appointed because of my support for the Tory party.
  My second relevant experience lies in the fact that I, like those who work for the RHAs, was once abolished. I used to be the leader of a metropolitan county council, but then I was abolished, and the father of the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) had a hand in that.
  My third relevant experience—the most important one—has come during the past two and a half years of handling queries from constituents. Conservative Members may say that constituents are always complimentary about the nursing care that they receive and so on, but hon. Members are also brought a great many cases of real difficulty. I know of a whole series of such cases, of which perhaps the worst was the one that I

  685
  cited earlier—the person whose operation was stopped after he had been anaesthetised. Such cases lead me to comment on this Bill.
  I oppose the abolition of the regional health authorities, not from dogma but because I think that abolition will bring to the health service two things that we could do without: centralisation and fragmentation. One result of abolition will be that the strategic planning of the service moves from tie region to the centre. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East pointed to the number of functions that the regional offices will continue to carry out.
  The difference between the regional offices and RHAs is that the former are accountable upwards, to the NHS executive and to the Secretary of State, but they contain no members who are accountable to other bodies. The current RHAs may have been accountable only in a limited way, but at least there was more downward accountability. That means that strategic decisions will henceforth be taken out of the public eye, because they will be made exclusively in regional offices.
  This, too, is very like the abolition of the metropolitan counties. A whole range of decisions previously taken by those democratically elected bodies moved away to regional offices and were taken by regional civil servants.
  There will also be less coherence of service within a given region—that is where the fragmentation comes in. At present, RHAs at least consider the context of a region generally. With a series of separate authorities, there will be fragmentation, making it even harder to achieve an equitable distribution around a region. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) has already pointed out the inequity of that distribution.
  Furthermore, some services will be dumped when the RHAs disappear. They will disappear without trace—another striking parallel with what happened when the metropolitan counties were abolished. Some services, such as the Crown Prosecution Service, were immediately centralised; some remained in a recognisably accountable form. But the powers of such bodies—the joint boards for police, fire and public transport—were gradually whittled away, and smaller, specialised services were lost. That happened not because the powers to promote, say, an archaeology service disappeared, but because the authorities responsible for such services had no money with which to perform them.
  The greatest loss, however, was the loss of accountability.
  Mr. Michael Trend: The hon. Gentleman has made the rather serious allegation that some services might be dumped as a result of the Bill. Would he care to give us an example?
  Mr. Gunnell: I shall shortly be offering a quotation precisely with that in mind.
  I should like first to deal with the money that it is claimed will be saved. There is not much evidence that the £150 million savings have been thought through. The abolition of the metropolitan counties was based on the idea that enormous savings would accrue. Research showed that there would be no savings before or after abolition. The savings argument was bogus. We shall be surprised if any savings as a result of abolition go to the care of patients.
  686
  The region is not being entirely discounted. Under the process of accountability each region will be represented by one person, a respected local figure, and he will somehow be responsible for that region. How can one person take that on and be a respected local figure in the whole of the Yorkshire and the northern region? It is facile to say that such appointments will not be political because the eight people who will represent the regions will be on the policy forum at the centre and will inevitably be members of the Conservative party.
  My experience of being appointed to an authority as a Labour party member was interesting. I was invited to meet the chief executive of the health authority and he asked whether I would be willing to serve on it. He knew my background and where I stood politically. I had many commitments at the time so I said that I had doubts about serving. I had been asked to serve because I was a member of Leeds city council and I suggested that another member of the council might be willing to serve. I was told that only three members of Leeds city council were acceptable. I am not sure what that made me.
  One of the three was already on the regional health authority and another was on St. James's hospital trust. That left me and I was told that if I did not take the job there would be no representation from the city council. I discussed it with the leader of the council and we agreed that it would make sense for me to become a member of the health authority and chairman of the social services committee. It was clearly seen as a political appointment, and it is facile to pretend that such appointments are not. That is not to say that they are all political appointments, but the eight people who will be regional bosses will be the ears of the Secretary of State, and those ears will be very sensitive to the policies of the Conservative party.
  There are non-political appointments to health authorities. I was one, and it is the job of people on such authorities to make them work. The new health authorities are probably not as bad as we say and not as good as the Government make out. One specific achievement by Leeds health authority which was brought about by the reforms is that before the reforms it was almost impossible to get an abortion in Leeds. As soon as the providers found out that there was income to be had from abortions, they became available in Leeds, and that was a welcome change.
  A fellow member of Leeds health care was a non-political appointee. He is David Hunter of the Nuffield Institute for Health at the University of Leeds. In the research paper provided by the Library, Mr. Hunter states what would be lost when the regional health authorities were abolished as:
  "arbitrating in local disputes; providing a challenge to local myopia in service development and commissioning; encouraging innovation and new ways of doing things; and promoting health strategy development, community care and priority services, research and development, and health alliances. In theory, purchasers and providers ought to be able to inherit such an agenda. In practice some will but many more won't."
  I have two questions about the changes and the merger between Leeds and Yorkshire. Why Durham? No contracts have been let because a site has not yet been chosen. However, £2 million has been spent on the centre in Harrogate to bring it to a high standard. Was that taken into account when the issue was discussed and studied?
  Under the Minister's proposals, Quarry house in Leeds will lose 200 employees, which is, I think, 21 per cent. of its staff. A tremendous amount has been spent on Quarry

  687
  house and if 200 staff are going there must be space for 135 from the new regional health authority without having to build anything extra. Have the Government considered the costings and found that it is cheaper to construct a new building in Durham than to use the space that they have created in Leeds by partly emptying Quarry house? The sums do not add up.
  We oppose the abolition but look somewhat favourably at the merger of the district health authority and the family health services authority. As the chairman of the social services committee in Leeds I have worked with both authorities and to me it makes a great deal of sense to put responsibility for primary and secondary care together.
  Why will fundholders be more directly linked to the regional offices than to the new authority? The authority should be responsible for fundholders as well because if it is not that will perpetuate the current inequity. Conservative Members have not answered our questions on purchasing. As the numbers of fundholders increase, the purchasing role of health authorities will decrease. By acquiring primary care they have obviously increased their purchasing powers a great deal. Will health authorities still have a real role in that context?
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Michael Trend: I welcome the Bill and the overall progress of the Government's health reforms. I recently had the honour to attend an international conference at one of the royal colleges at which people from health services all over the world were gathered. It was clear that our health reforms were in the international league and that other countries were looking to us with our experience. Not all of them had done what we have done, and the United States was on a completely different tack.
  Fundamentally, the reforms are held together internationally by the purchaser-provider split, which was pioneered in this country and has made a real contribution to creating an excellent health service that the country can afford.
  The Secretary of State spoke about the OECD report. It states:
  "The command and control system of the NHS lacks flexibility, incentives for efficiency, financial information and hence accountability and choice of providers of secondary care."
  The health reforms have been widely praised and I also commend them. We began by addressing the trusts and fundholders. That is evidence of the Government's desire to have a more locally based national health system. Had any Government wished to create a centralised system they would have started by reforming or strengthening the centre. That was not what happened. First, more local systems in hospital and primary care were set up, and that shows the emphasis of the Government's reforms.
  While that was going on, some people thought that the purchasing side of the equation was in danger of being left behind. Purchasing is central to the NHS. We have heard much about the so-called centralisation of the NHS through these reforms. Does the Bill centralise? I do not think that it does. It removes a vestige of the command and control system. It is extremely important that we understand that the new NHS will be based, and will be accountable, locally.
  What about accountability? The present system is working well in both trusts and fundholding. It is part of the evidence that we need to examine to ensure that
  688
  accountability is secure. As many of my hon. Friends have already said, we do not want to politicise the NHS, its management or its accountability. We must not forget community health councils, which are the voice of local people. I understand that their position remains unaffected by the Bill.
  I am not at all sure about Labour's regional plans. The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) did not clarify its plans for regional health services. I suspect that she is trapped in the difficult logic of Labour's proposed governmental reforms—perhaps having tiers of regional government throughout the country—and she may want some conterminous boundaries between regional government and regional health authorities.
  This is a debate about health services in the regions. However, I advise the Labour party to think carefully about its general plans for rearranging local government, or even central Government, on a regional basis. I do not think that the people of England would have any fondness for an end to their traditional national form of Government in favour of the imposition of new regional forms. It is a big can of worms for the Opposition. From the West Lothian question down to the English regions, it will provide a big headache for them in the months and years ahead.
  I want to say a few words about the formal relationships outlined in the Bill. First, when the new health authorities come into being, they must respond to what Ministers want in the development of the NHS. There will be a conduit of organisation coming down from Richmond house through Leeds to the new outposts, to trusts and on into the primary system. The means to achieve that must exist.
  Secondly, the new authorities must be effective. They must be able to do well the job that they have been given to do. They must be efficient and economical and able to direct scarce resources to the areas where they are most needed. Thirdly, they must be responsive to the local environment. It is extremely difficult to legislate for that, so I shall instead comment on the informal relationship that the Bill will establish.
  Health authorities have not always been responsive, but that is not the same as saying that they have not been accountable. The lack of responsiveness has arisen out of the old command and control structure. There needs to be a culture shift within health authorities. I shall give an example from my constituency. A distinguished local hospital—the Edward Windsor belongs, together with two other hospitals, to the local community trust. Last year, satisfactory plans for its future were proposed by the East Berkshire health authority. Shortly after that, the East Berkshire and West Berkshire health authorities amalgamated to make one Berkshire health authority.
  The new authority had different priorities and plans for health care provision in my part of the county. The new plans were not nearly as satisfactory as the ones that they replaced. One proposal was to remove the world-famous Prince Charles eye unit from the Windsor hospital. Another proposal was not to proceed with a number of elderly rehabilitation beds, which had formed part of the original plan.
  There was a vigorous local campaign. I took part in it, as did the local newspapers. A large petition was presented to Parliament. Doctors, consultants and many other local people raised their voices. The significant factor was that no one appeared to be in favour of the

  689
  health authority's new plans. No voices were raised in its support. The negotiations that took place, which were chiefly between myself and the health authority, were protracted. I was learning as we went along, and I felt that the health authority was also learning. The current position is more satisfactory because the eye unit has been saved and there are to be new and expanded clinical services. However, we have not reached any agreement with the health authority about rehabilitation beds for the elderly and it has now postponed a decision.
  My argument with the health authority was not a local argument in the sense that I was saying that we had to have that unit for Windsor, that it must not go anywhere else and that I was sticking up for my people. Of course there was an element of that—there always is. My argument was that the provision of care for the elderly, especially rehabilitation care, would be more appropriately placed in local community hospitals rather than in acute hospitals at some distance—sometimes a great distance—from people who wanted to visit their elderly and frail relations.
  We took advice from the King's Fund and others on current thinking and conventional wisdom. However, an impasse was reached because the health authority held one view sincerely and deeply and we held another—based on professional advice, not just narrow local considerations. In such circumstances and where all the local voices are ranged on one side, it is important that a health authority responds sensitively to the concerns of local people.
  The new health authorities, whatever they be—regional or district, of whatever type or composition—must listen more to local voices. I thought I heard that message clearly in the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. She said that there needed to be more flexibility—I think that she used the word "visibility". The health authority should be more visible. For example, we heard earlier about the chairman of a health authority who holds local surgeries where he is available for local people to meet him.
  We also heard today about public meetings on health matters—I have been to some—where almost everyone in the room is a health professional of some sort or another. The health authority calls the meeting and it sends a lot of people to it. Nurses and doctors attend, as do local Members of Parliament and local councillors. However, to get the general public involved, even through the CHC, is extremely difficult. It is only when a specific case arises, such as the Edward VII hospital, that the public have an understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, there must be far more "visibility" by the health authorities. They must work with local people because they are working for local people.
  We want a locally based NHS and I believe that the Government are delivering that through their reforms. We want that locally based NHS to be responsive quickly and with the minimum bureaucracy and waste. The Bill will help to bring about that desirable aim. However, if we go too far or too fast and do not take public opinion with us, and if the health authorities are not responsive to local voices, we will risk many of the benefits of our reforms coming undone.
  690
  It is most important that the public's confidence in the national health service is maintained at the highest level. Recent research shows that public confidence in the NHS is higher and growing. The Opposition say, on the one hand, that the health service is falling to pieces, but, on the other, that it is excellent. A constituent of mine, who I suspect is a member of the Labour party, also holds both views at once. He tells me that the health service is falling to bits, there is no care, and people are struggling in the streets and dropping like flies. He then writes to the local paper saying that he has been in hospital for a certain procedure and cannot not speak too highly of the doctors and nurses and the care that he received, and that he felt considerably better. I wrote to him and pointed out that that was excellent news and perhaps he would take a less jaundiced view about the health service in future.
  Confidence must be kept high. It is important to ensure that our health authorities in both their formal structure, which makes them locally based, and the informal advice and encouragement which we give them to listen to local voices, are the way forward. None the less, this is a good Bill. It will be good for patients and the national health service, and I hope that it receives a Second Reading tonight.
  8.30 pm
  Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock and Burntwood): This strange Bill is both short and long. Its substance covers but four pages, while its schedules cover some 50 pages. That shows that it is a framework Bill that takes powers. In this case, it takes powers to the centre where they can then be used in a variety of ways, to be spelled out later in secondary legislation. That is the kind of Bill which the Government favour. If the Bill is a culmination, as we have heard, it is a culmination of a whole way of legislating, in which one takes framework powers in a Bill like this and then backs them up with a battery of further powers in which the meat and substance are filled out.
  In some ways, this is a fairly uncontentious and perhaps even sensible Bill. For many years we have discussed whether it is sensible to have regional health authorities, whether their function could be defended or whether the time had come to remove them. It is possible to discuss that sensibly. The problem is that it becomes a more apocalyptic story about a process of health service reforms, of which the Bill is said to be a culmination.
  I shall ask three questions about that process of health service reforms. First, will it improve the quality of the service? I understand that that question is fundamental when we sweep aside some of the possible arguments. Secondly, will it improve the accountability of the service? Thirdly and more specifically, although it is important, will it enable people better to complain about the service if things go wrong?
  On my first question, I hope that the Bill will improve the quality of the service, because, for a long time, many of us have thought that the way to improve the commissioning—we prefer to use the word "commissioning" than "purchasing"—of health care locally is to amalgamate FHSAs and district health authorities. We felt that the division was artificial and made local health planning much more difficult. The fact that that amalgamation is taking place is, prima facie, an argument for the ability to drive quality upward as a result. However, I put it in terms only of potential rather than achievement because a huge job remains to be done.

  691
  If the Government say that the health agenda is complete in that respect, I argue that it has only just begun. A range of issues to do with the quality of health care are untouched. It is only the precondition for a concerted assault on issues of health quality. I refer particularly to primary care, where FHSAs, or their predecessors, family practitioner committees, have had the sole function of paying cheques to doctors. They have had no effective function in monitoring the quality of primary health care and seeking to drive up its quality.
  I hope that a consequence of that amalgamation will be to provide the armoury whereby that can now take place because there is a huge gap in our ability to achieve health quality. For example, in the past year alone an extremely good report has been issued by the director of public health for the South Staffordshire health authority. It identified for my area, Cannock Chase, a number of appalling and worrying developments. It showed that we had the largest number of single-handed practitioners, the longest lists in the district and the highest number of referrals from Gps to hospitals, which usually indicates problems in the quality of primary care.
  I took those problems to the Staffordshire FHSA. The analysis was linked to other evidence, which said that the area had the most health needs. As we have more ill people in the area, we have a mismatch: the poorest quality of provision and the worst health. The FHSA is the notional provider of primary health care, so I presented the evidence to it and asked what it could do about it. The answer, essentially, was that it could do nothing. It could have conversations with doctors and watch, but nothing more. That is wholly unacceptable. We must work towards a position where those who pay for or commission primary health care have far more ability to watch, monitor and drive up the quality of that care. That presents a huge agenda, and I hope that it will be grasped.
  On the issue of hospitals, the Government must grasp the problem in relation to clinical outcomes, audit and performance, which is a hugely neglected area. Many of the matters to which we have devoted so much energy over the years are of minor significance compared with those hard indicators of the quality of care—not what goes into the system but what comes out of it.
  Mr. Malone: I am tempted to invite the hon. Gentleman to come and join us because he is pointing out that the new system can tackle those agendas in a way that the old one could not. It is particularly important that he realises that the ability of GP fundholders to respond instantly to the patient need which he has identified is one of the great benefits of the reforms that are now in place. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that.
  Dr. Wright: I am extremely grateful for the Minister's invitation, which is the best that I have had all day. Nevertheless, he rose a little prematurely, because I was about to add that, if that is common ground, as it should be, what should also be common ground is a serious attempt to look at inequities in health care. If that is not common ground, I simply ask the Minister to look at the evidence presented in last week's British Medical Journal, which brings together much of the contemporary evidence on inequalities in health care.
  The professor who wrote the overview referred to the way in which "The Health of the Nation" devoted only one page to variations, not inequalities, in health among socio-economic groups, which are said to be the result of
  692
  complex factors. The British Medical Journal stated that it is inconceivable that changes in the genetic make-up of different socio-economic groups have occurred over the past 15 years to produce the increases and differences in mortality in Britain. That is an appalling and devastating commentary on 15 years of social and economic policies that have produced a massive deterioration in health equality.
  We use terms such as "life chances" in a glib and easy way, but here we are literally talking about life chances, which have deteriorated in the past 15 years as the result of a so-called trickle-down policy that was supposed to make everything come good. It not only failed to come good but came bad in a big way.
  Surely we could at least agree on health policy aims to reduce inequalities in health, then apply our minds to achieving those aims. Instead, we have failed to agree and the position has grown substantially worse. There is a huge agenda to tackle.
  Will accountability be improved? Is the Bill a decentralist or a centralist measure? Regional health authorities play a role in protecting and sponsoring health authorities and now trusts. They perform a variety of useful functions, and one must question what will happen to some of those roles when regions are abolished.
  Only last week, almost all the consultants at the Foundation Mental Health Trust in Stafford passed a vote of no confidence in its chief executive. That was a fairly dramatic occurrence and, by implication, a vote of no confidence in a rather ineffectual trust board. Those consultants were immediately able to seek the advice and guidance of the region, which acts as a buffer between the centre and the localities. When regional offices are no longer statutory offices with a status and integrity of their own but simply regional outposts, the relationship 'will change and roles will alter.
  Reference was made to problems in relation to the regional director of public health. The service needs every independent voice that it can get, and the Bill will reduce rather than increase independence. As the former chairman of a community health council, I regret that CHC statutory rights in relation to proposed trusts are removed by the Bill. We should strengthen the role of CHCs, users and consumers—not weaken them further. Every time that I hear the statistical arguments that were made earlier, the more I become convinced that the NHS desperately needs an independent inspectorate that can produce reliable information of a kind that does not exist at present.
  The most crucial aspect of accountability is the composition of the new health authorities. I return to the nature of the Bill, with its few clauses and vast number of schedules. It is extraordinary that a Health Authorities Bill should fail to answer the fundamental question of who will serve on the new authorities. Schedule 1 on page 19 of the Bill states only that there will be new health authorities, whose members will be appointed by the Secretary of State. Earlier, the Secretary of State told the House that they will be the best people. I have evidence of the best people who have been appointed to such bodies in the past, but Conservative Members might find it embarrassing if I presented it now.
  The new bodies will be the key commissioning organisations for health care in local communities, but the Bill does not say who will serve on them. Recently, the House considered the composition of police authorities.

  693
  It would not dream of allowing those authorities to be established by a Bill without any indication of their composition, yet it is doing so in respect of this legislation.
  Recently, the chairman of the Conservative party said that one could not have serving on health bodies people who were not in favour of the Government's reforms. That is preposterous. One wants people who are committed to the health service. It seems that to be passionately in favour of or passionately against reforms is cause for disqualification. One wants people with an acute sense of public interest, who will defend it and the NHS at all costs. The Conservative party chairman has stumbled into a miasma of patronage, without thinking of the implications of his remarks.
  There is now a test of whether the Government are prepared to roll back their public appointments process. Of course we need an open system and a commission publicly to advertise such appointments so that anyone who has something to contribute can apply, and normal civil service criteria could be used for selection. Such appointments must be taken out of the orbit of ministerial patronage and put in the arena of public interest. No wonder that Professor Chris Ham and Professor Hunter in Leeds both concluded that the Bill looks more like a centralising than a decentralising measure.
  The complaints issue, which surfaced briefly in the debate, is dealt with by the Bill only in terms of transitional arrangements, yet it is the Bill's biggest lacuna. On any reckoning, the present complaints system is a total mess. Sir Alan Wilson and his committee were asked to investigate that aspect as a matter of urgency a year ago. The committee reported in May and consultation ended in August. We were promised speedy action, but Professor Wilson is now expressing regret and disappointment that there has been none.
  Mr. Malone: There will be action. We shall bring forward proposals once we have considered what must be done.
  Dr. Wright: That is good to know, but I can only go on the present delay. There was a clear expectation that there would be such legislation as was required in the present Session. The present complaints system has been called chaotic by everyone who examines it—the health service ombudsman, Sir Alan Wilson, the National Consumer Council and the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts. A report on the matter was welcomed and broadly endorsed by every relevant party.
  The present complaints system undermines the most fundamental principles of the citizens charter in terms of speed, effectiveness and independence. It cries out for reform. This is a health Bill, but one that signally fails to take up the one option that would bring direct and immediate benefit to users of the service.
  There is now a certain ambivalence in people's attitude to the health service, as hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend)— have pointed out. Why do they feel passionately well disposed towards the service, yet passionately ill disposed towards aspects of the way in which it is run? I believe—this is meant, in a way, to be helpful to the Government—that something approaching a crisis of legitimacy is currently evident.
  694
  My theory—it is no more than that—is that the recent explosion of complaints about the service is not simply due to the fact that there is more to complain about; that is an easy point to make. I think that at one time people were not inclined to complain, because they felt that it was "their service"—or rather, "our service". Now they feel that it has truly become "their" service. A real test of legitimacy must be applied to the Government's proposals, and I do not think that the Bill meets it.
  8.50 pm
  Lady Olga Maitland: Throughout the debate, Opposition Members have carped and jeered at the NHS. I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) said about people's responses to his questions about their experience of the services. I receive the same responses on doorsteps in my constituency. People tell me that they are worried about the health service, but when I ask them about their personal experiences, they always express gratitude for the care and support that they have received. When I ask, "Then why do you feel as you do?", they reply, "It is what they say on television; it is what those Labour party politicians say."
  I am sick and tired of hearing a litany of disaster. I thought that it might be helpful if I quoted from the response to a questionnaire sent out by a GP fundholders' practice in my constituency, the Cheam family practice. That response is very revealing: 111 patients responded, 97 per cent. of whom said, interestingly, that they were entirely satisfied with the care that they had received. That is completely at variance with what the Opposition are trying to tell us.
  Mr. Morgan: We surrender.
  Lady Olga Maitland: I am delighted to hear it. I could take up hon. Members' time by going through the rest of the questionnaire, which contains many points that you
  now beg me to mention. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] You do not want to hear the truth.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Lady must not keep using the word "you"; the Chair has nothing to do with this discussion.
  Lady Olga Maitland: I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there are times when I feel somewhat goaded.
  It might be beneficial and educational for Opposition Members to hear a little more about the questionnaire, although originally I did not intend to impose it on the House. To the question
  "On entering the ward were you made to feel welcome?",
  86 per cent. of patients replied, "Absolutely." When asked,
  "Were your family/friends made to feel welcome?",
  98 per cent. said yes. When asked,
  "Did staff respond quickly to requests for assistance?",
  82 per cent. said yes. When asked, "Were you given privacy?", 100 per cent. said yes. Again, 100 per cent. said yes to the question, "Was your linen clean?". There must be some sense of reality about the kind of patient care that is actually being delivered.
  I welcome the Bill. At first sight, it might strike many patients as no more than an accountancy exercise; but many patients will benefit from it. Any GP's eyes will

  695
  light up when he sees how his practice will benefit. Let me focus for a few minutes on how the Bill will affect patients in my constituency. I see them as the VIPs who are at centre stage in the whole scenario; the Bill, after all, is designed to improve facilities in their daily lives.
  My regional health authority, South Thames, is scheduled to disappear as a result of the reforms. I shed no tears, because my constituents will be better served without it. The RHA's staffing level will drop from 400 to 135: that number will form the NHS local executive branch. It does not take much imagination to see how local medicine could benefit from the value of 375 salaries.
  Moreover, it is plain common sense to merge Sutton, Merton and Wandsworth district health authority with the family health services authority. It strikes me as perfectly normal for GPs to work in ever closer partnership with the district health authority, and from the same building. In this instance all parties will operate from Wilson's hospital in Merton: as a result they will be not a telephone call or fax away from each other, but literally just a step from each other's offices. Daily, regular contact to discuss mutual problems—particularly when the GP is playing an increasingly important role in managing patient care—can only benefit all of us. In short, we shall have a one-stop shop.
  The new chief executive of the combined health authority will be Mr. George Gibson. He is enthusiastic about making the GP the key link in the whole health-care system—the gatekeeper, as it were, who will determine who gets what and where. His input will ensure personal involvement as well. In his health authority alone, as a result of the Bill, Mr. Gibson will have the means to allocate £1.5 million more resources to front-line patient care—for instance, X-rays for lung cancer, tests for breast and cervical cancer, the delivery of effective drug rehabilitation care, health promotion such as anti-smoking campaigns, especially among schoolchildren, and more community health centres, especially on low-income housing estates. Indeed, why should there not be more district nurses?
  In the same mode, Mr. Gibson wants to provide more mental health care to help families who must care for relatives suffering from schizophrenia, Alzheimer's disease or deep depression. All those conditions impose great strain on carers, who badly need psychiatric nurses to be on hand. I hope that his "wish list" will bring on stream child and adolescent psychiatric services: such services, sadly, are needed more than ever as children suffer from the pressures of broken families and drugs.
  GPs, in turn, would have more resources to earmark for primary care. There would be help for children with special educational needs, crucial speech therapy and more physiotherapists. Surely he should have the power to employ a full-time carer or nurse if that means keeping a patient at home rather than in hospital, which is costly and not always necessary.
  I cite the example of a local case involving four people suffering from sickle cell anaemia, which is a painful and miserable illness. Between them they were in and out of hospital 800 days a year, and pain management was the main problem. It was common sense to employ a full-time nurse to look after them and to help them cope with the pain and provide the support that they needed. They were able to stay at home in familiar surroundings and hospital
  696
  beds were released for expensive acute care for others. I trust that the Bill will mean that more resources are made available to expand such services.
  It must be right that a GP should have a direct say in all aspects of patient care. More important, he should be encouraged to take a more proactive role, even if that means attending refresher courses. He should also be coaxed into offering more services in his surgery and given the necessary resources to be able to do so. That should apply whether or not he is a fundholder, but, clearly, the GP who is a fundholder will have more say in how his patients receive the appropriate care and, in addition, will receive the benefit of the extra resources made available as a result of the Bill.
  There are a number of enthusiastic GP fundholders in Sutton. However, there is anxiety to ensure that resources earmarked for primary care are ring fenced. That would certainly introduce the necessary discipline, especially where there is a temptation for a district health authority to become so immersed in its own spending plans that, despite the well-aired aims, GPs end up being sidelined.
  My fundholding GP told me what the extra resources would mean to him. He would like to improve his premises so that he can deliver more surgical care. It is nonsense to suggest that patients should have to put up with what I experienced years ago when I had to attend out-patients at Bart's to have a boil lanced on my thumb. It should have been done by my GP in proper surroundings. In future, a GP should be able to deal with all manner of minor surgery from skin lumps and bumps and the removal of cysts to joint injections.
  I know a GP fundholder who is also a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons. Once a week he carries out a minor surgery list which could include the treatment of hernias. Much routine work could be delegated in this way. With the extra resources, a fundholder should be able to employ physiotherapists, dieticians and counsellors and social workers should be brought in to work closely with patients who need extra care and support.
  If we were to stretch a point, we could follow the example of the general practice in Aviemore in Scotland which was visited by a GP whom I know and his teenage daughter. She had broken her arm while walking on the moors, but the fundholding practice had a 24-hour casualty service. The girl was X-rayed and made comfortable and only then allowed to go to a hospital in Inverness for an operation. Had she had a clean break, all the services would have been available in the plaster room for her to have been fixed up without having to go elsewhere. Would it not be marvellous if resources released for primary health care as a result of the Bill could provide such services? I have no doubt that rural areas in particular would benefit.
  GP fundholders should have the power to insist that their patients are placed in single-sex wards in general hospitals if that has been requested. I welcome the written reply that I received today from the Minister in this regard, but I am not certain that the patients charter standards to be issued next year, which will require hospitals to inform patients in advance when they will be accommodated on a mixed ward for non-urgent treatment, will be entirely satisfactory. The reply does not make it clear what patients can do if they find the arrangements unacceptable.

  697
  Is the onus on the health service to comply with the patient's requirements if a single-sex ward is not available immediately? I hope that, when establishing their contract with local hospitals, fundholding GPs will make it a condition that patients's concerns will be top priority and that they will not be exposed to embarrassment and forced on to a mixed-sex ward. There has already been some publicity about the issue, but it is not only women who are worried—I am told that men, too, are not always keen to be on a mixed ward.
  I heartily welcome the Bill. It may not hit the headlines, but the result will be that patients, at their most vulnerable, will benefit most. It is disappointing that the Opposition cannot bring themselves to support it wholeheartedly. The Labour party's proposals will rebuild overloaded bureaucratic structures, and pressure groups will have their say at patients' expense. Throughout the debate Labour Members have demonstrated their obsession with political appointments. Under a Labour Government, the health service would go back to the bad old days.
  I am delighted that the Bill deals with the real world. It will become law and provide improved services which patients need so badly, while Opposition Members bicker about how they will increase NHS bureaucracy. I doubt that patients will thank the Labour party for putting jobs for the boys first.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: Contrary to what the Secretary of State for Health and her colleagues have said in the debate, the Health Authorities Bill represents yet another blow against accountability, which has been attacked consistently throughout the Government's reform of the health service. Accountability must play a part in the provision of health services. However, with this Bill the Government are running away from accountability yet again and making the system less responsive to people's needs.
  Accountability is essential because it is the only way to ensure that patients' interests come first. As a result of the internal market process, emphasis on cost cutting is defining priorities far more than the wishes of patients. Services are being planned by accountants and business managers whose priorities are financial and have nothing to do with the caring professions or with patients.
  Under the Tories, business has taken over from service in the national health service. Patients have become "consultant episodes" rather than people. Applications for new equipment have become "business cases" to be negotiated with the private sector. In meetings, local health service managers talk about "strategic directions", "over-performance", "under-performance", "outturns" and "contract monitoring". They have figures and tables for everything—although most of them are designed so that no one, apart from the author and a chosen few insiders, can understand them. Bureaucracy has gone mad under the Tory Government.
  In the current dispute over local pay, doctors are putting in about an extra 14 hours per week performing management tasks, including preparing invoices on patient charges, drawing up contracts, assessing prices and talking to managers. The public can ask legitimately: why are doctors not treating patients in that extra time?
  698
  Yes, patients are suffering. Last week, one of my constituents was told that he would have to wait for months just to obtain a consultant's appointment. He was also told that he would have to wait about two years to have a very painful cyst removed, even though the doctors knew that the man's employers had threatened to sack him if he did not receive treatment, because he could not continue to do his job in his present state. However, my constituent was told that if he could pay for the consultation—if he could find £50—he would be seen by the same consultant almost immediately. That is privatisation by the back door, and the Government know it.
  The Bill further undermines the role of doctors and nurses in the decision-making process. It drops the duty to recognise local advisory committees of clinicians. It gives no details of any seats on health authorities that will be designated for medical staff. How will their expertise become part of the decision-making and oversight process? I know from my experience in social services that finding out about the practical problems and taking a practical approach to their resolution is essential if management are to be effective in securing improvements in services at the point of delivery.
  Staff are a part of the accountability equation. Some months ago, a report by the health advisory service on mental health services in Doncaster was published. One of the problems clearly identified was the lack of consultation of staff and the lack of weight given to their opinions by management. If there are no clear lines of accountability in the NHS, that situation will be duplicated throughout it, with the inevitable consequences for planning, for the efficient use of resources and for patient care which flow from such failures. The report also found that a number of service users and their groups felt that the consultation was superficial. Clearly, people who matter are being excluded from the decision-making process.
  The Bill is yet another example of how the Tories treat the NHS as just another business venture. Maples was right. The Tories will never win on the NHS because they will never learn that co-operative, collective action works and that people are central to success. They can only understand competition, selfishness and market forces. They do not understand that the NHS is staffed by people, that the services are delivered by people and that the patients who are treated are people. We are not dealing with machines making goods. We are dealing with people treating people and with the need to get the very best from the highly trained and skilled people in the NHS. The Government's approach, which undermines the rights of staff and patients, will not achieve that.
  The Secretary of State says that a light touch is needed. That can only mean limited co-ordination and a lack of accountability which will prove damaging in the long term. The new regional executive offices should not be centralising bodies which consider themselves to be responsible to the centre. If that happens, there will be a lack of oversight and the loss of a strategic, regional, co-ordinated approach. We shall be left with an even more fragmented health service than we have now. The Government have put in place a system of mini-health businesses which are run by their sycophants at local level. Locally negotiated pay will take us further down

  699
  that road. As the Government move to complete their reforms with the Bill, fragmentation of the service and privatisation by the back door will continue.
  The Government now propose that the health care function of the Department of Health should be run by the NHS executive, which will take full responsibility for the NHS. The executive will thoughtfully help Ministers with parliamentary accountability. Presumably the executive will give them their lines to read at the Dispatch Box, as usual.
  Another aspect of the proposals which suggests that someone in the Department of Health has a healthy sense of irony is the announcement that the Bill will reduce the costs of management in the NHS, a view parroted by the Secretary of State today. Surely that is a joke too far. Since the introduction of the reforms, in Doncaster alone administration costs have risen from £4 million to £6 million, a rise of 48 per cent.—[Laughter.] Conservative Members may think that that is funny; I certainly do not. Patients are entitled to know why that money is being spent on administration in Doncaster.
  That figure is completely separate from the 300 per cent. rise in managerial costs locally. Yet the Government expect £150 million to be released for patient care as a result of the changes. They are living in cloud cuckoo land. How can the Secretary of State, who has presided over such a massive explosion in NHS bureaucracy, tell the House with a straight face about the merits of reducing costs to plough money back into patient care?
  The Government do not—and, I suspect, dare not—say how they arrived at that £150 million, which is perhaps why they seem confused about how much, if anything, will be saved. If the changes follow in the tradition of the remainder of the Government's reforms, we can expect a vast increase in costs and bureaucracy. We shall find that health authorities have to take on some of the region's functions, but they will do so less effectively because of their lack of expertise. There will be local duplication of some of the work previously done by regional health authorities, and costs will undoubtedly increase as a result.
  Frankly, I do not believe the Government's claims about the national health service. They perversely attacked it for inefficiency and waste, but then created a new system which put incredible bureaucracy and waste in its place. Their claims about bureaucracy are not credible, just as their claims about waiting lists are not credible and were exposed earlier in the debate.
  The Government's business-oriented and competitive approach to the national health service is fundamentally flawed because their ideology is wrong. I look forward to kicking them out of Government so that we can build a national health service based on socialist principles, which mean that people come first.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Bill was presented to the House as bringing to a natural conclusion the Government's health care reform agenda. The end result is supposed to represent the Conservative party's vision of a national health service safe in their hands. In opening the debate, the Secretary of State described it as the "final building block" in a national health service that will survive while the Prime Minister lives and breathes.
  700
  The Bill is not an impressive conclusion or summation of Mrs. Thatcher's vision when first embarking on the project. What started—indeed, what swept in—in the mid-1980s like Boadicea's chariot, and caused almost as much chaos, is ending in farce and confusion, as if Boadicea had been replaced by Mr. Bean. Heralded as a streamlining measure, it attracts bureaucracy and leaves unanswered more questions than it deals with.
  Perhaps I may put this question to the Minister: if the Bill is supposed to save money, why is it followed by a money resolution? I suppose that the Minister will answer that it will save money later but may require expenditure of funds immediately. It certainly looks that way.
  There is, and always was, a case for merging district health authorities and family health services authorities in England and Wales, but it follows logically that the opportunity should have been taken to provide the national health service with coherent boundaries at local level, to parallel the well understood community boundaries used by local government. There is no case for a separate, geographically incoherent map solely for the national health service, which continues to be disfigured by demarcation disputes with local authorities about community care provision. The Bill could have dealt with that structural issue, but it did not, and the present situation will be allowed to continue. Whatever else the Bill may be, it cannot be described as the completed reform agenda of which the Government boast.
  The Government's second and more controversial structural reform is to convert the eight remaining regional health authorities in England to eight regional outposts of the NHS executive. The claim for that agenda is that it will abolish a layer of bureaucracy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) and others correctly pointed out, the Bill dloes nothing of the sort; it merely transfers the regional tier from the national health service to the civil service. 'The new structure makes the regional tier directly responsible to the Secretary of State.
  As civil servants, staff will be subject to the terms of the Official Secrets Act 1911 and their first duty will be not to the NHS or to patients but to care for the Secretary of State in the community. It is perfectly possible—
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Brown: I would have given way, but I am beginning to share the Prime Minister's opinion of the hon. Gentleman, who did not give way to me, so I will not give way now.
  It is perfectly possible that the agenda will increase rather than decrease the number of administrators needed. With the new joint arrangements between the different health authorities, it is quite possible that we shall put in place a new tier of administration, and do so in an ad hoc manner.
  In any event, the changes must be set in the context of the rest of the Government's health care reforms. Before doing that, I should refer to the first-rate speech by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley), who spoke of the injustices of the Government's current method of allocating resources, with specific reference to the absolute nonsense of merging the Yorkshire and Northern regions.
  The Northern region alone is the size of Wales, and the entire new region of Yorkshire and the North is the same size as Scotland; yet we are told that the resources

  701
  allocated to its regional office will be broadly similar to those allocated to smaller regions. It is difficult to conclude that that is anything other than a political decision. The Government are advantaging areas where there are Conservative seats at the expense of areas where there are predominantly Labour seats.
  The broader context is well known, but it will not hurt to remind the House of it. Since 1988, the number of NHS managers has increased by an astonishing 1,538.3 per cent. In 1993 alone, the number of managers employed by the NHS increased by 13.5 per cent.—this from a Government who claim to be committed to cutting bureaucracy. Since 1987, total costs throughout the NHS have risen from £1.44 billion to £3.02 billion, with an increase of 110 per cent. in administration costs alone.
  The proportion of the total NHS budget spent on administration, clerical and management costs rose from 8.77 per cent. in 1987£1988 to 10.8 per cent. in 1992£1993. It used to be a source of pride that administrative costs in the NHS were lower than elsewhere in the developed world, but the Government have thrown that advantage away with their new structure without demonstrating the corresponding benefits from the new system.
  We shall want to examine in more detail in Committee the allocation of responsibilities and functions between the health authorities and regional offices, but a number of important questions ought to be raised now. Who will hold the contracts of junior doctors? Who will maintain and monitor cancer screening services? That question was put directly to the Secretary of State, who responded by praising the services. I join her wholeheartedly in so doing—that is not an issue of contention between the parties—but she did not say who will maintain and monitor the cancer screening services.
  Who will be responsible for the vocational training of general practitioners? What provision has been made for a national overview of nurses' training? How will day-to-day responsibility for GP fundholders be managed, given that that responsibility is now passing directly to the Secretary of State even though the resources are to come from the local health authorities? It is a bit much for the Secretary of State to say that an incoming Labour Government would be centralising and totalitarian—she refers to us as Stalinist—when she is centralising significant powers theoretically in her own hands. When she said that a Labour Government would have authoritarian powers, she was perhaps referring to the structures that she will hand over to the incoming Labour Government.
  The training of nurses is an important matter. Training is being devolved, as I understand it—I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong—to local consortia of NHS trusts. As I have said, those consortia—they have yet to come into being—could create a whole new tier of administration. The structure is bound to make the planning of nurses' training more problematic, and it may result increasingly in shortages of trained nursing staff.
  The failure to address obvious long-term planning issues has been accompanied by a failure to invest in nursing training and the long-term future of the NHS. The Secretary of State seemed to recognise that problem, because, in what I took to be an effective adjustment of the contents of the Bill, she said that regional directors
  702
  would be invited to take a special interest in that matter. That suggests that the case for a regional tier is almost being rebuilt as the details of the Bill are examined by the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) rightly pointed out that public confidence in the proposed arrangements has been further undermined by the lack of any democratic accountability. The public interest will be represented on those new structures by the usual Conservative business men or close relatives or friends of Conservative Members. The public find that quangosity wholly unconvincing and they are fed up with it.
  A legitimate debate may be held about exactly where and how the lay interest of health service consumers should be represented in the NHS. I do not believe that there is any one absolutely correct method of representing local public interest, but it should surely be represented by people chosen by the public and it should specifically not be undertaken by those whom the Secretary of State has chosen—especially since they all seem to be drawn from the ranks of the supporters of the right hon. Lady's party and their relatives. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the right hon. Lady, who is muttering; perhaps she has thought of someone whom the public would accept.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has no recollection of Helene Hayman, among many others.
  Mr. Brown: The Secretary of State offers me one name that she has managed to find from the great list of placemen—one person who she considers I might think reputable. I accept that one name, but we are looking for more than that.
  Mrs. Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman would like a great list of names, I would be prepared to discuss them with him. He should bear in mind, however, that a great many people in the Labour party are becoming progressively more embarrassed by the need to identify them. They wish that the Opposition would turn round and say that they support trusts and the progress made in health authorities and stopped putting the frighteners on their own people.
  Mr. Brown: We do not support trusts, but it is permissible for members of our party to be members of them.
  Mr. Mans: That is not true.
  Mr. Brown: We have always made it perfectly clear that we do not support the trusts that the Secretary of State has established, but we want to participate in the democratic mechanisms of the NHS. A statement—now several years old—from the national executive of the Labour party authorised members of the party to become members of a trust if invited to do so. It is a lie spread by Conservative Members that members of my party would be under some disciplinary injunction if they participated in the work of a trust. That is wrong and untrue.
  I suspect that the reason why there are not more Labour party members on trusts is that they are not chosen by the Secretary of State and those who advise her. In fairness to the chairman of the Conservative party, he made it

  703
  perfectly clear that he wants to choose people who support the Conservative party to work on trusts and not supporters of its political opponents.
  I took what the Secretary of State said to be an invitation for more Labour names to be proposed to try to give some respectability to institutions of whose very structures the Labour party is deeply critical. It would be easier to put such names forward were it not for the fact that the exact composition of health authority boards is unclear. It is astounding that we are having this debate when we do not know from precisely which areas those who are to serve on the new committees will be drawn.
  We understand that the chairs will be appointed by the Secretary of State. As my hon. Friends have already said, in practice that will undoubtedly mean that those people will be political appointees of the Conservative party. The Secretary of State implies that I might be surprised. I am ready to be surprised, but I do not think that I shall be. The remaining five executive members and the five non-executive members will be left for the regulations to determine.
  I have to say to the Minister for Health, who is presumably to steer the Bill through Committee, that we shall expect to have the details before the Bill leaves Committee. The Secretary of State has said that there will be a role for senior figures from the world of public health, that there will be a role for the medical dean or equivalent figure from the world of dentistry, and that for the other posts she will seek in her appointments—for they are indeed her appointments—people with health backgrounds, a full range of health professionals. What that will mean in practice remains to be spelt out in regulations; it is not obvious from the structure of the Bill. The House is entitled to a full explanation of what it is expected to be legislating for before we legislate, not afterwards.
  The abolition of the regional health authorities removes the statutory position of universities and medical schools under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. As I am sure the Minister recalls, that enables them to participate in regional planning and decision making. It is not obvious what arrangements will now be in place for their participation in strategic decision making, and the Bill does not guarantee a role for health care user groups in the decision-making process of health authorities.
  As the Secretary of State contended in her introduction to the debate, one way of proving that everyone is content with everything is not to provide i unified system for processing complaints. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) referred to the work of Professor Alan Wilson, vice-chancellor of the university of Leeds, who chaired a committee to consider that subject and made some important recommendations, which the Secretary of State appears to have ignored. He recommended a single system, with similar features, for handling all complaints about NHS care and services. I took careful note of the Minister's intervention to my hon. Friend, but an intervention promising action in future is not the same as tackling the issue where it should be tackled: in a Bill that is intended to be the final building block in the Government's health care reform, although according to the Minister some cement is still to come—we shall see.
  704
  I should be happier if we were able to discuss Professor Wilson's recommendations in Committee. He recommended that the complaints procedure should be separate from the disciplinary systems. He recommended a three-level complaints procedure, including an independent panel chaired by a lay person and with a lay majority; he did not say anything about the Secretary of State appointing them all. He also made recommendations to widen the role of the Health Service Commissioner—another subject on which the Secretary of State has been silent. The Bill is intended to complete the Government's health reform agenda; yet the subject of complaints is not tackled.
  Although the Bill sets out to draw several new boundaries, the one boundary that has been overlooked appears to be the most glaring omission—the case for a strategic authority for London. Health care in London has a range of problems; yet they are all tackled in an episodic and piecemeal way. There is no London wide health authority or health care strategy and no London wide review of the condition of accident and emergency services. There is chronic underfunding of London health care. High levels of special need, caused by social deprivation in London, remain unmet. Indeed, there is a specific threat to units such as the North Thames region ethnic minorities unit because the passage of the Bill may leave no one to finance it.
  It is right to consider the other serious problems caused by earlier Government health care reforms which remain unsolved by the Bill: massive hospital in-patient waiting lists; a two-tier system of health care, of which the Conservatives are so proud, with GP fundholders able to fast-track their patients; hospital trusts which act like independent businesses and are almost impossible to call to account; and competition between hospitals resulting from the internal market and leading to inefficient duplication in some sectors and neglect of others.
  Local variations in service provision seem to many to be politically driven. There are continuing bed and ward closure programmes. In 1993 alone, the service lost 10,637 beds. There has been a relentless encroachment on public services by private medical interests and an astonishing growth in maladministration and even corruption, as identified by the recent reports of the Public Accounts Committee. Now there is an absurd, expensive and inefficient row about performance-related pay and local rather than national pay bargaining.
  We are told that all of this is the final, triumphant conclusion to the Government's health care reform agenda and the Government confidently ask the British people to judge them on the result. On that, we can all agree: I, too, hope that the British people will judge the present Government on what they have done to the national health service.
  9.35 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): We have now heard from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) that he and his party are against trusts. That is not quite what the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said earlier. I am pleased that we have at last managed to get the admission from them.
  Mrs. Beckett: This is deeply boring as well as extremely stupid. The Minister and his colleagues have

  705
  repeatedly been told by the Opposition that we are of course against the existence of national health service trusts. Had we come to power in 1992, we would have got rid of them. There are so many of them that all the individual hospitals are likely to be trusts. We are looking for a new way to re-knit individual health businesses into a co-ordinated structure. The fact that we are against health service trusts has never been in doubt, and it never will be, because they are destroying the national health service.
  Mr. Malone: The right hon. Lady has now adopted an even more interesting position—I hope that she has cleared it with her shadow Cabinet colleagues. She is against trusts which are destroying the health service, but her party is going to do nothing about it as there are too many of them and they have succeeded—that is an extraordinary position. In fact, the pass was sold by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) at the beginning of the debate when he helpfully said, from a sedentary position, that he and his party were the first ones to think of the reforms contained in the Bill, which were an extremely good idea.
  Mr. Hinchliffe rose—
  Mr. Malone: I shall be delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman so that he can expand on his position at greater length.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I do not think that the Minister was around in 1989 when what became the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 was going through Standing Committee. The Secretary of State was, and she will recall that the Labour position was that we would bring together the district health authorities and the family health services authorities, which is now the Government's position. Why have the Government taken so long to come round to Labour's policies?
  Mr. Malone: As the hon. Gentleman said, I was temporarily displaced at that time, but I continued to take a great interest in the affairs of the House. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has intervened in the debate and confirmed that he thinks that the Bill's principles are sensible. I am sure that that view is shared by his Front-Bench colleagues and by others.
  The right hon. Member for Derby, South did not know whether she was coming or going when she opened the debate. At one moment she argued 'that the Bill would ensure that the service was fragmented, split up and spread around the country so that there was, ultimately, no NHS, which would be the end of life as we know it. We then heard her say that she objected to the Bill because it would centralise everything. According to her, it is a centralising Bill and a fragmenting Bill at the same time, as well as being a privatising Bill. I am not sure which of the strands she intended to follow, but her arguments were entirely contradictory.
  What the Bill does, and what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out to say that it does, is to put the final touches to a structure that is now firmly in place. It is a logical and reasonable Bill to conclude that process and is widely accepted by the country. At heart, the point of it is recognised by Opposition Members who,
  706
  throughout the debate, have argued and given their views on the health service, but have not done much to criticise the essence of the Bill.
  The right hon. Member for Derby, South said that the executive was being floated off by the Secretary of State. Nothing could be further from the truth. The NHS executive is part of the organisation, accountable to Ministers just like the rest of the Department of Health, and it will remain so. It is informed by internal market guidance, just as the whole service will be. There are clear and practical ground rules for judging the balance between local purchasers and national responsibilities. Local freedoms and responsibilities must be kept in balance, and there is a simple set of principles further to improve the efficiency and quality of responsiveness of the service to the needs of patients. That is what the internal market guidance is for, and it largely answers the points raised by the right hon. Lady.
  The right hon. Lady also made the point that consultation on trusts would no longer be compulsory. I assure the House that there is no intention of abolishing consultation, which will be carried out by the Secretary of State or by the trusts themselves. It makes sense to cover the range of possible circumstances when consultation will be needed in regulations, so that we may adjust as necessary. That is better than rigid provisions that would entail primary legislation when circumstances changed. It is surely right to build in such flexibility.
  The right hon. Lady also discussed the abolition of professional advisory committees. Frankly, I do not believe that they were much loved. They were widely criticised and were ineffective. We shall be looking to health authorities to demonstrate that professional input is far more integrated in their work—input not just by the professions but across the professions. The integration of such advice is important; there are many models in the best health authorities of nurses and doctors either in executive posts or being consulted in other ways. They participate in constructive discussions between clinicians, purchasers and trusts, and the help of outside experts is also called upon. This puts the consultation process well beyond the formality that it sometimes became. It was often ignored and left on the sidelines: we are giving it real life.
  The right hon. Member for Derby, South also mentioned the independence of public health officials. District public health officers will report on the health of their local populations and will be free to comment on it. The regional role will become different under the new structure. It will be to carry out functions on behalf of the executive. No longer will there be a regional report on the health of a region's population. The experience of the whole service has been that, as care has devolved ever closer to the patient, it has become more important to identify local need. That is why public health functions, when devolved to district level, will be more effective at identifying trends and putting in place policies to deal with them.
  A couple of ancillary, and sedentary, points were raised at the start of the debate in connection with the Northern and Yorkshire regional office site appraisal. Of course the Public Accounts Committee can call for full documentation. Some Members of Parliament, including one who raised the issue, have already asked for, and received, a summary of what has been proposed. The only details left out are estimates of prices, which must be left

  707
  out as the district health authorities still hope to obtain better prices than have thus far been submitted. The whole process has been effected according to Treasury rules. There is nothing to hide; indeed, I am surprised that hon. Members brought up the subject at all.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) made a powerful constituency speech. I can reassure him that we have no preconceptions about the size of the authorities, about the organisation of the services that they will provide, or about whether local authority boundaries should coincide. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be consultation as the process continues, when provisional recommendations are drawn up by the regions. His powerful points of today will certainly be borne in mind. We adopted the same approach to the new regional health authorities, but that did not stop us changing boundaries in response to compelling local representations.
  My hon. Friend also made a couple of points about the provision of services. Of course the Secretary of State has a duty, clearly set out in primary legislation, to provide the whole population in England with a comprehensive health service. I hope that he will understand that, when authorities of whatever sort are shaping their services, they will have to bear that in mind.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) spoke about joint executives of district health authorities and family health services authorities. He underpinned the fact that those authorities are beginning to coalesce naturally and sensibly. I hope that he welcomes that. It has happened in my constituency and it has been very effective. The legislation recognises the coming together of structures.
  Mr. Heppell rose—
  Mr. Malone: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I listened to his speech and I wish to answer some of the other points that were raised in the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) was courteous enough to tell me that he could not be in his place for my winding-up speech because he has a constituency engagement. He spoke about weighted capitation, as did other hon. Members. Work is in hand to develop a new approach to resource allocation. It is a complex issue which needs a great deal of careful thought, but the Government remain committed to allocation by a formula which will demonstrate a clear need to devolve spending according to local need. That demonstrates our clear commitment to the principle of access to health care within and between regions in a properly informed way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North also spoke about health authorities competing with general practice fundholders. They are in partnership, not competition. The GP fundholding accountability framework, which has been published for consultation, should help to clarify that relationship in the best possible way. I hope that my hon. Friend understands that.
  The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) spoke at length about inequalities and resource allocation. I wholly refute his allegation that the north has been treated unfairly in resource allocations for 1995–96. Allocations to regional health authorities are not the real issue. The real issue is the allocation to district health authorities. Regional health authorities will take into account the
  708
  directions in the new calculations when they make next year's allocations to DHAs. There is no sense in making major changes to regional health authority allocations for the final year when there is only one year to run.
  Regional health authorities can be expected to manage changes to the DHA allocations at a sensible pace. I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it would be pointless if it caused substantial dislocation. As we move towards a new formula and its total implementation, we must move evenly so that dislocations do not occur.
  Mr. Bayley rose—
  Mr. Malone: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I said earlier that I did not intend to give way and my usual bonhomie in giving way must not be demonstrated now, as there are many matters to which I must respond.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) spoke about the public health function and the future of services. His fear that public health doctors will be gagged is entirely unfounded. Health authorities will be required to have medical directors of public health and to publish annual reports. That, not the regional level, is the right level for such reports. They will be crucial in determining the future of local services, and it will be for health authorities to decide which services are needed locally and which will be needed in specialist units.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman asked what voices would be heard on the new authorities. I reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in her speech—that it is important that the boards comprise the best people locally to provide the balance of skills that are needed. We expect that a growing number of members in executive or non-executive positions will have backgrounds in nursing or medicine or in other professions. That is a growing trend throughout the health service and I welcome it.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about consultation with community health councils. He will be glad to know that there will be no change in the requirement on health authorities to consult CHCs, nor is there is any intention of changing their number. He spoke about the local accountability of health authorities. I entirely agree that new health authorities should be clearly accountable to local populations. That can be done in a number of ways—for example, by establishing a single local body. The Bill simplifies local accountability arrangements, and that means that, demonstrably, the public will be able to know who is providing the service and who is purchasing it on their behalf and they will have a far clearer input to it. Health authorities will continue to be required to transact all important business in public, to publish accounts, reports and strategic plans and to consult widely on all key proposals.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman's final point was about the supervision of midwifery. The responsibly for that will shift from regional health authorities to the new health authorities. That is as the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes it to be, so I hope that he is reassured.
  The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) asked why the Northern and Yorkshire regional office is to be located in Durham. The decision on relocation follows an extensive appraisal of a wide range of options. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has authorised the regional health authority to pursue locations in Durham, subject to a strict cost calculation.

  709
  The hon. Gentleman also raised a point about policy board members not being representative of regions. We are not suggesting that they should formally represent regions. The argument goes to the core of what Labour Members think—that throughout the health service people should be representatives of sectional interests. That is not the way that we see it. We want them to represent the interests of the service and of the patients. We want them to be drawn from the widest possible constituency.
  The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) made an interesting speech, with which I obviously agreed at exactly the right moment because he then went on to disagree with everything that the Government are doing. He said that the Bill centralises too much, but he was one of the centralisers. He also said that the Bill gives too many regulation-making powers to the Secretary of State.
  I find it difficult to recognise the Bill that the hon. Gentleman described. It is always sensible to put in regulations the detailed provisions that may need to be adjusted from time to time. The majority of the enabling powers in the Bill already exist in relation to district health authorities—for example, provisions on membership and on joint working between authorities. There are already matters for secondary legislation. The hon. Gentleman may think that it would be far better to have a 700-clause Bill on these issues, but I do not. The future of the NHS is much better served by a flexible structural framework.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I understand what the Minister means when he says that some matters are better dealt with in regulations than in primary legislation, and on that point of principle there is no quarrel. However, on some of the key issues, we want to see what will be in the regulations before we let the Bill come out of Committee.
  Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman makes a Committee point, which he and I can explore some time in the new year. My point is sensible and straightforward. The issues that will be subject to regulation are no different from those that have been subject to regulation in the past. Throughout the debate, the Opposition have suggested that something novel is involved— [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) would remain silent for a second, his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East might hear what I am saying. There is nothing novel, in dealing with arrangements by regulation. Of course the Committee will explore the Government's intentions. I shall be glad to do so.
  The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood asked about the remaining statutory right for community health councils to be consulted. I have dealt with that point, but I repeat that we remain committed to consultation. They will be among the bodies specified in the regulations to be consulted on the establishment of new trusts.
  The hon. Gentleman also said that membership should be specified in the Bill. As I said, it would not be sensible to do that. It is far better to have wide powers and the ability to seek talent where we can and in the widest possible way than to follow the representative route wanted by Labour Members.
  710
  My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) made a constituency speech and raised a specific point about the Edward VII hospital. He asked what we could do about appropriate accommodation for the elderly. Suitable accommodation for elderly people is already available within a reasonable distance of the hospital. I have heard what he said and hope that he will take the opportunity either to write to me on that issue or to come and meet me, when I shall be happy to discuss the matter with him further.
  The Bill is the last building block of the reforms that we introduced in 1990. I am sorry that, yet again during the debate, we have heard from Opposition Members, including the right hon. Member for Derby, South, appalling slurs against all those who serve on trust boards and health authority boards, in terms of their selection and interest. I challenge the right hon. Lady to give a single instance of misconduct. If Opposition Members have evidence that they have acted against the interests of the trust boards on which they serve, I invite them, with the protection of the House, to give a few instances instead of those vague slurs against people who give voluntary service in the best tradition of British public life.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure which debate the Minister attended, but as I said nothing about members of trust boards, I do not know what he is talking about.
  Mr. Malone: The right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends forever talk about Tory placemen on boards. Nothing of the sort exists. If one wishes to discuss the position of people on authorities, one need look no further than the Labour party to see what instructions are given. I was fascinated by an Opposition Member's Freudian slip when he said that, at some point, the Labour party had "authorised" its members to serve on those boards. They get the authority from Walworth road, but it goes beyond simple authority. Not only is their appointment to boards authorised but they are given instructions. I quote from the "Guidance on participation" issued by the Labour party's national executive committee.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Malone: No. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman once I have read out the instructions issued by his party.
  The "Guidance on participation" says:
  "Labour party members may take up places on non-elected authorities and use them as a platform for our campaigning".
  Labour Members are not in the least interested in serving the board—they are interested only in serving their party. That is not all. The guidance goes on:
  "Party members who are appointed to non-elected boards must discuss ways of reporting back to their local constituencies and other constituencies … Consideration should be given to ways of liaising with Labour Party representatives in other capacities ….Members accepting appointments of this kind should inform Walworth Road so that the relevant Shadow spokespeople and Head Office policy officers can maintain a network of contacts".
  The instructions given by the Labour party to its representatives on boards are more detailed than those the KGB ever gave Richard Gott of The Guardian. I do not know how they are delivered—whether it is by dead letter boxes in Islington or tete-a-tetes in the Gay Hussar—but instructions are clearly given to make it absolutely certain that Labour members turn to party interests when they are meant to be serving on boards in the public interest.

  711
  The Bill puts in place important reforms at the end of a series of reforms that now deliver better health care at a better cost than ever before. The health service is now recognised for its excellence not only in this country but abroad. Opposition Members should look at the OECD report and British attitude surveys that are now being published on the excellence which people now consider the health service delivers. As I asked the right hon. Member for Derby, South to do, I ask them to look at the figures on this matter. They should look at the number of operations, the treatment that is given and the services which the NHS can deliver in primary health care, which it was unable to deliver before.
  That improvement across a system that is delivering better health care, better value for the taxpayer and increased volume of health care is something of which we can be proud. The Opposition have not made their case against the Bill. They tabled a token reasoned amendment but did not speak to it. I have every confidence in supporting the Bill before the House tonight, and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members who support the reforms to join me in the Lobby.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 308.

  Division No. 18]

  [22.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Church, Judith

  Ainger, Nick

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Alton, David

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clelland, David

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Coffey, Ann

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cohen, Harry

  Ashton, Joe

  Connarty, Michael

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Barnes, Harry

  Corbett. Robin

  Barron, Kevin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Battle, John

  Corston, Jean

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cousins, Jim

  Beckett. Rt Hon Margaret

  Cox, Tom

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cummings, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Benton, Joe

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dalyell, Tam

  Berry, Roger

  Darling, Alistair

  Betts, Clive

  Davidson, Ian

  Blunkett, David

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Boyes, Roland

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, Keith

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

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Denham, John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dewar, Donald

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

  Dixon, Don

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dobson, Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Caborn, Richard

  Dowd, Jim

  Callaghan, Jim

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Eastham, Ken

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Enright, Derek

  Canavan, Dennis

  Etherington, Bill

  Cann, Jamie

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Chidgey, David

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  712

  Fisher, Mark

  Mandelson, Peter

  Flynn, Paul

  Marek, Dr John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Foulkes, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Fraser, John

  Maxton, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  McAllion, John

  Galloway, George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gapes, Mike

  McCartney, Ian

  Garret, John

  McFall, John

  George, Bruce

  McKelvey, William

  Gerrard, Neil

  McLeish, Henry

  Gilbert, Hon Dr John

  McMaster, Gordon

  Godsiff, Roger

  McNamara, Kevin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McWilliam, John

  Gordon, Mildred

  Meacher, Michael

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Meale, Alan

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michael, Alun

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Gunnell, John

  Milburn, Alan

  Hain, Peter

  Miller, Andrew

  Hall, Mike

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hanson, David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Harvey, Nick

  Morley, Elliot

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Henderson, Doug

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Heppell, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mudie, George

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Hodge, Margaret

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Olner, Bill

  Hoyle, Doug

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Simon (Southmark)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Pope, Greg

  Illsley, Eric

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jamieson, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Janner, Greville

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rendel, David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Keen, Alan

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Rogers, Alan

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lewis, Terry

  Short, Clare

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Simpson, Alan

  Litherland, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Livingstone, Ken

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, Dew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Soley, Clive

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Spearing, Nigel

  MacShane, Denis

  Spellar, John

  Madden, Max

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Maddock, Diana

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mahon, Alice

  Steinberg, Gerry

  713

  Stevenson, George

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stott, Roger

  Watson, Mike

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Straw, Jack

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wilson, Brian

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Winnick, David

  Timms, Stephen

  Wray, Jimmy

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Turner, Dennis

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Vaz, Keith

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Teller for the Ayes:

  Walley, Joan

  Mr. Stephen Byers and

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Congdon, David

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Conway, Derek

  Alexander, Richard

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Amess, David

  Couchman, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cran, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Ashby, David

  Day, Stephen

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Atkins, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Dicks, Terry

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Valley)

  Dover, Den

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Duncan, Alan

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bates, Michael

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bellingham, Henry

  Eggar, Tim

  Bendall, Vivian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Boswell, Tim

  Evennett, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virgina

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowis, John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forman, Nigel

  Brazier, Julian

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Forth, Eric

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Budgen, Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  Burns, Simon

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Burt, Alistair

  Gale, Roger

  Butcher, John

  Gallie, Phil

  Butler, Peter

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butterfill, John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Garnier, Edward

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gill, Christopher

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Cash, William

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Churchill, Mr

  Gorst, Sir John

  Clappison, James

  Grant, Sir A (Cambs SW)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  714

  Hague, William

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibeld

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Merchant, Piers

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Mills, Iain

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Harris, David

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hawksley, Warren

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heald, Oliver

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hendry, Charles

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hicks, Robert

  Norris, Steve

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Horam, John

  Page, Richard

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

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

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Pawsey, James

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jack, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jessel, Toby

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Richards, Rod

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Key, Robert

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Knapman, Roger

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

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

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knox, Sir David

  Sackville, Tom

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Legg, Barry

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shersby, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sims, Roger

  Lidington, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lightbown, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lord, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Luff, Peter

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Maclean, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Madel, Sir David

  Spring, Richard

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sproat, Iain

  Malone, Gerald

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mans, Keith

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Steen, Anthony

  Marshal, John (Hendon S)

  Stephen, Michael

  Marshal, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stern, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stewart, Allan

  Mates, Michael

  Streeter, Gary

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Sumberg, David

  715

  Sweeney, Walter

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Sykes, John

  Waller, Gary

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wells, Bowen

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Thomason, Roy

  Whittingdale, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Willetts, David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Townsend, Cyrll D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Winterton, Nicholas(Macc'f'ld)

  Tracey, Richard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tredinnick, David

  Wood, Timothy

  Trend, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Trotter, Neville

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Walden, George

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Health Authorities Bill [Money]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Health Authorities Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure of the Secretary of State under the Act, and—

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act, and

  (2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act.—[Mr. Malone.]

  10.15 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I wish to make some points about the credibility of a money resolution to a framework Bill such as this. The Opposition want to know how a Bill—which is essentially of a take-powers kind—which contains almost no specifics about the number of health authorities that it will create, can be absolutely definite about the savings that it will provide. Although the Bill estimates that money will be saved, it fails to show how that saving will be achieved. The Bill contains no details about how it will save £3 million in Wales; it makes no reference to where that money will come from.
  The Bill contains categories of alleged savings for both England and Wales, but it does not address the major issues of a sectoral merger between the family health service authorities and district health authorities on the one hand, and geographical mergers on the other. How much money will be saved by each of those entirely separate aspects of the Bill? If the Bill is about savings, why do we have a money resolution?
  That brings me to my final point: if there is a money resolution—in other words, the Government have to spend money in order to save it—is the Minister talking about a massive redundancy bill to deal with the existing chief executives of regional health authorities and those for the joint authorities which have been set up already? I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
  When the Minister sets up completely new health authorities, will the present chief executives of joint health purchasing authorities—which have already been set up on a non-statutory basis—be guaranteed their jobs? Their jobs will be remarkably similar to those which have been set up on a non-statutory basis— [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. Let us have some quiet in the House; an hon. Member is on his feet.
  Mr. Morgan: Madam Speaker, I am grateful for your attempts to get a bit of 'ush—as they used to say in ray part of the world.
  This is an important point because it affects directly how much the Bill will cost the Government in the short term. Will the Government give the existing chief executives of the joint purchasing authorities any kind of promise that they will retain their job after the Bill is passed, or will they have to reapply for their jobs, as I understand is the case?
  Using the powers in the Bill, the Government will appoint a new board and a new chairman of each new merged health authority, and they will be entirely responsible for appointing the new chief executives. If they choose not to reappoint the existing chief executives,

  717
  there will be a massive redundancy bill. However, if they say, "In the general spirit of things, we will re-appoint the existing chief executives, although now on a statutory basis"—obviously there will be no redundancy bill. Is the calculation in the Bill of the huge cost that is to be spent by the Government to save money based on a redundancy estimate for the present chief executives of the joint purchasing authorities that are already in place, or is there an assumption, or even a promise to those chief executives, that they will keep their jobs?
  Mr. Malone: There is no such assumption. The hon. Gentleman can proceed on that basis.
  Question put and agreed to.

Privileges Committee
Relevant document: First Report of the Committee of Privileges (HC27)
Madam Speaker: I have not selected the manuscript amendment that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) submitted to me. No doubt he will deploy the arguments used in that amendment in his speech this evening.
10.19 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That Mr. Tony Benn be discharged from the Committee of Privileges.
The motion has been tabled in response to the first special report from the Committee of Privileges of 21 November. That report is very brief; I will read it to the House in full as it sets out both the background to the motion and the arguments for it. It says:
"At the meeting of the Committee of Privileges which took place on 1 November, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, Mr. Tony Benn, drew attention to part of a speech he had made in the House on the previous day in which he had said:
'Whatever the decision of the House or the Committee, I am no longer prepared to accept the present restrictions and if I return to attend future meetings of the Committee of Privileges it is my intention to issue my personal report of those proceedings that I attend. My reports will be based on notes made at meetings of the Privileges Committee and they will be as fair and accurate as I can make them. It will be for the House to determine how to deal with that matter, but I believe that I have a duty to make my own position plain in advance. I hope that the House will understand and respect my reasons for doing so.'"
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman's proposal this evening apply to future meetings of the Committee of Privileges on matters unrelated to this particular complaint?
Mr. Newton: That point will probably become clear from my subsequent remarks.
The report continues:
"Mr. Benn issued a summary of the meeting to the press and the public later that day. Your Committee recognises that the action taken by Mr. Benn was in consequence of his long-held belief that all proceedings of select committees whether deliberation or evidence should be open to the public. Whatever the merits or otherwise of this view we cannot condone Mr. Benn's action in publishing any report of a deliberative meeting. This is clearly contrary to the rules of the House which apply to all select committees and which only the House itself can change. Since Mr. Benn has declared his intention of summarising future meetings we have no alternative but to recommend to the House that he should be removed from the Committee forthwith."
As the right hon. Gentleman fairly acknowledged in his speech on 31 October, it is for the House to determine how to deal with this matter.
No one disputes the right hon. Gentleman's integrity or the sincerity of his view that all Committee proceedings, including deliberation, should take place in public. For that reason, I can say for myself and, I suspect, for others, that it gives me no pleasure at all to move this motion.
I must, however, also say equally clearly that, like the Committee generally, I profoundly disagree with the position that the right hon. Gentleman has taken up. I must, of course, emphasise that the point at issue here is not—this may be the point that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has in mind—whether the Committee

719
should take some or all of its evidence in public. The House has already reaffirmed that that is a matter for the Committee itself to decide.
Indeed, in a sense it is not even the issue whether the Committee should deliberate in public, although I must say for myself and, I suspect, many others, that I believe public deliberation—that is to say, discussion in public of how to proceed, of the content of evidence heard and of the conclusions to be drawn—would profoundly damage the search for consensus which is a key factor in the public standing and influence of our Select Committees generally.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Newton: May I complete my remarks? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate.
The essential point of the Committee's report, which underlies the motion, is that the Standing Orders of the House contain no provision for any Select Committee to undertake such deliberation in public. The House can, of course, change its rules on that, or any other matter, if it wishes, although I think that most hon. Members would agree that such a change could sensibly be contemplated, let alone made, only after a very thorough discussion of all the arguments, including the effects on the work of Select Committees.
Mr. Madden: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene as I do not intend to speak in the debate, but merely wish to ask a question before he concludes his remarks. For the benefit of the House, can he give us a clear sign whether he is giving a commitment that the evidence given to the Privileges Committee will be published without undue delay? Also, if any deletions are made, who would be authorised to make them?
Mr. Newton: It has been generally accepted—certainly it was indicated on behalf of the Committee—that every expectation is that all the evidence heard would be published, subject only to excisions, which the Committee would have to agree, for example, relating to court proceedings or to what might be construed in some senses as the irresponsible use of the privilege of the Committee to make allegations against other persons for which there appeared to be no foundation. The presumption is that the evidence would be published in full. Any decision to do otherwise would have to be taken by the Committee. I hope that that is clear.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Newton: Yes, but other hon. Members want to speak.
Mr. Skinner: In the past 20 years, many changes have been made in Parliament—starting with the Register of Members' Interests and, more recently, televising this place. Why do the Leader of the House and his friends want to keep to that old-fashioned view about Committees meeting in private? Is it not time that they came up to date?
Mr. Newton: I hope that it is clear—
Sir Donald Thompson rose—
Mr. Newton: May I answer first, rather than be drawn into serial interventions, and then I will gladly give way to my hon. Friend.
720
I hope that it is clear to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who has undoubtedly studied the report of the Committee's deliberations—the votes that took place on various motions—that the view that he attributed to me, as if I were expressing it on behalf of the Government, was widely shared by the majority of Committee members. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson).
Sir Donald Thompson: My right hon. Friend answered my question.
Mr. Newton: Meanwhile, in the absence of any such changes being made by the House, surely it must be clear that such a change ought not to be brought about by one right hon. Member, however distinguished and sincere, deciding to substitute his rules for those of the House.
The Select Committee on Privileges has been asked to deal with serious issues relating to the conduct of hon. Members and the reputation of this House. It is important for the House as a whole that the Committee should make progress with its inquiries and agree a report. The Committee has found itself unable to make progress until the confidentiality of its deliberations can be assured. It has accordingly asked the House to change its membership and the motion that we are debating has been moved at the Committee's request. For that reason, I ask right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the motion.
10.27 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for the spirit in which he moved the motion and the words that he used. I ask the indulgence of the House to allow me to present a different case, which raises important constitutional questions.
The motion before the House is very simple—that I be removed from the Select Committee on Privileges on the grounds that I have written reports about the deliberations of that Committee. If the matter were as simple as that—my replacement by someone else—it would not warrant a debate, for many other Members of the House are as well or better qualified to sit on the Privileges Committee, and I make no special claim on my own behalf.
The real issue that we are debating, however, is very different, and the Leader of the House touched on it. It is whether the House should in this case reaffirm its existing practice that no report should ever be published which deals with the deliberations of the Privileges Committee. I hope to persuade the House to reconsider the matter by voting against the motion that the Leader of the House has moved. I regret the fact that the debate has come so late, as I think it raises an important matter.
May I first deal with some preliminary questions which Members are entitled to have disposed of? First, a vote against the motion is in no sense a vote against the Speaker. The Speaker asked for a report to be made to allow the House to reach its decisions in an orderly manner, and the Speaker is in no way committed to the recommendations of the Procedure Committee.
Secondly, it is a House of Commons matter, and it can be decided on its merits. The Leader of the House referred to voting, and I should like to make the same point. Three of my longest-serving Labour parliamentary colleagues voted to remove me, and Conservative Members should be quite free to reach an independent judgment on the matter.

721
Thirdly, the House can amend, and has amended, Privileges Committee reports, and the House is under no obligation whatever to accept the report of the Committee. For example, in 1986—I was on the Privileges Committee then, as I have been for 10 years—there was a leak from the Environment Select Committee, and the Privileges Committee recommended that Richard Evans, the Lobby correspondent of The Times, should have his Lobby pass withdrawn for six months.
As a member of the Committee, I voted against the recommendation, and I tabled an amendment which read:
"Your Committee thinks it right to recommend to the House that all proceedings of Select Committees should be exempted from any protection of privilege, and that all such Select Committees be advised to conduct their business in open session and to make all their papers public when they are sent to Honourable members."
At least my position on the matter is a consistent one.
When the report was brought to the House, it was defeated following an amendment by the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). I participated in that debate, and I have looked at the people who voted against the Privileges Committee report. They included Mrs. Thatcher, Michael Foot, the then leader of the Liberal party, the present leader of the Labour party and two members of the Privileges Committee—the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson), who has just intervened, and the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). Therefore, there is a clear precedent for the Committee to have its recommendations rejected.
The fourth preliminary point which I want to clear away before I come to my argument relates to reports being issued. I was not arguing in Committee about the openness of evidence, although I believe that there should be openness, but that reports should be issued after each meeting of the Committee under the auspices of the Clerk of the House.
The draft report which I moved—which the Committee rejected—very simply said:
"That minutes of each meeting, covering the evidence and the deliberations of the Committee, should be prepared by an official reporter, under the supervision of the Clerk of the Committee and published as soon as possible … That individual members of the Committee should be free to comment on those proceedings as is the case with the proceedings in the House itself."
Hon. Members may wonder what will happen if the House tonight rejects the Privileges Committee report. The answer is simple—the Privileges Committee will have to think again, as it did in earlier cases. But it is open to us tonight to change the procedure if we decide to reject the report. I hope that the Leader of the House will not tell us that the procedure is so tight that even a vote tonight against the motion cannot change it. Of course it can, and that is why I am speaking at some depth on the matter.
I shall briefly recall to the House the background to the events, although I am sure that everybody is familiar with them. In July, after reports appeared in the press about the alleged payment of money to hon. Members in return for asking parliamentary questions, the House referred the matter to the Privileges Committee. As the senior member of the Committee, it was my duty to summon the Committee, which I did. I moved the Leader of the House into the Chair in accordance with practice, and he will
722
recall that the Committee had to adjourn rather prematurely because it had no authority to sit doing the summer recess.
At that meeting, I argued the point that I am now making—that the Committee should take evidence in public and deliberate in public. But the Committee decided to defer a decision on the matter until after the recess. On 18 October, the Committee met again, and the matter of holding evidence in public was put before the Committee. On the Chairman's casting vote—about which I make no complaint, as it was his casting vote—the Committee decided not to hear evidence in public.
On 31 October, in the light of the Committee's decision, the Opposition moved that that decision be reversed. During the course of that debate, I made the statement, which the Leader of the House quoted tonight, that I intended to publish a report of the Committee's proceedings. I do not believe in the leaking and briefing that characterises this place, where a quiet word is had in the Corridor. If you want to say it, publish it—that is the principle on which I have tried to operate.
I acted openly and honestly. I said that I would publish a report; I circulated a note to that effect to members of the Committee, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember. I was asked at a meeting of the Committee whether I intended to publish such a report. I said that I did, and I did it. I gave it to the Speaker; I gave it to the Clerk—I brought the very first copy to him—and I put it in the Library. It is still in the Library for anyone who wants to read it.
No member of the Committee complained about the accuracy of what I had written. One Government Member actually complimented me on having produced a "fair and balanced" report, which was the best that I could do.
On 2 November, Madam Speaker, without being triggered by a special question, announced that she thought that the matter was so important that the Committee should report on it. That is the basis of the report now before the House. On 21 November, the Committee met and recommended that I be removed from the Committee. That is the basis of the motion before us.
The real issue is not about me in any sense; it is about whether deliberations on this issue should be held in private. I should like to rehearse the arguments for secrecy so that hon. Members realise that I have addressed them with some seriousness.
The first argument is that the Committee of Privileges has always deliberated in secret, as have other Select Committees. The question before us is whether the Committee of Privileges should deliberate in secret in this case—I hope to show the reasons against such secrecy.
The second argument in favour of secrecy is that it would be unfair to witnesses for the Committee to be held in public. Many witnesses, however, would want to heard in public—perhaps the Committee would not want to hear them, but I will not go into that now.
The third argument is that public hearings would make a media circus of the proceedings. For heaven's sake, what have we had but a media circus on this matter from the very beginning? The fourth argument is that public hearings might lead to a breach of natural justice. I heard one hon. Member describe the editor of The Guardian as a "whore out of hell" under the protection of privilege. If natural justice is breached, it can be breached in the House as well.

723
The fifth argument in favour of secrecy is that the evidence would be published later, so what does it matter? Under present practice, however, the deliberations of the Committee will never be reported.
The sixth argument, the most extraordinary one of all, was put by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who said that members of the Committee would not feel free to speak their minds if they knew that they were to be reported. The House has debated the matter twice, on 13 July and 31 October, and I never saw any sign of hon. Members being inhibited from commenting. In this case, there cannot be a difference between the Privileges Committee and the House.
People think that it is the evidence presented to the Committee of Privileges which is interesting; for my part, it is not. What is interesting is how senior Members of the House approach the problem before them. From the point of view of the public, it is an understanding of the workings of the Committee which I have always found so interesting and which makes me rather sorry that I may not remain as a member of that Committee.
I do not accept any of the arguments for secrecy. Reports are often made about discussions of other Committees, even Cabinet committees—what was Bernard Ingham doing for years but briefing people on what had happened? Indeed, some Labour party committees of which I have been a member have very occasionally leaked. I cannot really accept that the need for secrecy is a valid argument. Why should the Committee of Privileges be so uniquely protected?
I believe that the issue before us is of unique importance, and it is uniquely important that the public should know what individual members of the Committee say about issues before it, as well as hearing their conclusion.
The Nolan committee, which the Prime Minister announced, will cover much of the same ground as the Committee of Privileges, including the secondary part of our inquiries. I understand that it will be holding public hearings, and I hope to give evidence to it.
I come now to the cases before the Committee. The media had been, and have been, publishing reports that suggested that there may have been bribery, corruption, fraud, blackmail and forgery involving Members, directly or indirectly. I do not know whether those allegations are true, but one thing is certain; those charges have gravely damaged the democratic process, and I shall tell the House why. Some of our constituents may now be wondering whether, when they elect Members of Parliament to represent them, some of the Members that they have elected—only a tiny minority, but some of them—may have been using their position not to represent their constituents but to peddle their influence for money.
That is what makes it a uniquely important question. Were such a suspicion to become widespread—I very much hope that it would not—it could completely undermine the basis of trust between the electors and Members of Parliament. I think, and I say to the House, that it must face the fact that there is legitimate concern on that score—a concern that is deepened by the apparent determination of the House not to allow its deliberations to be known.
I shall now discuss another aspect of the matter. 'That is that there is in this case a straight conflict of loyalty between our duty as Members of Parliament to those
724
people who elected us, and our obligations to follow the conventions of the House. Parliament cannot survive if it is a closed little club to which all Members of Parliament are supposed to transfer their allegiance as soon as they come here, because it is a fact that our first responsibility must be to those people who sent us here. I think that, if we subordinated that responsibility to ancient conventions of the House, we should be betraying the trust put in us by those who elected us.
If I were to accept the conventions that the House apparently wishes to impose again tonight, consider what I would be doing. If someone wrote to me from Chesterfield and asked, "What is being said on the Committee about these cases?" I would say, "I cannot tell you." Even if they said to me, "What are you saying on the Committee? Tell me", I could not tell them, because the restrictions cover my own reporting of my own comments in the Committee.
How can I possibly accept such a restriction? The right—[Laughter] I am sorry, but that is the view. Hon. Members can laugh; they often do laugh, and I shall come to some examples of the punishment that they have imposed on people who have tried to argue that case in earlier centuries.
It would be a wholly unacceptable limitation, not on my rights—I have no rights in the matter—but on the rights of those who elected me, to know what is being done in their name. With all the talk about free—
Sir John Gorst rose—
Mr. Benn: I shall just finish this paragraph; then I shall give way.
With all the talk about open government and freedom of information and league tables, is the House of Commons Privileges Committee to say that it will not move? I think that the House had better take seriously the arguments that I am putting forward, because they are serious arguments and I believe that they are very widely shared by a lot of people, judging by the enormous amount of mail that I have had on the matter, from many people who have said, "We have never agreed with anything that you have ever said before in your life, but on this question, we believe that you are right."
Sir John Gorst: What is the difference between the example that the right hon. Gentleman has given and, for example, a constituent of the Prime Minister asking him to reveal what took place in Cabinet? It might be argued that, after all, he elected the Prime Minister; why should not the Prime Minister have the same obligation to him as the right hon. Gentleman claims for his constituents?
Mr. Benn: All Prime Ministers employ hundreds of press officers to tell their constituents what a marvellous job they are doing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Well, one has to accept the fact. However, there is a total difference: between the two cases. If one is here as a Member of Parliament representing one's constituency on a House of Commons matter, one's duty is to them. If one is the Head of a Government, one has to justify what one's Government have done. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made an error.
I now come, if I may, to the attitude to the cases that are before the Committee. First, there are different ways to consider how the matter should be approached. The first way is trial by media. Stories of sleaze and scandal

725
may help to sell newspapers and boost circulation, and I suspect that that is why they have had such extensive coverage, but that is no basis for tackling the matter.
Secondly, there could be trial by Members of Parliament. There is another view, which I think may have influenced some of my colleagues—it even came out in part in the speech of the Leader of the House—that the House of Commons should somehow proceed as quickly as possible to deal with the matter. I think that some Opposition Members think that what I have done is to delay their opportunity to expose some Government Members for political advantage.
I do not take that view. As I shall show, the matter should not be handled by the Committee of Privileges at all. I believe that what is at issue is the reputation of the House of Commons as a whole. The most serious criticism of all that can be levelled in relation to this subject is against the House for setting such low standards and for failing to maintain them, raise them or do anything about the problem.
On the subject of individual Members, as I told the Leader of the House, I am not a muck raker by instinct. I am not so interested in what hon. Members have or have not done, but I am interested in how the House of Commons could have allowed a situation to develop in which it is apparently possible for such things to be done within the standards that we have accepted.
I shall tell the House what I believe the Committee should do, as I might not be there to argue the case when the report is made. First, the House should decide that service in the House of Commons is a public service, and that the use of parliamentary influence in return for payment should itself be treated as a breach of privilege.
Secondly, the principles that underlie the rules applying to Ministers—which apply to the Leader of the House and which applied to me for 11 years—should, with suitable amendments, be applicable to every Member of Parliament. One of those principles is that there should be no conflict between the private interests of Members and their public duty.
Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does what the right hon. Gentleman is now relating to the House fall within the terms of the motion?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): It is going fairly wide, but I trust that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will keep within the terms of the order.
Mr. Benn: Madam Deputy Speaker, not only am I not going wide of the order, but I am giving reasons why I should not be removed from the Committee of Privileges by saying what I believe the Committee should do in the circumstances. That is why I should like to serve on the Committee, and that is what I would say were I on it.
Mr. Bill Walker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, and I am glad to see that he is wearing his Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve tie. I am listening carefully to what he is saying—as, I am sure, are all hon. Members, because we all care as deeply as he does about the way we conduct our proceedings.
726
First, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that if, in future, an hon. Member writes regular columns for a newspaper and uses material to which he has had access because he is a Member of the House, that would be excluded? Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that some Conservative Members, myself included, wrote to the Speaker to ask for the matter to be referred to the Committee of Privileges because of the behaviour of the newspaper person who came here? If so, has the right hon. Gentleman taken that on board in his considerations?
Mr. Benn: Peddling one's position as a Member of Parliament to buy political influence for a private employer is totally different from the case that the hon. Gentleman makes. If the hon. Gentleman takes that view, it is permissible—all my papers have been given to the British library in any case—[Interruption.] If that is his argument, I do not think that it merits any serious consideration—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the House knows my view on seated interventions.
Mr. Benn: Thirdly, the powers to investigate hon. Members who breach the rules should be transferred to a court, as happens with contested election petitions. The House may know that, in the 19th century, when an election was contested or bribery was alleged, an election committee, like the Committee of Privileges, would meet. But that election committee always voted with the majority party in the House, and the House wisely decided to transfer the power to judges in an election court. Two judges sat without a jury and reported to the House, which acted on their report. The matter under discussion should be dealt with in the same way.
Legislation should be introduced to enforce the rules by extending the list of offices that lead to disqualification—from Government contractors to those who peddle their influence for money. That should be dealt with by statute. It should be illegal for any outside organisation to pay Members to exercise their influence in the way that has been alleged. If I paid an elector to vote for me, I would be guilty of bribery and would be unseated from this House. I see no difference—
Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Seriously, this is not in order. The motion relates to whether the right hon. Gentleman should be discharged from the Committee. I am sure that we are all fascinated by what the right hon. Gentleman has to say about how Parliament should be run, but surely that is a proper subject for a newspaper article, not for this debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Before the right hon. Gentleman continues—[Interruption.] I do not expect hon. Members to intervene when I—or any other hon. Member—am speaking. The right hon. Gentleman has certainly been deploying his case in some detail. I hope

727
now that he will stick rather more closely to the terms of the motion, also bearing in mind the fact that this is a short debate, and that others will wish to speak in it.
Mr. Benn: I do not know whether you recall it, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I made the same points in the debate on 13 July—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I can deal only with what is before me now.
Mr. Benn: The reason why I repeat them—
Mr. Skinner: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend is putting a case in defence of remaining on the Committee. In the process, he is being threatened by Tory Members, and seemingly by you, with the idea that, if he does not shut up, he will be gagged. That says something about this place, that does.
Madam Deputy Speaker: By long-standing practice, our speeches should be relevant in this place. While it is perfectly permissible to sketch in some background, it is a different matter when the background becomes the foreground.
Mr. Benn: I do not want to fall out with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am explaining how the contribution that I wish to make to the Privileges Committee justifies my remaining on that Committee.
I shall finish with the recommendation that I shall make to the Nolan committee, if it will hear me, even if I am thrown off the Committee of Privileges. In addition to the Register of Members' Interests, I believe that every parliamentary candidate should register his interests, and returning officers should send those interests out to every elector with the polling cards, so that people can know these things before they vote.
If the motion to remove me is agreed to, I shall still be able to submit the same points to the Nolan committee, and I shall also be allowed to speak once the Privileges Committee report is finally published.
It is for the House to decide what to do about the actions that I have taken. If it decides to remove me, I shall make no complaint. I ask for no special favours. If I am guilty of anything, I am guilty of the same offence that has been repeated century after century when people have tried to bring the activities of Parliament to public attention. In the 17th century, Members who circulated their own speeches made in Parliament were punished. Dr. Johnson never came to the House: he bribed officials to help him write his parliamentary reports. Cobbett and Hansard were put in prison.
The truth is—I know it is painful for the House to recognise—that most of the improvements to our democracy have been made by people on principle breaking the rules. I hope that the House will be persuaded to change—
Dame Jill Knight: All this was surely just as true when the right hon. Gentleman first joined the Privileges Committee. The rules on secrecy were exactly the same then, so why has it taken him all these years to make this stand?
Mr. Benn: I shall give the hon. Lady the simple reason. There has never been a case of bribery, fraud, corruption, blackmail and forgery brought before the Committee until
728
this date. The hon. Lady spoke about breaking the rules. She would not have the vote if the Pankhursts had not chained themselves to the railings.
The House often has to face the fact that unfair rules are contested. My experience of the political process is that the last people to get the message are those in the House of Commons itself. The message is fully understood. The hon. Lady would not have the vote but for the suffragettes. In a modest and non-controversial way, I am pushing the conventions.
Mr. Bill Michie: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, although I shall support my right hon. Friend. I am a little worried about the line that he is taking of a one-man campaign against the abuse of this place and the ineffectiveness of the Committee. I remind the House that other people on the Select Committee feel just as strongly, and take the line that the proceedings should be in public. I do not disagree with my right hon. Friend for taking that line, as long as he makes it quite clear that he is not the only one on the Committee who holds a principle and has a judgment on how this place and the Committee should be run.
Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for voting for me, but they are not trying to remove him from the Committee. I have to defend myself because mine is the only name on the Order Paper. My hon. Friend wanted to resign from the Committee, but I was opposed to that because I believe that one should stay on and fight one's corner. That is the difference between us, and it is an appropriate point.
Constitutional reform is moving to the top of the political agenda, and the House might inch cautiously towards a reform of its own procedures. If the House decides to retreat again behind the traditional practice of deliberating in secret, it will be a great mistake and will damage the House.
Hon. Members will have to decide on a free vote. I say openly to the House that I would not feel able to continue to be a member of the Privileges Committee if it was to be a condition of my membership that the practice of secrecy was to be maintained and I could not tell my constituents what I was saying in the Committee.
Dr. Robert Spink rose—
Mr. Benn: I am not giving way.
Dr. Spink: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made accusations of crimes and corruption such as fraud and blackmail which be believes have taken place. If he believes that and does not come to the Committee with an open mind, would he be a proper person to sit on the Committee?
Madam Deputy Speaker: If I had thought that the right hon Gentleman was out of order when he made the point, I would have intervened.
Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman was not listening. said "charges" of bribery, fraud and blackmail, and expressed no judgment on the matter. I have not associated myself with any of them.

729
For all the reasons that I have given, I ask hon. Members to reject the motion, and invite the Committee of Privileges to think again about a matter that may be rather more serious for our electors than the House itself seems ready to accept.
10.58 pm
Sir Terence Higgins: On 2 November Madam Speaker stressed that the behaviour of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) had implications that were of great importance for Select Committees generally. Therefore, I should like to speak on that matter, because as Chairman of the Liaison Committee I entirely agree with Madam Speaker and feel bound to say that the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman has many dangers.
Much of what the right hon. Gentleman said was not to the point, which is simply whether Select Committees deliberate in public and in particular whether the actions of one member should be allowed to override the decision of the Committee and the rules of the House. He put forward various reasons why he thought that should be so.
In many ways this is a sad occasion, because the right hon. Gentleman has done great service to the House. I can think of no one who, in listening to some of his speeches, has given me more delight. He has a keen mind. However, I feel bound to say that on this occasion he is fundamentally and profoundly wrong.
It is important that hon. Members should be allowed to deliberate in private, for the simple reason that they may change their minds. They may be persuaded by the arguments. When the right hon. Gentleman goes into a Committee it is virtually inconceivable that during the course of the deliberations he may change his mind.
The real point that I want to make is that it is through deliberations in private that Committees reach a consensus. The reality is that over recent years we have introduced a system of departmentally related Select Committee which have been a great improvement in getting the Government called to account. One of the strengths of those Committees has been the fact that they have produced unanimous reports. We all know that a Committee's report is far more likely to have influence and to call the Government to account if it is unanimous than if it splits along party lines.
It is a difficult process. Hon. Members have to listen to all the arguments in the light of the evidence they have taken, very often in public, and then weigh the arguments and persuade each other of the right outcome.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of hon. Members, including me, who believe, and voted accordingly, that the Committee should be open to the press and public, nevertheless accept—and here I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—that its deliberations should be in private, and for very much the reasons stated by the right hon. Gentleman?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there are those of us who strongly believe, no less so than my right hon. Friend, that the proceedings should be in public, but equally strongly believe that to have the deliberations and the reaching of conclusions in public would be like a jury
730
reaching its decision in public? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands the distinction between the two views.
Sir Terence Higgins: The hon. Gentleman and I are reaching a consensus, and one which I hope is widespread throughout the House—so much so that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield is alone in the position he holds.
Committees must reach a consensus and it would be difficult to do so in public, not least because very often the view, the process and the consensus are not what the Government want. We do not really want the Whips listening to every word said during the deliberations.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman said that he would not necessarily like the Whips to listen. May I put to him a problem in the Select Committee on Members' Interests? A Whip has now been appointed to that Committee. Its very credibility is completely undermined. Will he oppose that appointment?
Sir Terence Higgins: That is a separate issue that the House might wish to consider. I feel bound to say to the hon. Gentleman— [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has just intervened, I do not now expect a sedentary intervention from him.
Sir Terence Higgins: The hon. Gentleman made an important point that the House might wish to consider on another occasion. I have considerable sympathy for his view.
Much of what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said related to and was a repetition of what was said in the debate on whether the Privileges Committee should take evidence in public. It did not relate to whether the Committee should deliberate in public. The right hon. Gentleman takes a partisan view about everything.
Mr. Skinner: What is wrong with that?
Sir Terence Higgins: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what is wrong with that: this House does not carry out its duty as effectively and efficiently as it should if all its work is done on a party political basis. It is not true to say that there are no issues on which we can reach a consensus, and everything must be done on a party political basis. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) both take that view, but I do not share it. The House does not carry out its democratic duties as efficiently if it decides that everything must be done on a straight—I feel bound to use the word "hack"—party political line. The operation of Committees has been much more effective as a result of reaching a consensus.
The rules of the House have been refined over many years, so there is much to be said for them. At the same time, if there is to be a change, the House must debate it and reach a conclusion on it. But the right hon. Gentleman sought effectively to hold the Committee and the House to ransom. Whatever else the House and the Committee might want to decide, the right hon. Gentleman thinks that his views should prevail. That is not a modest approach to the issue. Once the House has considered the matter, as it should, it will conclude that the arguments for continuing to deliberate in private are extremely strong—in my view, they are overwhelming.

731
Those who truly have the House's interests at heart will not take the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman this evening. It is right that the House should vote in favour of the motion and he should be removed from the Committee, sad though I find it, because few people have made such a notable contribution to the House.
11.6 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I wish to make just a few observations on the motion, without discussing the specific case with which the Privileges Committee is currently dealing.
I much regret the fact that the House must debate this motion and that the Privileges Committee has found it necessary to refer the matter to the House. I regret the fact that the position of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has become the focus of attention, rather than the normal workings of the Privileges Committee and the serious allegations into which it should have been inquiring before now. Everybody should regret the delay that has taken place between July and this issue now coming to light, given that the Committee has not yet had an occasion on which to examine the substantive issue. Had the House accepted the motion which we tabled on 31 October, this would not have arisen and it would not have been necessary to debate the motion moved by the Lord President.
Mr. David Alton: I welcome what the hon. Lady has said so far. We are in danger of fighting the last battle in the wrong ditch. Much of what has been said this evening has ensured that the scent has gone cold in terms of the original allegations about which the House should be concerned.
The hon. Lady says that we could have united on the Labour party motion, on which I agreed with her and for which I voted at the time. Did not that distinguish between evidence sessions and deliberative sessions? That is the point before the House tonight, but we are now being invited to open up the whole proceedings, including the deliberative sessions, on which there is no unanimity.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I remind the House that the motion that we tabled suggested that the Committee of Privileges should exercise its power under Standing Order No. 108, so that when examining witnesses it would sit in public except for clear and compelling reasons. Our motion did not ask for the Committee's deliberations to be in public—although in fairness to my right hon. Friend, he made his personal position clear in the debate on that motion.
If the House had accepted that motion, the Committee would have been able to reach agreement and my right hon. Friend would not have been moved to issue the document that he did, following the first sitting of the Committee.
Sir Jim Spicer: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made it clear throughout the Committee's deliberations that he would not accept anything short of its deliberations being made public—and the right hon. Gentleman has followed that independent line. Who is to say that he would not have gone down that road even if the House had accepted the motion?
Mrs. Taylor: Some of us are at a disadvantage because we are not members of the Committee of Privileges, and
732
the whole House is at a disadvantage because of the ruling that we cannot be party to all the Committee's decisions and discussions. If the House had accepted the motion on 31 October, the atmosphere in which the Committee operated would have been different and less divisive, and it would not have become a partisan issue.
I share the regret expressed by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) that there was united opposition to the motion on the Government Benches. We tabled the motion in the hope of securing recognition of the validity of our argument, not to divide parties. We tried to be reasonable, and if that motion had been passed and evidence was taken in public, the whole issue might not have arisen.
Sir Terence Higgins: I did not make the remarks that the hon. Lady attributed to me. I clearly expressed the opposite view.
Mrs. Taylor: I confused the right hon. Gentleman with the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer).
The totality of opposition among Government Members to the 31 October motion made this a partisan issue, and that has not proved beneficial to the subsequent work of the Committee of Privileges or to subsequent debates on the Floor of the House.
It is unfortunate that the basic allegations that are the subject of the Committee's inquiries and public concern about them have been pushed to one side and that my right hon. Friend has become the focus of attention.
Sir Cranley Onslow: The allegations have been pushed to one side only because the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) insisted on being the focus of attention. If he had kept quiet, we could have got on perfectly well.
Mrs. Taylor: If our motion had been agreed to on 31 October, the allegations would have been discussed much more quickly.
My right hon. Friend's conduct and decisions were undertaken without consulting my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I respect my right hon. Friend. As others have said, he has strong feelings and a strong feel for parliamentary traditions. He also understands well that it is sometimes necessary to kick at those traditions to bring about change. The question before the House is whether my right hon. Friend's unilateral action justified delaying the Committee's inquiries, which was the consequence of his action.
It is difficult to determine the Committee's position because its members are not allowed to leak its discussions. I understand, however, that the Committee of Privileges has not yet finalised its decisions on how to proceed with the examination of witnesses, nor has it excluded the possibility of hearing witnesses in public. If that is indeed the case, my right hon. Friend's actions have been pre-emptive, in that he has not exhausted all the opportunities to ensure that the Committee meets in public for at least part of the time.
As for the debate about whether the Committee's deliberations as well as its taking of evidence should be public, I should make my position clear. I believe that evidence of the kind that the Committee of Privileges will need to take should, whenever possible, be taken in public. That was the essence of the motion that we tabled

733
at the end of October—although we made provision for the Committee to hear evidence in private if there was good and compelling reason for it to do so.
Personally, I do not think it best for the deliberations of a Select Committee to take place in public. I support the view expressed a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick): I think that the position is very similar to that involving juries, and I do not think that it would be helpful to the workings of Committees to make their deliberations public.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will my hon. Friend make an exception? Let us suppose that a vote was taken during a deliberative Committee meeting. Could I tell my constituents that during a meeting of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, when we discussed the Pergau issue, I voted in favour of Lady Thatcher and Charles Powell being brought before the Committee? Does my hon. Friend agree that, if a partisan vote takes place in a Committee, it should be published?
Mrs. Taylor: I think my hon. Friend will know that votes taken on such Committees are made public—although not necessarily immediately; that may be his point. Certainly the deliberations of such Committees are not made public, and I feel that that might inhibit valuable discussion.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said that tonight's vote should be a matter for the House, not a question of party affiliation. I think that his comments about the way in which his colleagues have already voted on the question of his remaining a member of the Committee show that Opposition Members on the Committee did not treat this as a partisan matter, and I believe that they will not do so this evening. Opposition Members view this as a genuinely free vote, and I hope that Conservative Members will approach it in the same way—although I must say that there has been some disappointment about the unanimity of their voting on all issues relating to the Committee of Privileges in recent months.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield pointed out that the House was not obliged to accept a report from the Committee of Privileges. That is true, as were other technical comments that he made, but I take issue with one of his remarks: he said that if the House supported the motion, no reports dealing with deliberations should ever be published. Whatever the outcome of tonight's vote, the House can always make that decision at any subsequent date, and can always recommend to any Select Committee—including the Committee of Privileges—that such deliberations should be made public in future.
My right hon. Friend has drawn a distinction between the conventions of the House and the interests of those who elect us. I do not think that there always has to be such a distinction. My right hon. Friend had not exhausted all the possible ways to get part of what he wanted out of the Committee of Privileges—the part of our resolution moved on 31 October relating to the examination of evidence in public. I still believe that that is the most important objective. I know that my right hon. Friend, who has raised some serious issues, wants to ensure that the public interest is defended, but, although I sympathise
734
with his intention, I cannot support his tactics. He has not explored all the possibilities for getting what is in the public interest.
It would be overridingly in the public interest to have the relevant parts of the Privileges Committee sitting in public. I am afraid that my right hon. Friend's actions have not helped to achieve that objective. The Privileges Committee has not reached a final decision and I still hope that it will be able to consider the widespread anxiety outside the House about the allegations, the issues raised in the debate on 31 October and the possibility of taking at least some evidence in public in order to restore public confidence in the Privileges Committee and in the House.
11.21 pm
Sir David Mitchell: We have a curious situation. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is recognised as a distinguished, if at times eccentric, parliamentarian. This is one of his eccentricities. He is in this place because he was democratically elected with a majority of 6,414 by the electors in his constituency. He accepted that it was right that the views of a majority of them should prevail and send him to this place, just as each of us has been sent here by a majority of our electors.
The right hon. Gentleman arrives in this place by a democratic process but then behaves as an autocrat—all but he must abide by the majority decision. He is part of a Committee that the House democratically agreed under its rules should deliberate in private. The right hon. Gentleman accepts democracy when it suits him but rejects it when it suits him. That is the road to anarchy,
Mr. Bill Michie rose—
Sir David Mitchell: I shall not be long; the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I said, that is the road to anarchy. If we vote tonight—and it looks as if we shall—on whether to remove the right hon. Gentleman from the Committee, I shall vote in favour but with great regret because I think that the Committee would have been all the better for having the benefit of his advice. However, he cannot come to the Committee having been elected as a democrat and then not abide by the democratic process.
11.22 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: I greatly regret the withdrawal or loss of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) from the Select Committee on Privileges, not least because he enlivens its proceedings and, more important, brings to its deliberations his intelligence and his talents and great experience as a parliamentarian. The Committee will be the poorer for his loss.
The central point, however, is a simple one: there is a division, still unresolved, among members of the Committee as to whether we should take evidence in public. It is no secret that that that is the view taken by members of my party. We have very strong views about that. Making committee deliberations public is a minority view. I think that my right hon. Friend, who normally approaches matters with great clarity, confused the two issues in his speech. We all know that it is common

735
practice for Select Committees to hear evidence in public, but I know of no Select Committee—let alone the Privileges Committee— which deliberates in public.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the Nolan Committee in order to bolster his case, but he has not done that. I am a member of the Nolan Committee and I hope that most of the Committee's evidence will be heard in public— I am sure that is what Lord Nolan would wish—but there has been no suggestion that the Committee should deliberate in public and, so far as I know, we have no intention of so doing.
Although analogies are very difficult in this area, I think that the courts and the trial process offer at least a rough guide. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, evidence is taken from witnesses in public, and that is as it should be, but when the jury retires there is no report of the discussion that takes place. Common sense dictates that certain issues should be discussed with others privately in the hope of having a very frank exchange and reaching agreement.
In conclusion, to mix up the two issues is to do the House a disservice. The issue of whether witnesses should be heard in public is quite separate from the issue of whether Committees' deliberations should be reported as they proceed—let alone that members of the Privileges Committee should be entitled to make a running commentary on the proceedings as they develop.
11.26 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I am particularly sorry that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who I think is the oldest serving Privy Councillor in the House, should find himself in dispute with a Committee on which he has served for 12 years. He has never found it necessary to make this point before now.
The right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) suggested how the vote on the matter should proceed, and I think that all hon. Members agree with her. Everyone wants it to proceed as quickly as possible—not least the people concerned, who have obviously had a very unpleasant time while the matter has been hanging over their heads.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield tried to raise emotions about the matter by comparing it with Hansard or Mrs. Pankhurst. That is somewhat ridiculous, to put it mildly. There is a difference between the way in which Select Committees work and the way in which matters on the Floor of the House operate. On the Floor of the House there is an obvious political divide which is seen time and again in the Division Lobbies.
I have served on Select Committees and I have been Chairman of the Procedure Committee for the past 12 years. It is amazing how much members of a Select Committee work together to try to produce a completely unanimous report, because they know that such a report will have a specific effect. There is a great difference between the political operation of proceedings on the Floor of the House and the operation of Select Committees upstairs.
Mr. Bill Michie: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when we debated and voted on whether parts of the Select Committee's investigation should be made public, on a tied vote, the Committee Chairman gave status quo as a reason for voting to keep the investigation private? As as I understand it, there is no status quo for a Select
736
Committee. There is certainly no politics involved. To this day, it has never been explained to me why the Chairman took that view.
Sir Peter Emery: I believe that I speak with some little authority on this. On the whole—I do not say without exception—the Chairman of a Committee will vote in one of two ways. He will vote either to have the matter heard again or to stay with the way in which the matter has proceeded until that moment. I cannot tell what was in the mind of the Chairman—the hon. Gentleman must ask him and not me—but those are the two matters that a Chairman would normally take into account.
I need not go over the difference between the taking of evidence and a Committee's deliberations. That has already been thoroughly debated. There are, however, times when all the evidence should not be taken in public, especially if, as may well have been the case in this Committee, one wants to cross-question a witness at some length. It seems, therefore, much more sensible not to have half the evidence come out when there is still as much cross-examination again to take place at a later sitting. That problem is real and must be considered. It must be understood, however, that the Committee can decide: the House should not be the decider of that matter—it should be left to the Committee, the people considering the situation, to decide.
That point leads me to one of the most deliberately misleading points in the speech by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. He has suggested that there is a degree of secrecy and he seems to feel that something is going to be covered up. In my judgment, that is not the way in which the Committee of Privileges has worked in the past. In previous reports from the Committee of Privileges, the evidence has been published and the cross-questioning has been published. The public have been able to see exactly what has gone on in the evidence-taking.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has used the word "see". The relevant word is "read", not "see". We are talking about "reading" as well as about "seeing" and "hearing".
Sir Peter Emery: I am willing to be taken to task on that matter. I am saying that members of the public can see in the writings and the publications exactly what has taken place. There is no secrecy or no cover-up in that. That is the major point. There is no way in which the House will stop a debate on the report. It will come to the House and will be debated fully. I have no doubt that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield will speak again in that debate. He will have that right and nobody will stop him from doing so.
The Select Committee on Procedure has looked at the matter in a slightly different way. It has considered not the deliberate leaking of information by a member of a Committee, but the unofficial leaking of matters considered by the Committee and the deliberations of a Committee. Paragraph 225 of the report, "The Workings of the Select Committee System," from the 1989–90 Session says:
"publication causes even more immediate harm, in that it can affect the way in which the Committee subsequently deals with the Report. Sometimes that is exactly the intended effect—motivated perhaps by a desire to marshal support for, or more likely against, an individual recommendation or set of conclusions. On other occasions the aim of a leak may be to ensure that a particular extract from a draft

737
Report … will leave the desired political impression on the public consciousness, an impression which may not be erased when the Report is eventually published formally."
Paragraph 226 of the report states:
"leaks … are subversive of the Select Committee system as a whole and are therefore, quite apart from being wrong in principle, extremely short-sighted."
What worries me is that, if the right hon. Member for Chesterfield won the vote tonight, the working of every Select Committee would be affected. The secrecy of deliberation is all-important. Anyone who has served on a departmental Select Committee knows the arguments that take place between members, often across party lines, before the recommendations are made. If those arguments took place in public, it would massively alter the way in which members argued their case during the Committee's deliberations.
Sir John Gorst: If what my right hon. Friend describes were to take place, the result would be that most Select Committees would reach their conclusions by means of private deliberations in the corridors outside the Committees.
Sir Peter Emery: That is exactly the point, and that is the last thing that I want.
There is an overwhelming case to support what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House suggested. It would be wrong to allow an individual to alter the procedures for the workings of Select Committees. Those procedures have stood the test of time and there is no way in which secrecy could be maintained. The public will know exactly what has happened and they will know the recommendations.
It is essential that we pass the motion, for the defence of Select Committee proceedings.
11.35 pm
Mr. David Winnick: There will be a vote and I shall be voting against the motion, but I accept that the Committee faced a difficult decision. I accept that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) realised the difficulties; hence their reason for voting with the rest of the Committee.
The Committee was faced with a difficult decision because it would have been difficult to proceed if one member—my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—because of his integrity, as the Leader of the House stated, decided to do as he promised in the House. In those circumstances, the Committee clearly could not proceed and I understand the reasons.
I understand the reasons, so why do I intend to vote against the motion? The explanation is simple and clear. Evidence to the Committee should be in public and the deliberations should be in private. I am strongly of that view—no less strongly than my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield.
The allegations made against some hon. Members are serious. Hon. Members on both sides of the House think that the standing of the House is in question and that is a matter of great concern. Outside, people feel that there is sleaze and that Members of Parliament are on the make—not just some Members, but virtually all of us. It is
738
important for the public to understand that that is not so. If some hon. Members have behaved in a way that they should not have, it does not mean that the rest of the House of Commons should be viewed in the same light, but we do not know if that is so, as it is up to the Committee to decide and report to the House.
I cannot for the life of me understand why the evidence should be heard in private. The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir Peter Emery) asked why some hon. Members said that the Committee's deliberations will be secret, as the reports will be published. Of course they will—that is not in dispute—but, in the main, people outside this place will not see those reports. They will be seen only by parliamentarians, the press and those who take the closest possible interest in public affairs. Our constituents will not go to the public library or write to the Vote Office to ask to see the report.
If the evidence is taken in public, it will be reported and filmed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) pointed out. People will see it on the television screen and judge accordingly. That is why it is important.
Mr. Edward Gamier: I fondly, and perhaps naively, think that we are interested in justice and truth. In the hon. Gentleman's argument, is there not a danger that we will lose sight of that justice and truth?
In allowing the publication of evidence as it is given, one will inhibit the finding of truth and justice because newspapers will report tendentiously and partially. In a court—where evidence can be given in open court—the judge can control the errant journalist who misreports the court. The Committee will not have such powers, and surely there is a danger—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be short in any case, but particularly so tonight.
Mr. Winnick: Clearly the Committee cannot be conducted as if it were a court. The argument that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward is that no evidence at all should be taken by Committees, and that is totally unacceptable.
It is necessary to vote against the motion because my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has made a stand. I shall support him tonight because I believe that the restrictions on the proceedings being televised or reported are wrong, and they can no longer be defended. The main argument in favour of the motion is basically that the Privileges Committee has always acted in this way. Of course it has, but the time has come for a change. It is important for the standing of the House. The public are no longer willing to accept the view that all of this must be in private and that, in due course, a report will be published.
I accept entirely—hence my earlier intervention—that the deliberations must be in private, and this is where I disagree with my right hon. Friend. It would be a denial of justice if the deliberations were held in public. But as far as the main work of the Committee in taking evidence is concerned, it is necessary that it be in public. If the action that my right hon. Friend has taken has in some way persuaded the majority of the Committee that the evidence should be taken in public, he will have done very useful work—not only for the Committee but for the House as whole. That is the reason why I shall be voting against the motion.
11.41 pm
Sir Jim Spicer: I shall be very brief. When I was appointed to the Committee on Privileges, I really did count it to be a privilege. When I went to that Committee for the first time and saw the other members, I felt that I was amongst those Members of the House who would speak for the House as a whole, and not for their party. Above all, I felt that they would not speak for their own personal interests and ambitions. What horrifies me is that the Committee has now been delayed by nearly three months as a result of what has happened.
That may be acceptable to members of the Committee, but the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said that it was quite disgraceful that that should be so, and that we should have got down to the heart of the matter. Of course we should have, and that is what we all really want to do. The actions of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) have made that quite impossible for the Committee. I deplore that, and we must put this affair behind us and get on with the task that we were given, which was to pass judgment—I say this and I mean it—as individual members of the Committee; riot as members of the Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative parties. The sooner we do so, the better it will be for the House and for the view that the country takes of the House.
11.43 pm
Mr. David Alton: The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) put his views very well on behalf of the members of the Committee who would have liked to see the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) remain a member of the Committee on Privileges.
It must be put on the record that the majority of Opposition Members voted for the meetings of the Committee to be held in public, but we were not aware at the time the first debate took place that the goalposts would be moved, and that we would then have a debate about the deliberative sessions also being held in public. That was a subsequent matter which was laid before the Committee. No matter how we had voted on the original motion, I do not believe that there would have been unanimity at that time, and we would not have therefore avoided the debate this evening. We are in a extraordinary position, because, despite having had a vote in the Committee of Privileges and a vote on the Floor of the House, some hon. Members are still demurring from the decision reached on those occasions.
Hon. Members must ultimately ask themselves whether something is so intrinsically evil that they cannot continue as members of the Committee. Despite the fact that I would like to see the evidence of that Committee taken in public, I do not believe that the issue merits the stance taken by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. I suspect that it is a case of fighting the wrong battle in the last ditch. The right hon. Gentleman has led us along on an engaging argument, as he has done so often in the past, with which most can agree for 90 per cent. of the way, only to find that the final 10 per cent. is so far beyond that which was originally argued that it loses the support of the majority of those who might otherwise wish to support him.
I regret that we are in that position as a result of the publication of the right hon. Gentleman's version of Hansard, "Bennsard", which he says follows on from the
740
tradition of Cobbett and Hansard. In many ways, his publication follows the tradition of people such as Bakunin, because it has more to do with anarchy than democracy and abiding by majority decisions. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to insist on his own way, rather than abiding by a decision of the House.
The other issue before us is simple: the reputation of the House. As long ago as July, we were charged by the House with responsibility to decide on the issue of cash payments for questions. That matter has dragged on. We are agreed that that matter has brought the reputation of Parliament into disrepute and that it needs to be resolved quickly. In many ways, the scent has gone cold. Other issues must now be resolved: for example, the House has already referred the case of Mr. Peter Preston and the articles published by The Guardian to the Committee.
How can the Committee make progress if it has to spend all its time in a quagmire of debates on procedural questions and wrangling about the motion before the House? It is time wasting self-indulgence. It does nothing to enhance the reputation of the House and that is why I shall support the motion in the name of the Leader of the House.
11.46 pm
Sir Giles Shaw: I support the decision that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House took in casting his vote in the Committee in favour of the status quo. That follows precedent. It has been the tradition of all the Committees that that involving privileges is one which must be held in private.
It is absurd not only that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) should have succeeded in delaying the Committee's proceedings for so long, but that he should have made his stand on the publication of his own view, not of the evidence before the Committee, but of the deliberations of the Committee. That was surely the one aspect of those two aspects that commanded no support in the Committee.
It is crucial that we undertake the prime purpose required of us by Madam Speaker to investigate the allegations against hon. Members. The idea that such an investigation should be held in public and before the television lights, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) would have us believe, is nothing more or less than soundbite judgment. I refuse to believe that that idea should be given any consideration in the laws of natural justice. We should not move towards a judicial procedure being hijacked in that fashion.
As for proceedings in the House, it is essential that the proper precedents are followed and the proper actions taken. The sooner we do that, the better.
11.47 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I opposed the original motion. If I recall it correctly, I voted against those on my Front Bench, because I believed that the Privileges Committee was riddled with commercial interests.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will forgive me for what I am about to say, but I think that what he is doing is wrong. I have told him that privately and I think that he understands the position that I take.

741
I want to dwell on the issue of speaking freely. I have spent 12 years on the Public Accounts Committee, nine years on the Select Committee on Members' Interests and seven years on the Select Committee on Procedure. I have seen minds changed inside those Committees. I can remember hearing the Brown inquiry and the Mates inquiry, when people visibly changed their conclusions. They would never have done that had the cameras or the press been present in those Committees. They would never have reviewed their position.
I can remember a Procedure Committee meeting in 1990. I am not breaching privilege by saying that we were discussing a select committee for Northern Ireland. I do not want to reveal what happened on that occasion, but the Chairman of the Committee will remember the discussion. We could never have had that discussion if the Committee had met in public. I believe that what we did was in the public interest.
Over the years, I have sat on the Public Accounts Committee, when we have taken evidence. On one or two occasions I asked witnesses, "Would you be prepared to speak more freely if the public were not admitted to this Committee?" and have received an affirmative response. The truth is that people will not always speak freely if they know that what they say will be published.
I take the example of Mr. Ian Greer, giving evidence on lobbying to the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I can remember, without going into detail, a specific issue that Mr. Greer believed would be commercially sensitive. I shall not reveal what it was. I believe that we took the right decision in not publishing that information.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [9 December].
The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 52.

Division No. 19]

[23.50 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Chapman, Sydney

Alexander, Richard

Churchill, Mr

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Clappison, James

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Alton, David

Coe, Sebastian

Amess, David

Conway, Derek

Arbuthnot, James

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Alkins, Robert

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

Atkinson, Peter (Haxham)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Day, Stephen

Baldry,Tony

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Beresford, Sir Paul

Devlin,Tim

Bonsor,Nicholas

Dicks, Terry

Boswell, Tim

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Duncan, Alan

Bowis, John

Dunn, Bob

Brandreth, Gyles

Durant, Sir Anthony

Bright, Sir Graham

Eggar, Tim

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Butcher, John

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Butler, Peter

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

742

Evennett, David

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Faber, David

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Fabricant, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Merchant, Piers

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Forth, Eric

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Moate, Sir Roger

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Nelson, Anthony

French, Douglas

Neubert, Sir Michael

Gallie, Phil

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Garnier, Edward

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Gillan, Cheryl

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Norris, Steve

Gorst, Sir John

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Ottaway, Richard

Hague, William

Paice, James

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hannam, Sir John

Pickles, Eric

Hargreaves, Andrew

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Harris, David

Rendel, David

Haselhurst, Alan

Richards, Rod

Heald, Oliver

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Hendry, Charles

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Shersby, Michael

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)

Jack, Michael

Spencer, Sir Derek

Jenkin, Bernard

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Jessel, Toby

Spink, Dr Robert

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Spring, Richard

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Sproat, Iain

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Steen, Anthony

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Stewart, Allan

Kirkhope, Timothy

Streeter, Gary

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

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Taylor, John M(Solihull)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Lait Mrs Jacqui

Thurnham, Peter

Tracey, Richard

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Trend, Michael

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Waller, Gary

Lidington, David

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Lightbown, David

Waterson, Nigel

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Watts, John

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Wells, Bowen

Luff, Peter

Whittingdale, John

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Widdecombe, Ann

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Willetts, David

MacKay, Andrew

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Maclean, David

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Wood, Timothy

Madel, Sir David

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Maitland, Lady Olga

Tellers for the Ayes:

Malone, Gerald

Mr. Simon Burns and

Mans, Keith

Mr. Michael Bates.

743

NOES

Austin-Walker, John

Illsley, Eric

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Lewis, Terry

Barnes, Harry

Litherland, Robert

Bayley, Hugh

Livingstone, Ken

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Llwyd, Elfyn

Burden, Richard

Macdonald, Calum

Caravan, Dennis

Mackinlay, Andrew

Chisholm, Malcolm

Madden, Max

Clapham, Michael

Mahon, Alice

Cohen, Harry

Marek, Dr John

Connarty, Michael

Meale, Alan

Corston, Jean

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Morley, Elliot

Dalyell, Tam

Mullin, Chris

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

Pickthall, Colin

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Pope, Greg

Fatchett, Derek

Simpson, Alan

Gerrard, Neil

Skinner, Dennis

Gordon, Mildred

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Grant Bernie (Tottenham)

Wareing, Robert N

Gunnell, John

Watson, Mike

Hain, Peter

Wicks, Malcolm

Hall, Mike

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthan)

Hanson, David

Winnick, David

Heppel, John

Hoyle, Doug

Tellers for the Noes:

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Jeremy Corbyn and

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Ronnie Campbell.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr. Tony Benn be discharged from the Committee Privileges.

ESTIMATES
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 131 (Liaison Committee),
That this House agrees with the Report [8th December] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Wells.]
Question agreed to.

EDUCATION
Ordered,
That Mr. Dennis Turner be discharged from the Education Committee and Mr. Greg Pope be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon.]

HEALTH
Ordered,
That Tessa Jowell be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr. John Austin-Walker be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon]

HOME AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Mr. Stephen Byers and Mrs. Barbara Roche be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr. John Hutton and Ms Janet Anderson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon.]

NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Mr. Jim Marshall be discharged from the Northern :Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr. Thomas McAvoy be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon.]

SOCIAL SECURITY
Ordered,
That Mr. Jimmy Wray be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Mr. Malcolm Wicks be added to the Committee.— [Mr. Dixon.]

PETITION

  Local Government (Buckinghamshire)
  12.1 am
  Mr. David Lidington: I rise to present a petition on behalf of some of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends who represent other Buckinghamshire constituencies. It reads:
  "To the House of Commons, The petition of the Friends of Buckinghamshire declares that the £13 million the Local Government Commission says it would cost to set up its new councils in Buckinghamshire and the ongoing costs of up to £5 million a year would be better spent on improvements to services provided by the existing county and district councils. Breaking the county up would damage important countywide services such as Education, social services and libraries. The MORI opinion poll carried out on behalf of the Commission showed that only 19 per cent of respondents favoured the four unitary council plan. Nearly twice as many said they wanted no change to existing councils, or change limited to the creation of a new council for Milton Keynes.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons rejects the Local Government Commission's recommendations for Buckinghamshire."
  The petitioners are headed by my noble Friend Lord Carrington, and an identical petition signed by 25,000 of people in Buckinghamshire has been presented to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  To lie upon the Table.

Stage Hypnotism
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
12.2 am
Mr. Colin Pickthall: I am glad of the opportunity to raise this issue. I have been informed that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) wishes to speak later, and I am happy with that, as I believe, is the Minster.
Stage hypnotism has been a long-standing concern of mine since I was alerted to its dangers by one of my constituents, Mrs. Margaret Harper. Some years ago, her daughter, Sharon Tabarn, was hypnotised at a club in Leyland in Lancashire. At the end of the trance, she was told to come out of it as if she had had a 10,000 volt electric shock. Her husband took her home in a somewhat dazed state, and five hours later she died.
The coroner's inquest found that this was an accidental death. The expert witness, a Dr. Heap, declared that there was no connection between hypnosis and any physical side-effects. That is patent nonsense. The Home Office pathologist said:
"It is hard not to think there was a link."
My view is that the coincidence is too great to be dismissed and that evidence from other incidents shows that the link is likely to be real.
Following the tragedy, Mrs. Harper began, and still sustains, a campaign to ban stage hypnotism, and she has pulled together a vast amount of information, some of which I have sent to the Minister. I began to put questions to Ministers about the issue and was passed from one Department to another, no one seeming to want to take responsibility for the problem, although, to be fair, it crosses the responsibilities of Home Affairs in the context of licensing, of the Department of Health and of the Department of National Heritage, no doubt because of the stage element.
I was alarmed by the answer to a question from the Minister for Health, who wrote:
"The Department has not investigated the medical effects of stage hypnotism and currently has no plans to do so."—[Official Report, 7 February 1994; Vol.237, c.52.]
On 15 March this year, a Home Office Minister answered a further question by writing that he had no present plans to review the licensing guidelines for acts of hypnosis, to institute a central register or code of conduct or to install compulsory public liability insurance. Given the level of concern and the obvious potential of misused or badly used hypnotism to do severe damage, those answers are unacceptable and complacent.
I have had letters from all over the country giving disturbing accounts of the effects of stage hypnosis, some of which I have passed to the Minister. I shall give some examples. Mr. Cannon from Barnet in the summer of 1992 was hypnotised and as a result he has had violent headaches ever since. He describes it as having made his life hell. A Mr. Hill of Rotherham was hypnotised by one Henry James—I do not think that it was the Henry James—and is subject to violent headaches, violent uncontrollable anger and persistent panic attacks. He was hospitalised several times on anti-depressants and has a permanent sleeping disorder.
Dean Chambers from Blackpool had his arm paralysed for four weeks as a result of the condition under which he was placed under hypnosis. A young man from High
746
Wycombe who was hypnotised by Paul McKenna, who is quite famous in this area, had to go to a psychiatric unit two days later where he was detained for six weeks and was still receiving treatment seven weeks later. While he was hypnotised he was put into regression, which is against the code of conduct, and was left unattended, which is also against the guidelines.
Mr. Nickson of Prestatyn became unable to work as a result of stage hypnotism, and was unable to hold a conversation and has attempted suicide. His case is attested by Mr. Trevelyn, the consultant psychiatrist for Clwyd. David Burill of Blackpool was hypnotised by Alan Bates and collapsed immediately after being brought round. He went crazy—his words—and had to be re-hypnotised by Bates. He suffered from violent headaches for weeks afterwards.
Ruth McLoughlin, a Glasgow university student, was hypnotised in October by Stefan Force and doctors found afterwards that her heart rate had dropped to a dangerously low level. Those are a few of the complaints that I and others have received.
Dr. Prem Meisra, who works in Glasgow, described a patient who became a compulsive eater of onions after being told to eat onions instead of apples while in a trance. It sounds funny but it is not. Another of his patients went into a trance again every time someone clapped, and a further patient began to suffer from a schizo-affective disorder.
This is plainly a highly dangerous business with potentially, perhaps actually, huge consequences for the national health service, as well as for the people concerned. In some instances, it may even have consequences for spectators. In the past, the Home Office has referred complainants first to the guidelines, which are worthless because they are largely ignored; secondly to the fact that responsibility for performances lies with local authorities; and thirdly to the Hypnotism Act 1952, which apparently covers the eventualities.
In August, on advice from doctors, Devon county council banned a stage hypnotism show by Mr. David Tabb. He used a loophole in the Act—the fact that, if stage hypnotism is called research, the licensing orders do not apply—and continued with his performance, which he called research, in a local pub. I shall quote Mr. Tabb's comment to Stage and Television Today on 25 August. He said:
"Under the wording of the act you don't need permission for research so I just say my show is private research and there is nothing they can do. Basically the act is a load of wallop, but I haven't heard a dicky bird from the council since."
Obviously he is a man of great literary ability.
It is clear that the Act is not working as intended. Local authorities are reluctant to take cases to court because that is expensive and because they would end up prosecuting their local pubs, hall or other venues. We must separate the different groups involved.
Mr. David Nicholson: Could the hon. Gentleman be a little more specific about the place where the law was evaded? As I recollect, the event was due to take place in Taunton and the council that attempted to ban the performance was not Devon county council but

747
Taunton Deane borough council. It was on that basis that I raised the matter and corresponded with my hon. Friend the Minister.
Mr. Pickthall: That is correct. I have had correspondence about the event in Taunton Deane. We have some evidence of another event in Devon and another in Lincoln where the loophole was used. I also have experience locally in Preston where the local council, despite its views, was unable to ban a performance because the performer declared himself to be involved in research.
There are three different groups. First, there are the legitimate and trained professional users of hypnosis for medical reasons. I think that all their organisations want to ban stage hypnotism, which they feel brings their profession into disrepute. They also often have to unscramble the sad consequences of stage hypnotism. Secondly, there are the societies of stage hypnotists. They seek codes of conduct and licensing regulations that will protect the reputation of what they view as responsible stage hypnotism. There are two such organisations, both of which have been in touch with me about the debate. Both have asserted that they want a register of stage hypnotists, an enforceable code of conduct and the closure of the loophole in the Act.
Thirdly, there are the unorganised, individual pirates, many of whom seem not to care in the least about the after-effects of what they do. Obviously, that is the group about which we are most concerned. I understand that, for many people, it is relatively simple to learn to hypnotise someone else. It is possible for someone to learn quickly how to hypnotise people and within days to be doing so on stage, even though that person does not understand, and possibly does not care about, the consequences of what he is doing. It is those "cowboys", as the other groups call them, that we are most worried about.
I have not come here tonight to urge a ban on stage hypnotism. I am not in the business of declaring that that form of entertainment, which I personally find distasteful, should be banned, although my constituent—the mother of the lady whom I described at the beginning of my speech—would want that. Although my instinct is that a ban is needed, if I were to propose one I fear that the Minister would reject it out of hand. I recognise that the Government's policy is to remove regulations, so I ask at this point for an improving alteration to the regulations.
Furthermore, attention should be paid to making the guidelines more effective and binding. In the longer term—I recognise that this is outside the Minister's remit, although I hope that he feels that it is reasonable to support it—it is vital that the Department of Health examines the effects of stage hypnotism on people who are liable to suffer badly from its after-effects. After all, it is a medical matter. We would not entertain for a moment the idea of untrained, unskilled, unlicensed people operating on people's bodies—in public, for that matter—but we seem to be prepared to allow untrained, unlicensed people to operate in people's minds in public.
The Department of Health should examine the behaviour and expertise—or lack of it—of some stage hypnotists whose victims claim have done them serious damage. Such research should enable sound judgments to be made on whether the Campaign Against Stage Hypnotism is correct in its demand for a ban on health and safety grounds.
748
Because the effect of hypnotism can be funny, it is easy to turn it into a funny subject. It is, however, extremely serious and many people have been seriously hurt by it. I hope that the Minister, in so far as his remit with the Home Office allows, can offer some assurance that the matter will at least be looked into.
12.17 am
Mr. Tim Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) on raising the subject of stage hypnotism, which is clearly a serious and growing problem.
My constituent, Miss Gibbs, has raised with me the case of Mr. Christopher Gates. On 10 march this year, they went to see the Paul McKenna hypnotic show at the Wycombe Swan theatre, where Mr. Gates was hypnotised for more than two hours. As the hon. Gentleman said, Home Office guidelines were not followed, as he was put into regression and left unattended throughout the interval. After the show, he felt unwell. He was referred to a psychiatric unit for four weeks. Nine months later, his condition has deteriorated severely, and he now thinks of himself as eight years old and behaves like an eight-year-old. He must be accompanied by an adult at all times.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will investigate this matter with the seriousness that it deserves. I want the Home Office guidelines strengthened and effectively enforced.
12.18 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) on securing the opportunity to discuss the topic of stage hypnotism. I am not sure whether he is aware that we have in our presence a former president of the Federation of Ethical Stage Hypnotists in the shape of the Under-Secretary of State for Schools, my hon. Friend the Member for Homchurch (Mr. Squire), so I answer this debate with considerable trepidation. Hypnotism is not a subject that features regularly in the House's deliberations, although it may offer some answers to the problems that have been experienced of late.
I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point that this is a serious matter, and I am sure that I speak for everyone in the House in extending my sympathy to the hon. Gentleman's constituents—the family of Mrs. Tabarn— who died so unexpectedly last year. I fully understand the distress and sense of loss experienced by her daughter.
I will begin by describing the legislation that applies to public exhibitions of hypnotism. Under the Hypnotism Act 1952, licensing authorities for public entertainments—district councils and London boroughs—may attach conditions to public entertainment licences to regulate or to prohibit exhibitions or performances of hypnotism. In places where no public entertainments licence is in force—because, for example, no music or dancing takes place—the licensing authority's authorisation is still required before any public exhibition of hypnotism takes place.
Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I am not an expert on stage hypnotism or any other form, but if one is willing to be hypnotised, one is acquiescing. It

749
is a matter of personal choice. How does one strike a balance between personal choice and the adverse effects that may result?
Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend that personal choice is exerted when deciding to be hypnotised, but the whole point is that, once one is hypnotised, personal choice is somewhat diminished. That is the reasoning behind the legislation.
The licensing authority may specify conditions on which the exhibition shall take place. Anyone who gives a public performance of hypnotism as an entertainment without authority, or in contravention of a condition of licence, commits an offence. So does anyone who hypnotises a person under the age of 18 as part of a public performance. Demonstrations of hypnotism for scientific or research purposes, or in the course of medical treatment, are outside the scope of the controls in the 1952 Act.
The concern of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West stems from Mrs. Tabarn's untimely death last year, only a few hours after she had been hypnotised in the course of a public display at the public house where she worked. I certainly understand her family's feeling that the two events were connected, but, as I understand it, the coroner did not find a connection, and his verdict was that Mrs. Tabarn's death was due to natural causes.
The hon. Member for Lancashire, West mentioned the Home Office pathologist, and I saw a letter that he sent to Sheffield university in which he stated that, as far as he was concerned, there was no evidence that the hypnosis show the night before could have brought on the cause of Mrs. Tabarn's death.
I am aware also that opinion is divided on whether people taking part in exhibitions of hypnotism can suffer physical or psychological harm as a result. I am not aware of any incontrovertible evidence of harm. It seems that there is not a case for banning stage hypnotism altogether, as some have advocated—although the hon. Gentleman distanced himself from that view this evening.
Although watching or participating in a display of hypnotism may not be everybody's cup of tea, it is clearly an entertaining and enjoyable experience for many people. The hon. Member for Lancashire, West recently sent me some papers about hypnotism that included letters from members of the public claiming that they or someone they know suffered adverse effects.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) for his contribution. He also wrote to me on behalf of a constituent who feels that her friend suffered after-effects following a demonstration of stage hypnotism. I am not competent to judge whether or not those claims are valid.
Another question that has arisen about the 1952 Act in the last few months is whether it can be effectively enforced. My hon. Friend the member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) has been in touch with me about an unauthorised display of hypnotism in a public house in his constituency. It seems that the hypnotist concerned claimed that the performance was being conducted for research, and argued that he needed no licence or other authorisation because of the exemption that I mentioned earlier.
750
It is not for me to interpret the law in that or any other particular case, but it seems questionable whether a performance of hypnotism in a public house can genuinely be described as research. However, the local licensing authority, on which responsibility for enforcing the requirements of the Hypnotism Act 1952 rests, did not feel able to initiate a prosecution.
Further concerns over enforcement were raised by an article published in October in Stage and Television Today, which the hon. Gentleman drew to my attention. It suggested that other stage hypnotists were to conduct demonstrations for research purposes, so avoiding the licensing requirements of the Hypnotism Act. Clearly, if it were possible to circumvent the controls in the Act on entertainments involving hypnotism simply by labelling the performance "research", the purpose of the Act would be undermined.
In fact, the issues arising out of stage hypnotism and the legislation controlling it have never been clear-cut. The Home Office issued guidance to licensing authorities in 1953, at about the time when the Hypnotism Act came into force. That guidance was revised in 1989, and issued as a Home Office circular to local authorities. The circular is quite detailed: it sets out the legal provisions of the 1952 Act, and provides model conditions that licensing authorities might wish to apply to entertainment licences either to prohibit or to control exhibitions of hypnotism.
The circular suggests the conditions that might be imposed if an authority chose to regulate rather than prohibit public exhibitions of hypnotism. They include a requirement that the exhibition shall be conducted in such a way as not to be likely to cause harm to anyone attending it. Although it is not obligatory for licensing authorities to impose the model conditions set out in the Home Office circular, I understand that many do so.
It seems clear, therefore, that there are genuine concerns—whether justified or not—about the possible adverse consequences that some people might suffer after participating in performances of stage hypnotism. In addition, there are apparently problems over enforcing the controls in the Hypnotism Act; as a result, performances are taking place that are not licensed, but no action is brought against those who may have breached the licensing requirements.
Indeed, I believe that the event in Lancashire to which the hon. Member for Lancashire, West referred was not licensed or otherwise authorised, but that no proceedings were instituted. I understand, however, that the licensing council concerned subsequently advised all venues where public performances of hypnotism might take place of the licensing requirements, and of the sanctions and penalties that unlicensed performances could entail.
In all the circumstances, I do not think that we can let matters rest. Like other Departments, the Home Office is progressively reviewing regulatory legislation for which it is responsible. The purpose of those reviews is essentially deregulatory, to remove unnecessary constraints and controls; but when regulation is essential it will be retained, and it can be strengthened if public safety requirements suggest that that is necessary.

751
I am impressed by the representations that I have received from my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Lancashire, West, and it is therefore my intention that officials review the workings of the Hypnotism Act shortly.
Mr. David Nicholson: I am glad to hear how seriously my hon. Friend and the Home Office are taking the matter. May I remind my hon. Friend that I have intervened not only on behalf of my local authority but on behalf of Avon and Somerset police, whose job it is to enforce the law in this regard?
Mr. Forsyth: Indeed. My hon. Friend has drawn my attention to representations from the police and the local authority, and that played no small part in persuading me that we had to take the matter extremely seriously.
That is why a review will take place. It will examine evidence of the possible risk of harm to people taking part in public entertainments involving hypnotism, and the
752
appropriateness of the present regime of control that the Act provides. The Home Office guidelines will also be scrutinised.
The review will examine the arrangements for enforcement and, if necessary, prosecution, to establish whether the present arrangements are satisfactory. It will draw on medical expertise, and will involve consultations with all interested parties—particularly the local authorities on which responsibility for licensing and enforcement falls.
Clearly, I cannot anticipate the outcome of the review. It may reveal that no substantial change is needed; but I think that the Government need to consider very carefully whether the arrangements established more than 40 years ago for the control of public exhibitions of hypnotism remain the right way in which to deal with today's circumstances.
I thank the hon. Member for Lancashire, West for providing an opportunity for us to debate an important and interesting topic.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve midnight.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list those services that have been market-tested by his Department and won by the private sector, indicating the organisation that won the tender and its value.

  Mr. Newton
  No service in the Privy Council Office has been market-tested.

  Energy Expenditure
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the total expenditure on energy for offices and buildings by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Newton
  Expenditure on energy by the Privy Council Office amounted to £16,492 in 1991–92, £16,680 in 1992–93 and £13,977 in 1993–94. I am not responsible for any agencies.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Afzal v. Ford
  Mr. Brazier
  to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures his Department is taking to monitor the effects of the Afzal v. Ford ruling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department is collecting statistics on the number of cases concluded each month through arbitration in the county courts, and a sample of cases concluded at trial broken down by the type of case and amount of the award. These data will, over a period, indicate whether changes have taken place, for example in relation to the number of lower value personal injury cases dealt with in the small claims procedure, and the total number of arbitrations compared with the number of trials.

  Small Claims
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he plans to announce the review of the small claims court limit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor intends to keep the small claims limit under review. At present, officials are examining the volume of work received by the county courts in different monetary bands, gathering 432
  evidence on the current operation of the small claims procedure and considering other relevant information. Any proposals for change will be put out to public consultation in the usual way.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those services that have been market-tested by his Department and won by the private sector, indicating the organisation that won the tender and its value.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The services market tested by the Lord Chancellor's Department and won by the private sector are listed. The value of the contracts is £7,185,626.

  Court Building Management and Maintenance

  Alex Gordon Partnership

  CS Project Consultants

  Hubert Jenkins

  Osprey Project Management

  Powell Dobson

  Rainey Petrie Design

  Silk and Frazier

  TTPM Project Management

  Veryard and Partners

  WF Johnson and Partners

  Widnell Project Management

  WS Atkins Project Management.

  Estate Surveying

  Drivers Jonas

  DTZ Debenham Thorpe

  Torpy

  York Montague

  Printing and Forms Supply

  The Satellite Press Ltd.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the plans of his Department to make information available on the Internet and the documents which he intends to be made available on the Internet over the next year which will be accessible via the world wide web server "open.gov.uk" or any specific departmental server.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department has no firm plans for the release of information through the Internet at this point. However, it is considering the potential of the CCTA government information service—world wide web server "open.gov.uk"—as a complementary service for the release of publicly available information.

  Contact Centres
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many local authorities provide contact centres for fathers coming before family courts who wish to see their children; and what considerations are being made to extend the availability of contact centres across the country.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information sought is not a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Immigration Appeals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average cost of a hearing before a special adjudicator of the Immigration
  433
  Appeals Authority of an application for bail by a person detained under Immigration Act powers.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not available. In any one case, the cost of a hearing depends on many factors, such as the number of parties and witnesses attending and giving evidence, the level of representation and whether or not an interpreter is required.

ENVIRONMENT

  English Partnership
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the effect of the external finance limit on the EFL in the case of English Partnerships on the public sector borrowing requirement;

  (2) what is the effect of guarantees provided by English Partnerships on the PSBR.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The public sector borrowing requirement takes account of English Partnerships' external finance limit. Any calls arising from guarantees that English Partnerships give must be accommodated within its EFL, and therefore have no direct effect on the PSBR.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was paid in housing benefit(a) to council tenants and (b) to non-council tenants; how much was received in housing revenue account subsidy in each local housing authority area; and what was the size of the surplus or deficit in each local housing authority in 1993–94.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have placed in the Library a copy of the information requested by the hon. Member.

  Overpackaging
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received regarding overpackaging;

  (2) if he will introduce legal targets regarding the reduction of overpackaging; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has received over 450 representations about overpackaging in the past year.

  There are strong financial incentives for reducing unnecessary packaging, and industry has made substantial progress in this area. The Government believe that the best way reducing of overpackaging is to build on these incentives through effective use of economic instruments. Our producer responsibility initiative for packaging waste and the recently announced landfill levy will provide substantial and additional incentives for the reduction of overpackaging.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total expenditure on energy for offices and buildings by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies in each of the last three years for which figures are available.
  434
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  Department

  Agencies

  1991–92

  1.03

  1.05

  1992–93

  0.94

  1.04

  1993–94

  0.90

  1.10

  Conservation
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his strategy for the purchase of land for the protection of flora and fauna; what role he envisages voluntary conservation organisations might play in the purchase and management of land of conservation importance; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In keeping with the voluntary principle of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, new acquisitions by the county councils are restricted to fragile sites where no alternative owners are willing or able to undertake appropriate management. Voluntary bodies play an important part in conserving important wildlife sites. Where appropriate, English Nature can give financial support to voluntary bodies for purchase and management.

  Valuation Tribunals
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how members of local valuation tribunals are appointed and by whom;

  (2) by what means small business proprietors can become appointed to local valuation tribunal panels.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Valuation tribunal members are appointed by the county council, metropolitan district council or London borough council for the area concerned. Each appointing authority decides its own method of selection and appointment, but my Department has issued general guidance, stressing in particular the desirability of appointing members from a wide cross-section of the community. I would expect appointing authorities to welcome approaches from people interested in serving on tribunals. Tribunal presidents and clerks will also be happy to discuss with such people the work of tribunals and what is expected of members.

  Special Areas of Conservation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what further progress he has to announce on the consultation with owners and occupiers of land affected by the designation of special areas of conservation under the European union habitats directive, pursuant to his undertaking on 19 July,Official Report,column 240;

  (2) what further progress he has to announce on the selection and designation of sites to become special areas of conservation under the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994 approved on 19 July, as required by the EU directive on the conservation of natural habitats and, pursuant to his undertaking to the House on 19 July,Official Report, column 240.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are considering with the nature conservation agencies the sites to be proposed to
  435
  the Commission as candidate special areas of conservation in June 1995. The Government will publish a draft list of sites as soon as possible for consultation with owners, occupiers and other affected interests.

  Habitats Directive
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects additional draft regulations to implement the EU habitats directive on consents and permissions to be laid before the House, as indicated in his undertaking of 19 July, Official Report, column 242.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are currently considering the form that the additional regulations should take. They will be laid as soon as possible in the new year.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has to report on the establishment of joint working arrangements between sea fisheries committees, harbour authorities and local authorities as regards meeting the United Kingdom obligations under the European Union habitats directive for effective conservation in the maritime zone up to six miles offshore in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland, as announced in his undertaking of 19 July, Official Report, column 242.

  Mr. Atkins
  The obligations under the directive relate to designated special areas of conservation. No SACs will be designated until the list has been agreed with the Commission some time after June 1995. Where necessary for marine sites, management schemes will be developed. I expect these to build upon the arrangements being developed on a voluntary basis for many areas of our coast.

  County Hall
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will identify by building which parts of the county hall complex have been sold; and which parts remain to be sold.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The riverside—or main—building of county hall has been sold by way of the grant of a 999-year lease. Contracts for the sale of the remainder of the county hall site were exchanged on 14 October, with completion being set for 29 March 1995.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new measures he proposes to ensure that the international commitments made by the Prime Minister at the Rio Earth summit to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000 are met, following the decisions not to increase value added tax on domestic fuel to 17.5 per cent.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are committed to fulfilling their obligations under the climate change convention. We are considering whether further measures are needed to ensure that we remain on course.

  Civil Estate (Charges)
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's policy in respect of charging users of publicly funded resources a charge equivalent to a full commercial rental value in 436
  respect of real property; and what exceptions have been made to this policy.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Under the property repayment system introduced in 1984, Departments occupying the Government's civil estate currently pay an opportunity cost rent equivalent to the open market rent for their occupations of Government freeholds and properties on historically low rents. The opportunity cost rents are reviewed every five years.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those services that have been market-tested by his Department and won by the private sector, indicating the organisation that won the tender and its value.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In this Department so far, nine market tests which have involved exposing in-house functions to competition have been awarded to outside bidders, with a total value of £706,300.

  With the exception of staff catering at the Building Research Establishment, these were one-off construction research projects.

  Project

  Organisation

  BRE: staff catering

  Gardener Merchant

  Durability of organically coated metal cladding

  W. S. Atkins

  Water economy

  BSRIA

  Scoping study for HVAC systems

  Centre for Configurational Studies, the Open university

  Identification and development of source data for risk assessment systems, part 1

  Fire SERT centre

  Identification and development of source data for risk assessment systems, part 2

  Ulster university

  Fire-resistant behaviour of trussed rafters

  Trada Technology Ltd.

  Alternative aggregates

  Mott McDonald Consultants

  Ventilation of underground car parks

  TB V Science

  Departmental Offices
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will itemise the refurbishment works undertaken on buildings housing departmental staff in the last three years, indicating the costs involved and the nature of the refurbishments.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In addition to works undertaken on DOE buildings, the Department of the Environment Property Holdings undertakes work on buildings occupied by more than one Department. All the buildings concerned are on the common user estate. Works of less than £10,000 have been excluded from the table. Details
  437
  of refurbishment works funded by other departments will be provided by the Ministers concerned.

  Total estimated cost £ millions

  1991–92

  Valiant house, Uxbridge—internal refurbishment

  0.410

  Riverwalk house, London—refurbishment of heating induction units

  1.021

  Metropole building, London—toilet refurbishment

  0.295

  40–42 Westborough, Scarborough—ingoing works 1st floor

  0.016

  Crown house, Sunderland—external uplift works

  0.011

  Bridge house, Blyth—ground floor upgrade

  0.078

  Daryl house, Stockton—internal refurbishment

  0.327

  Crown house, Huddersfield—part toilet refurbishment

  0.066

  Crown house, Hull—toilet refurbishment

  0.048

  Crown house, Wakefield—toilet refurbishment

  0.057

  Pennine house, Washington—internal refurbishment

  0.127

  Eaton court, Reading—internal refurbishment

  2.135

  Bankhead avenue, Edinburgh—internal refurbishment

  1.097

  Total estimated cost£millions

  1992–93

  Elmwood house, Harrow—refurbishment of 4 floors

  1.800

  Mowden hall, Darlington—new podium roof

  0.420

  Unicorn house, North Shields—replace cladding and windows

  0.470

  Crown house, Corby—refurbishment of toilets

  0.221

  2 Marsham street, London—refurbishment of podium toilets

  0.514

  2 Marsham street, London—refurbishment of Tower toilets

  0.142

  Government offices Great George street, London—refurbish toilets, stack 1

  0.905

  Old Admiralty building, London—refurbish-modemise canteen

  0.358

  Ham River house, London—internal refurbishment

  0.592

  Olivetree house, Belfast—refurbish front entrance

  0.051

  Lyon house, Harrow—refurbish two floors

  0.589

  Lime Grove, Eastcote—internal refurbishment to spur 10

  0.064

  Bradford house, Llandeilo—general refurbishment

  0.099

  Crown house, Gainsborough—refurbish disabled tiolet

  0.016

  Berkeley house, Harrogate—toilet refurbishment

  0.021

  42 Eastgate, Leeds—toilet refurbishment

  0.034

  West Riding house, Leeds—part internal refurbishment

  0.026

  Crown buildings, Bridlington—new disabled access

  0.031

  Elvet house, Durham—toilet refurbishment

  0.108

  Crown house, Middlesbrough—internal refurbishment

  0.115

  Benton house, Newcastle—internal refurbishment

  0.071

  Government buildings, Kenton Bar, Newcastle—toilet refurbishment, spur U

  0.081

  438

  Total estimated cost £ millions

  Government buildings, Kenton Bar, Newcastle—internal refurbishment, spur J

  0.025

  Regent house, NEI centre, Newcastle— internal refurbishment

  0.100

  Pennine house, Washington—provision of disabled facilities

  0.031

  New buildings, Hinckley—internal and external refurbishment

  0.498

  Broadway house, Hereford—internal refurbishment

  0.115

  Ty Glyder, Bangor—external refurbishment

  0.485

  Argyle house, Edinburgh—internal refurbishment

  1.145

  St. Clare house, Ipswich—internal refurbishment

  2.585

  Hightown barracks, Wrexham—internal refurbishment

  0.808

  Cherry Grove CB, Haverfordwest—external refurbishment

  1.087

  84–86 Guild street, Aberdeen—refurbish entrance canopy

  0.080

  Thistle street, Edinburgh—toilet refurbishment

  0.019

  Ladywell house, Edinburgh—internal refurbishment phase 3

  0.251

  Meldrum house, Edinburgh—toilet refurbishment

  0.187

  Longman road, Inverness—upgrade entrance hall and refurbish plant room

  0.117

  Total estimated cost £ millions

  1993–94

  Ashdown house, Hastings—internal refurbishment

  5.835

  Crown buildings, Scunthorpe—internal and external refurbishment—part-funded Benefits Agency

  0.860

  Whitgift centre, Croydon—internal refurbishment

  1.240

  Mesnes house—internal and external refurbishment

  1.360

  Hook rise, Tolworth—internal refurbishment of A Block

  1.292

  Raydean House, Barnet—external refurbishment

  0.932

  246 Stockwell road, London—installation of secondary glazing

  0.063

  2 Carlton gardens, London—general refurbishment

  1.145

  Furness house, Barrow-in-Furness—internal refurbishment of fifth floor

  0.053

  DNS Marton, Blackpool—refurbishment kitchen and dining room

  0.171

  Eskdale house, Kendal—internal refurbishment

  0.023

  Stopgate lane, Liverpool—refurbishment F and G

  0.095

  Sunley tower, Manchester—refurbishment floor 10

  0.212

  Manchester house, Manchester— refurbishment floor 2

  0.135

  Bromyard avenue, Harrow—refurbishcanteen

  0.140

  Beeches road, chelmsford—internal refurbishment, spur F

  0.084

  41–55 Windmill hill, Ruislip—internal refurbishment

  0.210

  Elmbridge court, Gloucester—toilet refurbishment

  0.155

  Merrywalks house, stroud—toilet refurbishment

  0.058

  439

  Total estimated cost £ millions

  Bondgate hall, Alkwick—refurbish coach house

  0.070

  Elvet house, Durham—internal refurbishment

  0.094

  Crown house, Hunddersfield—part toilet refurbishment and kitchen upgrade

  0.124

  Forseter house, Bradford—refurbish eighth floor

  0.051

  Abbey House, Selby—refurbish grade 2 listed building

  0.146

  Government buildings, Kenton Bar, Newcastle—refurbishment of Spurs R, X and Y Block B and main corridor

  0.175

  Daryl House, Stockton—main entrance refurbishment

  0.026

  Five Ways tower, Birmingham—refurbish six floor

  0.363

  Chalfont drive, Nottingham—refurbish block 7

  0.381

  Station Road, Kettering—internal refurbishment

  0.052

  Greyfriars House, Aberdeen—external refurbishment

  1.890

  Cathay Park, Cardiff—internal and external refurbishment

  2.368

  Vespasian House, Dorchester—external refurbishment

  1.353

  IRO, Cumberland—reroofing and cladding phases 3, 4, 5 and 7

  9.331

  Buccleuch street, Dumfries—underpinning and internal improvement

  1.027

  Crown building, EBBW Vale—internal and external refurbishment

  1.721

  Argyle House, Edinburgh—toilet and B Floor refurbishment

  0.916

  St. Agnes road, Cardiff—external refurbishment block 4

  0.477

  84/86 Guild street, Aberdeen—internal refurbishment ground floor

  0.070

  Thistle street, Edinburgh—refurbish conference room and alterations to accommodation

  0.107

  Frederick street, Edinburgh—internal refurbishment

  0.455

  New Register house, Edinburgh—toilet upgrade

  0.043

  Castle Wynd, Inverness—general and toilet refurbishment

  0.315

  Mill street, Perth—internal refurbishment

  0.220

  1 Park Road North, Havant—main entrance refurbishment

  0.032

  Crown house, Portsmouth—ground floor refurbishment

  0.041

  OPCS, Titchfield—ground floor refurbishment stage 1

  0.046

  Much of this information is recorded in the "Market Testing Bulletin", published monthly, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Housing Expenditure
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline the expenditure plans in each year from 1994–95 to 1997–98 in respect of(a) the local authorities' housing investment programme and (b) the Housing Corporation's approved development programme.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 8 December 1994]: The total of housing investment programme allocations in England for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are £1,326 million and £1,272 million respectively. Both
  440
  figures exclude resources for estate action, which are now within the single regeneration budget.

  It is not possible to give planned HIP allocations for 1996–97 or 1997–98. These depend on annual decisions about resources for special housing programmes, and the national level of receipts taken into account.

  The Housing Corporation's gross capital resources for its approved development programme and the rough sleepers initiative are £1,533 million in 1994–95, £1,197 million in 1995–96, £1,177 million in 1996–97 and £1,191 million in 1997–98. The Housing Corporation will be publishing the full details of its approved development programme for 1995–96 later this month.

TREASURY

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the plans of his Department to make information available on the Internet and the documents which he intends to be made available on the Internet over the next year which will be accessible via the world wide web server "open.gov.uk" or any specific departmental server.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury's Internet service was launched on 15 November 1994.

  At present, the service includes the full details of the Budget, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's Budget statement and all the Budget news releases. Other documents that are available include other Treasury news releases, speeches, minutes of the Chancellor's monthly monetary meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England, reports of the panel of independent forecasters and details of the fundamental expenditure review of Treasury running costs.

  More information will be added in due course.

  All this material is provided on the Treasury's own Internet server. The address for the Treasury's world wide web pages is "http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk". In addition to the world wide web, the same information can be obtained by electronic mail or by FTP from the following addresses:

  Addresses

  Email mailing lists:

  " maillist@hm-treasury.gov.uk"

  Email file transfer:

  "ftpmail@hm-treasury.gov.uk"

  File Transfer (FTP):

  "ftp.hm-treasury.gov.uk"

  The text of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" has been published on the Internet by HMSO, and is available at "http://www.open.gov.uk/budget94/budget94.htm;" it can also be located by a hypertext link from the Treasury's world wide web pages.

  War Loan
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many recorded holders there are of the 3.5 per cent. war loan.
  441
  Mr. Nelson
  There are approximately 243,000 accounts in 31/2 per cent war stock on the Bank of England and other registers.

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances insurance policies for mortgage interest protection against sickness and unemployment are liable to the insurance premium tax; and what is his estimate of the effect on tax receipts of plans to restrict income support help with mortgage interest payments from October 1996.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Insurance policies for mortgage interest protection against sickness and unemployment are liable to insurance premium tax because they are a type of general insurance, almost all of which is subject to the tax. No specific estimate has been made of the effect on tax receipts of any increase in the use of such insurance—in the context of changes to the income support arrangements relating to mortgage interest payments—but any such effect is likely to be negligible.

  Manufacturing Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the contribution made to economic growth since 1992 by the reduction in the deficit on trade with the EEC in manufactures;

  (2) what was the contribution made to economic growth since 1992 by the reduction in the deficit on trade in (a) manufactures and (b) finished manufactures.

  Mr. Nelson
  Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the third quarter of 1994 gross domestic product increased by 6 per cent. Over the same period, net trade in manufactures contributed 0.9 percentage points to GDP growth, net trade in finished manufactures contributed 0.3 percentage points to GDP growth, and net trade in manufactures with countries in the European Union made a slightly negative contribution to GDP growth. However, more recently net trade in manufactures has accounted for a far more significant proportion of GDP growth, as the economies of the European Union have picked up.

  Building Societies Acts
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to amend the Building Societies Acts to ensure that if the first named holder of a joint account dies the second named holder qualifies for any bonuses in the event of a takeover.

  Mr. Nelson
  I am currently reviewing the Building Societies Act 1986. In my interim statement of 6 July, I said that stringent statutory controls on takeovers would be retained. The review is now focusing on societies' accountability and powers, but I am taking careful note of all the comments I have received about the position of joint account holders. I hope to announce the conclusion of the review soon.

  Official Residences (Expenditure)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many meetings or functions have been or will be held at No. 11 Downing street in December 1994 and which alcoholic drinks will be available.
  442
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No such information is available.

  Tourism
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give full details of all interdepartmental and non-governmental consultations carried out in the preparation of Customs and Excise compliance cost assessment No. 6 related to his Budget statement, with regard to the effect of the measures proposed on the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom tourism industry.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In common with most other Budget measures, there were no such consultations in preparing the compliance cost assessment to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, Customs and Excise has stated that the assessment will be reviewed in the light of any comments received.

  EU Budget
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the assumptions he made as to the increase in gross domestic product when calculating the United Kingdom contribution to the European Union budget for each year until 1999.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The growth assumptions used were consistent with those set out in the Budget of 29 November.

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on what date he plans to publish the Finance Bill;

  (2) what plans he has to publish the Finance Bill before the House rises for the Christmas recess.

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on Thursday 8 December, Official Report, column 330.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the average amount of VAT collected by one Customs and Excise VAT collection officer annually.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 8 December 1994]: For the year ending March 1994, Customs and Excise deployed 5,429 staff years on VAT visiting. These staff identified errors in traders' records which when corrected resulted in an increase in the net liability of £1,322 million, or an average of £243,507 per staff year. These figures do not take account of errors that traders might have found and corrected themselves.

  Customs and Excise has recently reviewed the way in which it deploys staff to ensure compliance with VAT requirements so as to ensure increased effectiveness. Over the coming years, effort will be refocused on better education to assist businesses to get their VAT declarations right. In parallel with this, targeting of visits and assurance techniques will be improved.

  Mortgage Statistics
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the percentage of those with mortgages who are self-employed, employed on fixed-term contracts or who are employed on a part-time basis.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 8 December 1994]: Estimates from the spring 1994 labour force survey for Great Britain show that of all heads of households who were owner-occupiers with mortgages, 15 per cent. were self-employed; 2 per cent. were employed on fixed-term contracts; and 4 per cent. were working part time either as an employee or self-employed. These three groups make up 19 per cent. of all mortgage holders.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new mortgages have been taken out in each of the last five years(a) in total and (b) by geographic region.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 8 December 1994]: Data for the total number of mortgages advanced are available in table 10.4 of "Housing and Construction Statistics 1983–1993" published by the Department of the Environment. These data are not published on a regional basis. However, the first column in table 10.9 of the same publication gives the percentage breakdown of new mortgages by region only for advances made by building societies.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the change in real personal disposable income over the whole of 1994 and in each quarter of 1994, both in aggregate and on a per capita basis.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 9 December 1994]: At this stage, quarterly information on real personal disposable income in aggregate and on a per capita basis is available only for the first half of 1994. It can be found on the Central Statistical Office database, series CECP and CAIU respectively. The Budget forecast is for no change in the level of real personal disposable income in 1994 as a whole compared with 1993. Quarterly forecasts are not published.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the main expected effects on the public accounts from 1994–95 to 1997–98 of the national lottery, including the effects on general Government expenditure, general Government revenue, the general Government borrowing requirement and the public sector borrowing requirement.

  Mr. Aitken
  [holding answer 9 December 1994]: Proceeds paid into the national lottery distribution fund are part of general Government revenue and spending of these proceeds part of general Government expenditure. The GGR figures in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" include projections of £0.2 billion in 1994–95, £0.7 billion in 1995–96, £0.9 billion in 1996–97 and £1.1 billion in 199798. These figures do not include lottery duty because the net effect of the lottery on tax revenues is expected to be broadly neutral after redistributive effects. The GGE figures include projections of £0.0 billion, £0.5 billion, £1.0 billion and £1.0 billion
  444
  respectively for those years. The difference between these flows in any particular year affects the general Government borrowing requirement and the public sector borrowing requirement. The spending of these proceeds is outside the public expenditure control total.

  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the main effects on the public sector accounts from 1992–93 to 1997–98 of the re-classification of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. as a public corporation, including the effects on the public expenditure new control total, general Government expenditure, the general Government borrowing requirement and the public sector borrowing requirement.

  Mr. Aitken
  [holding answer 9 December 1994]: The figures for the control total contained in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" include the following amounts for BNFL's external financing requirements for the years in question:

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  EFR

  -392

  -653

  -422

  -411

  -573

  -244

  The reclassification of BNFL as a public corporation in national accounts had no effect on general Government expenditure or the general Government borrowing requirement. However, it did mean that BNFL's market and overseas borrowing became part of the public sector borrowing requirement. The amounts in each year are:

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  EFR

  -417

  -679

  -449

  -439

  -601

  -272

  The difference between the two sets of figures represents the payment of the fossil fuel levy to BNFL which is now included in its external financing requirement but was previously outside the control total. These payments have been included in general Government expenditure since the 1993 national accounts Blue Book.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list those services that have been market-tested by his Department and won by the private sector, indicating the organisation that won the tender and its value.

  The Attorney-General
  The reprographics service of the Crown Prosecution Service headquarters was market-tested in 1991 and the contract awarded to Williams Lea FM. The value of the contract is approximately £1 million.

  Brendan Smyth
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Attorney-General what information he, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland or the RUC have about approaches made by Father Bernard Marshall of the Norbertine Canons
  445
  based in County Cavan to a family whose children had been abused in Northern Ireland by Father Brendan Smyth after warrants for the latter's deportation had been delivered by the RUC to the Garda in April 1993 and prior to his subsequent conviction in January 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I have been asked to reply.

  The RUC investigated an allegation from a member of the public of an attempt to pervert the course of justice by taking a statement from a member of the family of a victim of Brendan Smyth.

  In the light of this statement, it was decided that no further action was appropriate.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Bosnia-Herzegovina
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the value since February 1994 of monthly supplies of humanitarian aid from(a) Government and (b) non-governmental organisations to Bosnia-Herzegovina; and what were the monthly targets.

  Mr. Baldry
  Monthly figures for the value of humanitarian aid to Bosnia-Herzegovina since February 1994 are not available. According to the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs, the value of 1994 aid contributions to the former Yugoslavia reported to the DHA by donors as at 27 October 1994 was:

  $

  Governments

  367,872,094

  European Union

  62,198,805

  UN Agencies

  12,597,735

  Red Cross

  42,054,618

  Non-Government Organisations

  131,254,905

  Others

  7,545,230

  Total

  623,523,387

  Target (tonnes)

  Delivered (tonnes)

  1994

  February

  42,000

  22,000

  March

  47,000

  43,000

  April

  27,000

  25,000

  May

  33,000

  27,000

  June

  31,000

  25,000

  July

  33,000

  22,000

  August

  23,000

  13,000

  September

  23,000

  18,000

  October

  23,000

  25,000

PRIME MINISTER

  Parliamentary Private Secretaries
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the current list of parliamentary private secretaries and the Ministers to whom each is attached.
  446
  The Prime Minister
  The list is as follows:

  Name

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Minister for Agriculture— Mr. W. Waldegrave

  Mr. O. Heald

  Minister of State—Mr. M. Jack

  Miss E. Nicholson

  Defence

  Secretary of State—Mr. M. Rifkind

  Mr. H. Bellingham

  Ministers of State—Mr. R. Freeman and Mr. N. Soames

  Mr. S. Coe

  Duchy of Lancaster

  Chancellor of the Duchy—Mr. D. Hunt

  Mr. N. Evans

  Education

  Secretary of State—Mrs. G. Shephard

  Mr. G. Kynoch

  Minister of State—Mr. E. Forth

  Mr. J. Whittingdale

  Employment

  Secretary of State—Mr. M. Portillo

  Mr. D Amess

  Minister of State—Miss A. Widdecombe

  Dr. R. Spink

  Environment

  Secretary of State—Mr. J. Gummer

  Mr. D. French

  Minister of State—Viscount Ullswater, Mr. D. Curry and Mr. R. Atkins

  Mr. J. Hayes

  Foreign Office

  Secretary of State—Mr. D. Hurd

  Mr. M. Robinson

  Ministers of State—Mr. A. Goodlad and Mr. D. Davis

  Mr. E. Garnier

  Minister for Overseas Development— Lady Chalker—and PUSS—Mr. T. Baldry

  Mr. D. Faber

  Health

  Secretary of State—Mrs. V. Bottomley

  Mr. K. Mans

  Minister of State—Mr. G. Malone

  Mr. P. Butler

  Home Office

  Secretary of State—Mr. M. Howard

  Mr. D. Lidington

  Minister of State—Mr. D. Maclean and Mr. M. Forsyth

  Mr J. Arnold

  Minister of State—Lady Blatch

  Mr. J. Clappison

  Laws Officers Department

  Attorney-General—Sir N. Lyell and Solicitor-General—Sir. D. Spencer

  Mr. G. Streeter

  Minister without Portfolio—Mr. J. Hanley

  Mr. P. Atkinson

  National Heritage

  Secretary of State—Mr. S. Dorrell

  Mr. G. Brandreth

  Northern Ireland Office

  Secretary of State—Sir P. Mayhew

  Mr. R. Spring

  Minister of State—Sir J. Wheeler and Mr. M. Ancram

  Mr. R. Robertson

  Prime Minister

  Mr. J. Ward

  Privy Council Office

  Lord President and Leader of the House of Commons—Mr. T. Newton

  Mr. J. Marshall

  Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords—The Viscount Cranborne

  Miss C. Gillan

  Scottish Office

  Secretary of State—Mr. I. Lang

  Mr. S. Coombs

  Social Security

  Secretary of State—Mr. P Lilley

  Mr. P. Merchant

  Ministers of State—Mr. W. Hague and Lord MacKay

  Mr. C. Hendry

  PUSSs—Mr. A. Burt, Mr. J. Arbuthnot and Mr. R. Evans

  Ms J. Lait

  447

  Name

  Trade and Industry

  President of the Board—Mr. M. Heseltine

  Mr. R. Ottaway

  Minister of State—Mr. T Eggar

  Mr. P. Luff

  Ministers of State—Lord Ferrers and Mr. R. Needham

  Mr. A. Rowe

  Transport

  Secretary of State—Dr. B. Mawhinney

  Mr. M. Trend

  Minister of State—Mr. J. Watts

  Mr. T. Dicks

  Treasury

  Chancellor of the Exchequer—Mr. K. Clarke

  Mrs A. Knight

  Chief Secretary—Mr. J. Aitken

  Mr. P. Ainsworth

  Financial Secretary—Sir G. Young Paymaster General— Mr. D. Heathcoat-Amory and Economic Secretary— Mr. A. Nelson

  Dr. C. Goodson-Wickes

  Welsh Office

  Secretary of State—Mr. J. Redwood

  Mr. D. Evennett

  Parliamentary Private Secretaries
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a current list of(a) all parliamentary private secretaries and (b) unpaid members of the Government.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).

  The Minister without portfolio is the only member of the Government who does not draw a ministerial salary.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Parliamentary Private Secretaries there are; and if he will provide comparable figures for November 1989, November 1984 and May 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 November 1994]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).

  Details of parliamentary private secretaries for earlier dates are a matter of public record.

  Building Refurbishment
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will itemise the refurbishment works undertaken on buildings housing departmental staff in the last three years, indicating the costs involved and the nature of the refurbishments.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment today at columns 436–39.

  In 1991–92 the kitchens used for catering for official functions in 10 Downing street were refurbished to bring them into line with the requirements of the then new food hygiene regulations. The cost of these works was £122,000 excluding value added tax and fees.

  Energy Expenditure
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total expenditure on energy for each property owned or leased by his Department for the use of Ministers in each of the last three years for which figures are available.
  448
  The Prime Minister
  Nil.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what was the total expenditure on energy for offices and buildings by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies in each of the last three years for which figures are available;

  (2) what was the total expenditure on energy for (a) No. 10 Downing street and (b) Chequers in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  The Prime Minister
  The total expenditure on energy for 10 Downing street in each of the last three financial years was:

  £

  1991–92

  39,000

  1992–93

  39,000

  1993–94

  33,000

  The Chequers estate is the responsibility of the Chequers Trust.

  Official Residences (Expenditure)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy concerning the use of No. 10 Downing street for non-official or party political functions.

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers under this and previous Administrations have been allowed—at their own or party expense—to host non-official or party receptions or functions in Downing street. All catering, staff and other direct expenses must be met by the organisers of the event.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Prime Minister how many bottles of(a) whisky, (b) other spirits and (c) wine were bought from public funds for use at No.10 Downing street and the Prime Minister's other official residences in 1993–94; and how much they cost.

  The Prime Minister
  Disaggregated information of this sort could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Prime Minister how many meetings or functions have been or will be held at No. 10 Downing street in December 1994 at which alcoholic drinks will be available.

  The Prime Minister
  Such information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister what charges are made to organisations or persons holding non-official or party functions at No. 10 Downing street in respect of overheads or directs costs associated with such functions.

  The Prime Minister
  Where charitable or other non-official events are held at No. 10 Downing street, the organisers are responsible for all catering and staff costs, as well as other miscellaneous direct costs. Organisers may use the kitchens or other facilities at No. 10 Downing street.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister how many functions have been held at(a) No. 10 Downing street and (b) Chequers since November 1990 where the cost of refreshments was paid by a political party.

  The Prime Minister
  The answer is:

  (a) 52

  (b) 3

  Shareholders
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he is giving to how shareholders might be given additional powers to influence boardroom pay and perks.

  The Prime Minister
  Shareholders are already able to influence directors' remuneration. The Government are always ready to consider ideas for improving shareholders' powers or the information which is made available to them. It was announced in the White Paper on competitiveness—CM 2563—that the Government have been reviewing a number of aspects of company law, including directors' duties.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister how many parliamentary questions tabled in the last Session of Parliament were not answered on the ground that the information sought was not held centrally by his Department.

  The Prime Minister
  Approximately 1 per cent.

  Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the CSCE summit meeting in Budapest.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) on 7 December 1994,Official Report, columns 220–22.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those services that have been market-tested by his Department and won by the private sector, indicating the organisation that won the tender and its value.

  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science at column 455.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit the state of Oregon, United States of America.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Security (Politicians)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister how much has been spent on security for(a) Cabinet members, (b) ex-Cabinet members and (c) other national politicians in each of the last five years.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 December 1994]: Since April 1991 about £4.4 million has been spent on the installation of protective security measures at the homes of Cabinet Ministers, ex-Cabinet Ministers and other hon. Members. These measures were provided on the advice of those responsible for protective security and reflected on assessment of the threat to the individuals concerned. All spending is carefully monitored and controlled by those responsible.

  Information in the form requested for before that date is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Security and Intelligence Services
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister how many staff have been employed by the security and intelligence services during each of the last five years.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 December 1994]: Staff numbers for the security and intelligence services for 1993–94 and 1994–95 were published in the 1994–95 supply estimates—class XIX, Cabinet Office, Privy Council Office and Parliament etcetera. They totalled 10,766 and 10,516 respectively. Figures for earlier years are not publicly available, and I do not propose to publish such data retrospectively.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the budget for the security and intelligence services during each of the last five years.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 December 1994]: The expenditure of the agencies was published for the first time in the 1994–95 Supply estimates—class XIX, Cabinet Office, Privy Council Office and Parliament etcetera. Aggregate expenditure in 1992–93 was £859.6 million. Estimated outturn for 1993–94 was £961.3 million and net provision for 1994–95 was £881.5 million. Figures for earlier years are not publicly available, and I do not propose to publish such data retrospectively.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Open Government
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will establish a review of the differential charging policies of Government Departments for information requested under the code of practice on access to official information under the open government initiative.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is considering to improve the openness of government.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am continuing to implement the policy set down in the White Paper on open government.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much money has been spent on promoting and advertising his White Paper "Open Government" in the past year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Some £51,000 since April this year.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the performance of the citizens charter.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The citizens charter has led to considerable improvements in public services. Details of these improvements have been published in the citizens charter reports in 1992 and 1994. There have also been 227 charter mark awards, each one recognising excellence in public service delivery.

  Public Complaints
  Mrs Angela Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress his Department has made in making it easier for citizens to complain about the delivery of public services.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Well-publicised and easy to use complaints procedures are a key principle of the citizens charter. In addition, our independent complaints task force is looking at how public services handle complaints and where improvements can be made.

  Government Information
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest figures for people using Internet to obtain government information.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  In the past two months, there have been 332599 requests for government information from Internet users.

  Building Refurbishments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will itemise the refurbishment works 452
  undertaken on buildings housing departmental staff in the last three years, indicating the costs involved and the nature of the refurbishments.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The following refurbishment projects were undertaken and paid for from departmental funds.

  Civil Service College

  Year

  Location

  Cost £

  Description of Project

  1991–92

  Sunningdale Park

  292,000

  Part of an on-going programme to refurbish previously low-quality lecture accommodation, adding improved insulation, new windows, new toilet facilities for disabled students and general upgrade of existing toilet facilities.

  1991–92

  Sunningdale Park

  130,000

  Conversion of a basement store area to provide office accommodation for staff transferred from London.

  1992–93

  Sunningdale Park

  23,000

  Part of an on-going programme to refurbish previously low-quality lecture accommodation, adding improved insulation, new windows, new toilet facilities for disabled students and general upgrade of existing toilet facilities.

  1992–93

  Sunningdale Park

  32,000

  Works to provide a ground floor coffee lounge and bar to enable disabled staff and students access to facilities enjoyed by others.

  1993–94

  Sunningdale Park

  130,000

  Works to upgrade staff leisure facility to enable it to be used by the public at weekends.

  HMSO

  Year

  Location

  Cost £

  Description of Project

  1993–94

  Belfast

  54,000

  Refurbishment of bookshop.

  1993–94

  Belfast

  200,000

  Refurbishment of office accommodation following flood damage due to a burst water main.

  1993–94

  Manchester

  74,000

  Refurbishment of bookshop.

  1993–94

  Birmingham

  40,000

  Refurbishment of reprographics unit allowing surplus space to be reused.

  1993–94

  Norwich

  8,500

  Refurbishment of toilets.

  1993–94

  London

  124,500

  Conversion of warehouse space to provide office accommodation, and upgrading of toilets.

  453

  Occupational Health Service

  Year

  Location

  Cost £

  Description of Project

  1991–92

  Cardiff

  1,805

  Installation of secondary double glazing.

  1991–92

  London

  7,500

  Installation of new fire doors and air conditioning unit.

  1992–93

  Edinburgh

  1,101

  Refurbishment and general uplift of conference facilities.

  1992–93

  London

  6,500

  Creation of a new room to carry out physiotherapy following the award of a contract to OHS by LFCDA.

  1993–94

  Edinburgh

  3,350

  Refurbishment and redecoration of toilet and kitchen facilities adjacent to a conference room.

  1993–94

  London

  9,850

  Installation of air conditioning and redecoration and refurbishment of public reception area.

  Central Cabinet Office

  Year

  Location

  Cost £

  Description of Project

  1992–93

  London

  367,750

  Refurbishment of kitchen in the staff canteen to comply with the requirements of the then new Food Hygiene Act.

  1992–93

  London

  81,000

  Refurbishment of a suite of rooms in 70 Whitehall.

  1992–93

  London

  9,790

  Refurbishment of office accommodation as part of a rolling programme.

  1992–93

  London

  450,000

  Refurbishment of Albany house, following vacation by previous occupants, to provide single-site accommodation for newly created Office of Science and Technology.

  1993–94

  London

  19,990

  Creation of new office space to house support staff for the Scott inquiry team.

  1993–94

  London

  30,700

  Refurbishment of reprographics unit accommodation as part of a rolling programme.

  1993–94

  London

  48,93

  Refurbishment of office accommodation as part of a rolling programme.

  1993–94

  London

  15,675

  Refurbishment of existing office accommodation to provide purpose built suite for switchboard operators.

  1993–94

  London

  2,380

  Refurbishment of existing office to adapt it for use as a computer training room.

  1993–94

  London

  3,520

  Expenditure on refurbishment of a suite of rooms in 70 Whitehall falling to be paid in 1993–94.

  454

  Central office of information

  Year

  Location

  Cost £

  Description of Project

  1991–92

  London

  124,509

  Refurbishment of headquarters office accommodation as part of a rolling programme.

  1991–92

  London

  5,235

  Modifications to power and lighting as part of a rolling programme.

  1992–93

  London

  89,912

  Refurbishment of headquarters office accommodation as part of a rolling programme.

  1992–93

  London

  6,562

  Modifications to electrics as part of a rolling programme.

  1993–94

  London

  120,562

  Refurbishment of headquarters office accommodation as part of a rolling programme.

  1993–94

  London

  58,403

  Modifications to electrics as part of a rolling programme.

  Energy Expenditure
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total expenditure on energy for offices and buildings by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The total expenditure on energy for offices and buildings in my Department and its agencies for each of the last three years was:

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Cabinet Office

  376,019

  398,743

  374,485

  OPSS agencies

  306,450

  347,831

  334,728

  Central Office of Information

  109,844

  116,504

  113,420

  HMSO

  1,102,000

  1,158,000

  1,120,000

  Tinnitus
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the current work of the Institute of Hearing Research on tinnitus.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Although work on tinnitus does not currently form a major theme of activity at the Medical Research Council's Institute of Hearing Research, the institute does undertake some tinnitus research in several areas. These include an epidemiological study of risk factors associated with tinnitus and its effects on lifestyle; three studies on the extent of referral by GPs for specialist advice; and methodological research aimed at establishing an improved scale of tinnitus severity. Links with the Nottingham tinnitus clinic are actively maintained. The MRC is always willing to consider soundly-based research proposals in competition with other applications.

  CERN
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's
  455
  Government's policy on investment in new developments at CERN.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The Government have consistently expressed their support in principle for the next major development planned at CERN, the large hadron collider project. It is widely acknowledged to be the right next step for the organisation and more generally for particle physics at the high-energy frontier. However, the LHC, like many other major international scientific initiatives, will be very expensive. Before giving final approval, therefore, it is essential that the project is based on a fair and sustainable financial framework. This will ensure that the investment made in the project gives the best possible value for money, both scientifically and economically. It is only by ensuring that major international collaborative facilities such as CERN are tightly managed that we will be able to afford the domestic science programmes which will exploit those facilities fully.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those services that have been market-tested by his Department and won by the private sector, indicating the organisation that won the tender and its value.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Those services market tested under the "Competing for Quality" initiative by the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service and Science, including its agencies, HMSO and COI, and won by the private sector, are as follows:

  Activity Tested (and area)

  Successful Tenderer

  Telephonist Service for Downing Street—Cabinet Office

  Manpower plc

  Office Services—Cabinet Office

  Serco Ltd.

  Recruitment Monitoring—OPSS

  PE International Ltd.

  Facilities Management—CCTA

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  Reprographics—Chessington

  Dytecna Ltd.

  Typing Services—HMSO

  Manpower plc

  Passport Supply and Production—HMSO

  Thomas De La Rue

  Classified Printing—HMSO

  Greenaways

  Office Services: Custody Cleaning—COI

  Royal British Legion Cleancare Ltd.

  Catering—COI

  Gardner Merchant Ltd.

  The total value of these services is just over £3.9 million per annum. Individual contract values are not given as this would prejudice the legitimate commercial interests of those companies involved. Information on the restrictions of publication of commercial data within Government can be found in the code of practice on access to Government information, guidance on interpretation. Information on all market testing activities within central Government is published monthly in the "Market Testing Bulletin", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

EDUCATION

  Schools, Islington
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will arrange for ballots to be conducted in each secondary school in Islington on the issue of whether the school should apply for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no powers to arrange for any school to conduct a ballot on whether to apply for grant-maintained status. A ballot, in Islington as elsewhere, may only be triggered by a resolution of the governing body of the school, or by the presentation to the governing body of a parental petition.

  Energy Expenditure
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total expenditure on energy for offices and buildings by(a) her Department and (b) her agencies in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  The total expenditure incurred by this Department on energy in respect of the offices and buildings occupied in each of the last three financial years is as follows:

  £

  1991–92

  577,600

  1992–93

  530,500

  1993–94

  550,600

  The Teachers Pensions Agency shares a supply of electricity with the Department on its Darlington site. It is therefore not possible accurately to disaggregate the agency's energy costs which are included in the figures given.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list those services that have been market-tested by her Department and won by the private sector, indicating the organisation that won the tender and its value.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is as follows:

  Service

  Successful contractor

  The Department's publications despatch service

  Westex Ltd.

  Catering at the Department's headquarters

  Gardner Merchant

  Banking services provided to the Teachers Pensions Agency

  Midland Bank plc

  The Department's data preparation service

  Compower Ltd.

  The value of the individual contracts is commercially confidential information.

  Political activity is excluded if there might be a conflict of interest between political activity and the holding of a public appointment. The rules on political affiliation and conflict of interest are laid

  457
  down in the Office of Public Service and Science "Guide on Public Appointments Procedures".

DEFENCE

  Indonesia
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel have been provided by the Ministry of Defence to(a) support sales of planes and other military equipment to Indonesia during the last two years and (b) have been stationed in Indonesia during the last two years; and for what purpose they were there.

  Mr. Soames
  Other than a colonel attached to the British embassy in Jakarta as defence attache and a warrant officer to support him, no military personnel have been stationed in Indonesia for any purpose during the last two years.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 December,Official Report, column 108, what was the basis on which he calculated annual savings arising from the market testing of health provision for British forces.

  Mr. Soames
  The level of savings arising from exposing an activity to competition will depend upon the outcome of the exercise to test the efficiency of in-house services and functions against tenders from outside contractors. In the case of health provision for the armed forces, many of the support activities which make up the service are still the subject of feasibility studies to determine objectives, priorities and optimum savings routes. Experience has shown that for departmental purposes, a savings target of at least 15 per cent. of the annual operating cost should be assumed to flow from the exposure of an activity to competitive pressures, but the final savings achieved will depend on the outcome of the market-testing exercise itself, and in many cases will be considerably higher.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those services that have been market-tested by his Department and won by the private sector, indicating the organisation that won the tender and its value.

  Mr. Freeman
  In the 30-month period up to September 1994, the Ministry of Defence examined 82 support activities with annual operating costs in the order of £600 million under the Department's "Competing for Quality" programme, which included market-testing activities. This resulted in contracts being placed with the private sector for 46 of these activities covering over two thirds of the total annual operating costs. Full details of individual contracts remain commercial-in-confidence, although some information on contracts awarded as a result of market tests is published monthly in the "Market Testing Bulletin" available from the House of Commons Library.

  EH101 Helicopters
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Royal Air Force to place an order for the EH101 helicopter.
  458
  Mr. Freeman
  We hope to be able to make an announcement shortly on our decision on support helicopters for the Royal Air Force.

  Ministerial Travel (Israel)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) in what capacity Mr. David Hart took part in his recent visit to Israel; and who paid for his costs;

  (2) who was in the official party during his recent visit to Israel; and who paid for the visit.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend was accompanied by Mrs. Rifkind, Mr. David Hart in his capacity as an independent adviser, Mr. Crispin Blunt—special adviser—the MOD press secretary, two members of his private office staff and an MOD official.

  The costs of the visit were met from public funds with the exception of Mr. Hart, who paid his own costs.

  "Front Line First"
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultancy contracts have been let by his Department as part of the "Front Line First" review; which companies have won contracts; and what sums of money are involved.

  Mr. Freeman
  BAe Sema, Price Waterhouse, Monk Dunstone Associates, McKenna and Co. and P-E International provided advice to the defence costs study. A number of individuals from outside Government, as listed in the answer given to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 29 April,Official Report, column 399, were engaged to provide advice to the defence costs study teams.

  Not all those listed charged for their services, although the companies for which some worked did. Those companies were:

  Capita Managed Services Ltd.

  Jones Lang Wootton

  Trias Management Consultants

  Ian McNeil Associates

  Central Research Laboratories Ltd.

  The total cost in fees to the Ministry of Defence of the work done in the study phase of "Front Line First" inclusive of VAT is £396,597. This total includes an estimate of the elements of the costs of contracts held with BAe Sema and Price Waterhouse prior to the DCS, the terms of which were changed to reflect, inter alia, work done on the DCS.

  RAF Chivenor
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the projected cost of new sewerage works at RAF Chivenor.

  Mr. Soames
  There are no plans for any new sewerage works at RAF Chivenor other than routine maintenance. If it is not possible to find an alternative defence use for the main site at RAF Chivenor following the departure of the RAF, some work would be necessary to link the SAR flight to the local council's main drainage system. The estimated cost of this work is approximately £100,000.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to moving the Sea King search-and-rescue flight currently stationed at RAF Chivenor to St. Mawgan.
  459
  Mr. Soames
  As part of my Department's review of its requirement for military SAR, a number of possible basing options were considered. For the south Wales and west country area, it was concluded that optimum SAR cover could be provided from RAF Chivenor, and the Brawdy flight was subsequently transferred there on 1 July 1994.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent and how much it plans to spend on building works to enable the Sea King flight to operate at RAF Chivenor.

  Mr. Soames
  Some £47,100 has so far been spent and a further £51,100 is planned to be spent on building works at RAF Chivenor to enable the Sea King flight to operate there.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the costs of supporting and RAF Sea King flight at RAF Chivenor in(a) 1994–95 (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  £

  1994–95

  nil

  1995–96

  573,000

  1996–97

  1,030,000

  These figures represent the station infrastructure and operating costs. They do not include the costs of operating the SAR flight.

  Fox Hunting
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on fox hunting for members of the armed forces in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Soames
  Fox hunting is undertaken by some members of mounted units as part of normal training, and costs are not separately identified. No additional costs are incurred by my Department as a result of participation in this activity since these are met by the individuals concerned.

  Expenditure
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the percentage fall in defence expenditure from 1984–85 to 1997–98.

  Mr. Soames
  Based on current plans, defence spending is expected to decline by around 28 per cent. in real terms between 1984–85 and 1997–98, as measured by the GDP deflators published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", 1995–96—House of Commons No. 12. Outturn in 1984–85 included some expenditure for the security and intelligence services which now falls outside the defence budget.

  Airwork Ltd.
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much his Department is attempting to recover from Airwork Ltd. following work undertaken by that company at RAF St. Athan;
  460
  (2) what is his estimate of the total cost of the damage caused by Airwork Ltd. on the Tornados based at RAF St. Athan.

  Mr. Freeman
  Preparation of my Department's claim, for costs consequent upon the damage to Tornado F3 aircraft caused by Airwork, is not yet complete.

  Aircraft Movements
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft movements by(a) Southampton University Air Squadron and (b) others took place on Saturdays and Sundays in (i) September 1994, (ii) October 1994 and (iii) November 1994 at Aircrafts and Armaments Experimental Establishment Boscombe Down.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  Southampton University Air Squadron

  Others

  September

  10

  106

  October

  132

  79

  November

  225

  106

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  International Civil Aviation Organisation
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how often his senior staff meet their colleague in the Department of Transport to discuss British representation at the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  United Kingdom representation on the council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the office and staff is fully funded by the Department of Transport. The posts of United Kingdom representative and alternate United Kingdom representative are filled by the Department of Transport. There are no detailed discussions between FCO and DOT officials on representation. However, FCO and DOT officials have regular and close contact on the international aspects of British aviation policy and the DOT attends meetings held by the FCO to discuss the United Kingdom's policy interests in the whole range of UN specialised agencies.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria govern his decision in respect of the public appointments to which political activity is relevant.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The criteria which govern the composition of the governing bodies of non-departmental public bodies for which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is responsible and to which political activity are relevant are as follows:

  Political activity is relevant where the board needs to cover a range of political experience to support the work of the NDPB in question. This will depend on the political affiliation and experience of the MPs, MEPs and

  461
  Members of the House of Lords from whom the candidates are drawn.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the public appointments in respect of which political party membership is relevant.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The appointments to the boards of non-departmental public bodies for which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is responsible in respect of which political party membership is relevant are:

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy:

  The following are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State:

  Conservative 3, including the chairman—MPs

  Labour 3–2 MPs and 1 MEP

  Scottish National Party 1, representing the smaller parties—currently an MP

  Wilton Park Academic Council:

  The following are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State:

  Conservative 1—MP

  Labour 1—MP

  Liberal Democrat 1—MP

  British Council:

  The following are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State:

  Conservative 1—MP

  Labour 1—MP

  Commonwealth Institute:

  The following are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State:

  Conservative 1—MP

  Labour 1—MP

  Britain-Russia Centre:
  The chairman is appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reflect the composition of the executive committee which consists of a politician from each of the major political parties.

  Conservative 1—MP

  Labour 1—MP

  Liberal Democrat—1 MP

  Britain-China Centre:
  The chairman is appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reflect the composition of the executive committee which is made up of two conservative and two labour MPs and one Liberal Democrat MP.

  Conservative 2—MPs

  Labour 2—MPs

  Liberal Democrat 1—MP

  British Association for Central and Eastern Europe:
  The chairman is appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reflect the composition of the executive committee which is made up of two conservative and two labour politicians and one Liberal Democrat politician.

  Conservative 2—MPs

  Labour 2–1 MP, 1 Peer

  Liberal Democrat 1—MP.

  Jean Pierre Derisbourg
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the European Commission 462
  about the investigation by the EU's external relations inspection unit into the expenses of Jean Pierre Derisbourg.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We attach the utmost importance to encouraging sound financial management in the institutions of the Community, and will insist on appropriate action whenever instances of fraud or mismanagement are apparent. Within the Council, we have pressed the Commission for a report on its investigation into the matter raised by the hon. Member.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration they are giving to hold WEU meetings concurrently with meetings of the EU Foreign Affairs Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  WEU meets at ministerial level every six months, more often if required in a crisis, with Foreign and Defence Ministers from the 24 nations which are either full members, associate members, associate partners or observers. In the past, there have been occasions when WEU Ministers have met back to back with the Foreign Affairs Council, but it would not be practical to make this a rule.

  Bulgarian Vessels (Safety)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will hold urgent talks with the Bulgarian Government to discuss matters of safety of the Bulgarian vessels Afala, Aktinia, Kaprela, Ofelia,and Rotalia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The safety of foreign-flagged vessels in British waters is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. But FCO officials have supported the DOT in discussions with Bulgarian officials about the safety of these vessels. They have also raised the question of safety during separate discussions with the Bulgarians, and have been active in support of the DOT with the flag states of other such vessels.

  I understand that as a result of the repair work that has been undertaken, the Marine Safety Agency has now been able to lift the detention order of the Ofelia, one of the Bulgarian vessels.

  Human Rights (Workplace)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet the director general of the International Labour Organisation to discuss ways of incorporating a social clause supporting human rights in the workplace in the rules and procedures of the new World Trade Organisation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have no plans to meet the director general of the International Labour Organisation to discuss ways of incorporating a social clause supporting human rights in the workplace in the rules and procedures of the new World Trade Organisation.

  We do not support calls for the inclusion of a social clause in the general agreement on tariffs and trade or other multilateral trade agreements under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation. We remain unconvinced that trade measures are an appropriate or effective way of addressing the issue of workers' rights.

  EC Presidency
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the rota of EC countries holding the presidency to the end of 1997.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The member states holding the presidency will be as follows:

  1995: France

  Spain

  1996: Italy

  Ireland

  1997: Netherlands

  Luxembourg

  Mr. Edsil Charles Fordyce
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now reconsider the decision of his Department to refuse entry into the United Kingdom for Mr. Edsil Charles Fordyce; and if he will make a statement on the criteria used by his Department in deciding on humanitarian visits to the United Kingdom of foreign citizens.

  Mr. Baldry
  Ministers do not intervene in individual cases unless there is evidence of illogicality or procedural error in handling the application or there are exceptional compassionate circumstances.

  Entry clearance officers take all aspects, including those of a humanitarian nature, of an application into consideration when making decisions.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Spanish Government regarding border controls between Spain and Gibraltar.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have repeatedly and vigorously protested at high level to the Spanish authorities about the harassment at the frontier and the disruption to normal movement across the border. We are keeping the position under close review.

  Date

  Place

  Minister

  Cost £

  15–21 November 93

  Pakistan

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd

  3,612.00

  3–7 January 94

  Lebanon, Israel, OTs, Jordan, Malta

  Secretary of State

  82.00

  3–8 January 94

  Kenya, Tanzania

  Lady Chalker

  4,039.00

  24–28 February 94

  Portugal, Spain, Greece

  Secretary of State

  70.00

  4–11 April 94

  Brazil, Falklands

  Secretary of State

  105.00

  18–19 April 94

  Luxembourg, Paris

  Secretary of State

  77.00

  8–10 July 94

  Naples, Economic Summit

  Secretary of State

  14.00

  27 July 94–19 August 94

  Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, India

  Mr. Goodlad

  7,777.00

  2–5 September 94

  Ecuador

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory

  3,974.00

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those services that have been market-tested by his Department and won by the private sector, indicating the organisation that won the tender and its value.

  Mr. Goodlad
  None of the services market-tested so far by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been won by the private sector.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are to establish a British Council Office in Macedonia.

  Mr. Baldry
  The British Council has no plans at present to expand beyond the resource centre which it maintains in Skopje but it is alive to the interest and opportunities there and keeps the position under review.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are to establish at the British embassy in Macedonia a facility for issuing visas to those wishing to visit the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The embassy in Skopje accepts diplomatic and official applications, refugee cases accepted jointly by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the Home Office and applications from visitors sponsored by the British Government and the British Council. The premises occupied by the embassy are not suitable for a full visa service.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries visited by a spouse accompanying a Minister on overseas visits, since 1 October 1993; which Minister was accompanied; what was the cost of each visit; and what were the dates and the duties undertaken by the spouse during such visits.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The list gives details of visits made by a spouse accompanying a Minister overseas since 1 October 1993. In each case, the spouse carried out an official programme arranged by the post concerned. On each occasion the guidelines in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" were followed and accord with departmental practice which has existed since at least 1985.
  465

  Date

  Place

  Minister

  Cost £

  11–20 September 94

  Thailand, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Japan

  Secretary of State

  282.00

  26—29 September 94

  New York/Canada UNGA 48

  Secretary of State

  4,030.00

  2—10 October 94

  Dependent Territories, Canada

  Mr. Baldry

  2,997.00

  17–21 October 94

  Russia, Estonia, Finland

  Secretary of State

  279.00

  27,338.00

HEALTH

  Spending Statistics
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the per capita spending figure for each(a) district health authority and (b) family health services authority in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 7 December 1992 at columns 513–18, and to the reply the then Minister for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), gave him on 26 May at column 305. The per capita spend for district health authorities and family health services authorities for 1991–92 and 1993–94 will be placed in the Library.

  Comparisons of these per capita spend figures need to be treated with caution. First, not all the expenditure covered arises from population-related activities. Secondly, crude populations do not reflect differences in age structure or relative health care need. These differences feature in the formulae used to inform the main allocations made to DHAs.

  NHS Managers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each year since 1980 the number and cost of managers in the NHS.

  Mr. Malone
  The general management function was introduced in 1984, following acceptance of the 1983 Griffiths report which concluded that the national health service was undermanaged. Interim arrangements existed for general management appointments until permanent selection and appointment arrangements took effect from February 1986. The senior management staff group was created subsequently. For information on the numbers of general and senior managers for the years ending September 1985 through to September 1990, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, the then Minister for Health, (Dr. Mawhinney), gave my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) on 26 March 1993 at column 755. At 30 September 1991, revised, 1992 and 1993, the number of general and senior managers were 14,500, 17,700 and 20,010 respectively. The increase in numbers over time is largely due to the reclassification of staff from professional and administrative groups, including many senior nurses, as managers. About two thirds of the increase between 1991 and 1992 and almost half the increase between 1992 and 1993 is the result of such reclassification.

  The salary costs for general and senior managers from 1985–86 through to 1988–89 were £10,951,000, £25,677,000, £29,647,000 and £30,513,000 respectively. For the years 1989–90 to 1992–93 I refer the hon.
  466
  Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 3 November at column 1267. The provisional figure for 1993–94 is £606,002,000.

  General and senior managers still account for only 2.6 per cent. of the total NHS work force in England and 3.6 per cent. of total NHS expenditure on salaries and wages. This is not excessive by any standard in a large organisation.

  GP Fundholding
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has on the levels of support for fundholding among general practitioners; and what conclusions she draws from that evidence.

  Mr. Malone
  Over 35 per cent. of the population is now registered with a fundholding general practitioner. More general practitioners are preparing to join the scheme from next April and regional health authorities report considerable interest in the extended options for fundholding announced in October.

  From this, and the benefits for patients fundholding is delivering, I conclude that we were right to enable general practitioners to purchase care and improve services for patients in this way and to extend the options to enable them to do so.

  Brain Tumours
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the incidence of brain tumours in the United Kingdom; and what estimate she has made of the accuracy of the figures.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1989, the latest available figures, there were 2,947 registrations of newly-diagnosed cases of malignant neoplasm of the brain—international classification of diseases in 191—in England. This figure is likely to be an underestimate because accurate diagnosis of many brain tumours is problematic.

  Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Chiropody
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy towards chiropody in the NHS; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Chiropody treatment within the national health service should be available to those with a clinical need for this service. Provision is determined locally by
  467
  health authorities in the light of their priorities and resources. "Feet first", the report of a joint Department of Health and NHS chiropody task force, was issued to the service in September and aims to assist authorities in developing better, more cost-efficient chiropody services. Copies are available in the Library.

  Energy Expenditure
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total expenditure on energy for offices and buildings by(a) her Department and (b) her agencies in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The expenditure on energy for the Department and its agencies is shown in the table.

  1991–92 £ million

  1992–93 £ million

  1993–94 £ million

  Department

  2.514

  2.093

  1.558

  Agencies

  —

  0.230

  0.393

  Notes:

  1. Figures have not been adjusted for inflation.

  2. Figures are not directly comparable from year to year because of organisational changes to the Department following the establishment of next steps executive agencies.

  3. Separate figures are not available for agencies for 1991–92.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what remuneration, allowances and other expenses are received by members of the boards of(a) Hillingdon hospital trust and (b) Portsmouth health care trust.

  Mr. Malone
  Chairmen of national health service trusts receive annual remuneration in the range of £15,125 to £19,285. The annual remuneration of non-executive directors of NHS trusts is £5,000. They are also entitled to claim allowances, at rates set centrally, for travel and subsistence necessarily incurred on trust business. Details of such payments are not available centrally.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make an announcement about the fifth wave of national health service trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have today approved 13 applications from hospitals and other units wishing to become national health service trusts. I have also given approval to two trust-to-trust mergers. Details have been placed in the Library.

  AIDS and HIV
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual number of(a) new AIDS cases and (b) HIV reports for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information for the United Kingdom is shown in the table:

  AIDS cases

  HIV infection reports

  1990

  1,268

  2,203

  1991

  1,357

  2,485

  1992

  1,482

  2,432

  1993

  1,609

  2,408

  Treatment Provision (Specialisation)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent she expects trusts within one health authority are(a) to compete and (b) to come to agreements about specialisation of treatment provision; which trend she expects to dominate over the next five years; what assessment she has made of the compatibility of the two purposes; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Competition with the national health service internal market makes a contribution to ensuring the most appropriate and efficient care for patients.

  Mental Health Task Force
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to publish the report of the mental health task force; what estimate she has made of its resource implications; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The report of the mental health task force London project "Mental Health in London: Priorities for Action" was published on 27 September, copies of which are available in the Library. The report summarised the key themes from the action plans which had been agreed by district health authorities, in conjunction with local authorities and other agencies, to deliver improvements in the quality and co-ordination of services for severely mentally ill people in London. No separate estimate has been made of the resource implications of these plans which form part of the authorities' overall programme of action to improve services.

  NHS Deficits
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the figures for the deficit of each London NHS trust and district health authority at the end of the last financial year.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 30 November at column 787. Information on national health service trusts will be available shortly.

  Mixed-sex Wards
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress she has made with regard to reviewing the mixed-sex ward policy in favour of single-sex wards.

  Mr. Sackville
  A revised patients charter standard to be issued early next year will require hospitals to inform patients in advance when they will be accommodated on a mixed sex ward for non urgent treatment. The standard also expects hospitals to respect the wishes, wherever possible, of those patients who prefer to be cared for in a single-sex ward or a single-sex bay. Patients can also expect to have access to single-sex washing and toilet facilities while in hospital.

  In some circumstances—for example, in an intensive care unit or an observation unit where specialist nurses are employed—single-sex accommodation may not be available.

  Mundesley Hospital
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment she has made of whether the Anglia and Oxford regional health authority received
  469
  the best possible price for the Mundesley hospital on its disposal;

  (2) if the Anglia and Oxford regional health authority received independent advice on the valuation of the Mundesley hospital prior to its disposal.

  Mr. Sackville
  Regional health authorities managing the disposal of surplus property must follow the guidance contained in "Property Transactions in the NHS", part of the estatecode series. Independent valuation advice is not required where the RHA has suitably qualified in-house staff, which is the case in Anglia and Oxford. The sale of Mundesley hospital is being conducted by the local office of a national firm of chartered surveyors. A sale has not yet been agreed, but the RHA is considering offers made for the property.

  Special Hospitals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, for each special hospital, the originating local authority of their patients.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally. I refer the hon. Member to the Special Hospitals Service Authority.

  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of in-patient admissions to psychiatric hospitals has involved the use of the compulsory provision of the Mental Health Act 1988 for each year since its implementation.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested, which relates to the Mental Health Act 1983, is shown in the table:

  Year

  Per cent.

  1983

  8

  1984

  7

  1985

  7

  1986

  7

  1987–88

  7

  1988–89

  7

  1989–90

  7

  Notes:

  The figures from which the percentages between 1983 and 1986 were calculated, were collected by the mental health inquiry from all mental illness and mental handicap hospitals and units, and include figures from special hospitals and private nursing homes. These were based on calendar years. From 1987–88, the figures refer to financial year and were collected on forms KH15—from all NHS facilities—and K037—from private nursing homes—and also directly from the Special Hospitals Service Authority.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of(a) how much money has been saved by the closure of psychiatric hospitals and (b) where these savings have been spent; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is not available centrally. We have made it clear that any money released from the closure of a mental hospital should be reinvested in community-based services for the same client group.

  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her 470
  Department's latest assessment of the prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; and what plans she has for treatment within the national health service.

  Mr. Bowis
  Research findings have estimated a prevalence of 1.7 per cent. in a population of primary school boys but there are gender differences and geographical variations in distribution.

  Children with hyperkinetic disorders are seen routinely within child mental health services and paediatric services.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities are currently able to purchase treatment for mentally ill offenders, who are regarded as dangerous and difficult, from hospitals within their own geographical areas.

  Mr. Bowis
  District health authorities are responsible for assessing the health needs of their residents and for purchasing a range of services to meet those needs. Mentally disordered offenders are treated in a range of secure and non-secure settings in accordance with their differing needs. High-security services are provided by the three special hospitals which are funded centrally.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make bridging finance available to enable alternative community mental health services to be developed alongside existing in-patient services; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  It already is.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to ensure that adequate community mental health services are available before any powers of supervised discharge are introduced; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is for health authorities to purchase community mental health services to ensure the needs of patients being discharged from hospital are met.

  Vaccinations
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will issue instructions that those people going abroad to countries where vaccinations for diseases including hepatitis A, typhoid and meningitis are necessary on holiday or business should pay the full price at national health service surgeries; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  Hepatitis A, typhoid and meningitis vaccinations are currently provided free of charge to people travelling abroad to high-risk countries.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many parliamentary questions tabled in the last Session of Parliament were not answered on the ground that the information sought was not held centrally by the Department.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many written parliamentary questions have had an
  471
  answer containing the phrase, "This information is not held centrally" in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Session

  Number

  Percentage of total answered

  1989–90

  157

  3.4

  1990–91

  192

  6.2

  1991–92

  130

  8.5

  1992–93

  433

  7.3

  1993–94

  225

  4.5

  Source:

  POLIS

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many written parliamentary questions have been answered with the words "No" or "None" in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of parliamentary questions answered by "No" or "None" in the last five Sessions is shown in the table.

  Session

  Number

  1989–90

  41

  1990–91

  31

  1991–92

  16

  1992–93

  116

  1993–94

  117

  Source:

  POLIS

  VAT (Fuel)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the total cost to NHS trusts in the financial year 1995–96 of 17.5 per cent. VAT on heating fuel.

  Mr. Sackville
  The non-domestic supply of fuel and power, including that to hospitals, is subject to value added tax at the standard rate. Information on VAT paid by trusts on supplies of heating fuel is not separately identifiable.

  Secret Files
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 30 November, to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers),Official Report, column 795, what are the subject headings of each of the secret files at her Department; how many secret files were held at her Department in each of the last five years; and for what reasons her Department cannot identify top secret files from those held as secret.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is able to identify top secret from those held as secret, but to give a breakdown for each of the last five years, and to list each of their subject headings, could be done only at disproportionate cost. However, the majority relate broadly to home and civil defence and co-ordination of emergency planning, and approximately 95 per cent. are held as secret.

  Health Authorities (Public Meetings)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many public meetings have been held by each trust, district health authority, family health services authority 472
  and regional health authority in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the number of authority and trust meetings held is not available centrally.

  Official Secrets Acts
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which staff working in the Department of Health, national health service executive, regional health authorities, district health authorities, family health services authorities, trusts and general practitioner fundholder practices are covered by the conditions of the Official Secrets Acts.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Official Secrets Act 1989 applies, inter alia, to Crown servants. All Department of Health employees are therefore subject to the Act. Staff in other organisations listed will be subject to the Act if they have, or have had, official information, as defined in the Act, in their possession.

  National Health Service Executive
  Mrs. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans exist for the proposed regional offices of the NHSE to hold meetings in public or provide information to the public.

  Mr. Malone
  Regional offices of the national health service executive will not generally hold public meetings but will provide information to the public in accordance with the code of practice on access to Government information.

  Food Allergies
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many physicians in English national health service hospitals are specialists in the treatment of food allergies.

  Mr. Malone
  Information in this form is not available centrally, as a number of clinical specialties treat food allergies.

  Night Calls
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will abandon her proposals in respect of payment for night calls by general practitioners; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will make it her policy to remunerate general practitioners for night calls on an hourly paid basis; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  We are continuing to discuss general practitioners' out of hours remuneration with representatives of the medical profession.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the time taken by the average general practitioner on the average night call from receipt of call to return to home or surgery; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available.

  Patient Complaints
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 24 November,Official Report, columns 323–24 on patient complaints, when she will publish data for 1993–94.
  473
  Mr. Malone
  Information on patient complaints for 1993–94 is expected to be available early next year.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will obtain a report as to the reasons why on the evening of 6 December there were no intensive care beds with neurosurgical capacity available within west Yorkshire; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. John Greetham, chairman of the authority, for details.

  Blood
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what blood or blood products produced in the United Kingdom have been sold internationally; in what amounts; and to which countries.

  Mr. Sackville
  Blood collected by the national blood service is for the needs of the national health service not for sale or export. The amount of blood collected is determined by the needs of NHS hospitals for blood. Blood products are produced from components of donated blood by the bio products laboratory, which is a part of the National Blood Authority. Surpluses of products, that is after NHS demand has been satisfied, may be exported rather than destroyed. The only blood product where present availability significantly exceeds NHS demand is albumin and this is exported worldwide. This avoids waste of valuable resource and supplements NHS income available for patients.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what funds were made available during 1993 and 1994 to date to encourage an increase in the amount of blood donated; during which periods; and to what amounts;

  (2) what sum was made available to each blood transfusion service for advertising purposes during the Christmas and new year period of 1994–95.

  Mr. Sackville
  National publicity to retain existing donors and recruit new donors for the national blood service is funded and organised centrally by the Department of Health. In 1993–94, £1.6 million was spent on national publicity. The budget for 1994–95 is £1.2 million. The proportions devoted to advertising at times of potential seasonal shortage and emergencies are 57 and 50 per cent. respectively. Local publicity is generally funded and organised by the National Blood Authority.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many operations were cancelled owing to a shortage of blood in 1993 and 1994 to date;

  (2) what considerations led to the decision of the National Blood Authority to increase its stock levels of donated blood for the end of 1994 and the beginning of 1995.

  (3) if she will make a statement on the expected supply of donated blood during the period of reorganisation of the National Blood Authority;

  (4) what was the stock levels of blood held nationally for each month of 1993 and 1994 to date;

  (5) during what periods during 1993 and 1994 to date there was a shortfall in the supply of blood;
  474
  (6) what criteria are used to decide the levels of donated blood kept by the National Blood Authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Blood Authority is responsible for managing and monitoring the blood supply. A difficult balance has to be struck by the authority between unpredictable demand from the national health service and uncertain supply from the planned collection programme. This balance is subject to considerable seasonal and other fluctuations. From figures available centrally, over the last 12 months average blood stocks have ranged from 15,505 units in July 1994, to 27,142 units in February 1994. Blood stock figures for previous years are not available centrally. Although on occasions, including several days in September 1994, stocks fell below what the NBA regard as a safe limit emergency demands for blood have always been met. Figures are not available centrally on whether operations are cancelled.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals are in place regarding the transfer of jobs resulting from the proposed merger of blood transfusion centres.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Blood Authority will produce final proposals after the consideration and evaluation of the comments received during the recent consultation exercise has been completed.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list(a) the performance indicator of each of the United Kingdom's blood transfusion centres, (b) the criteria by which any proposed merger will be judged and (c) the percentage number of contracted donors who actually donate at each transfusion centre.

  Mr. Sackville
  The details of the system are a matter for the National Blood Authority. Approximately 5 per cent. of all blood donations take place at transfusion centres.

  Trust Property
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will describe and give the value of the property referred to in the Aintree Hospital National Health Service Trust (Transfer of Trust Property) (No. 2) Order 1994— S.I., 1994, No. 2988;

  (2) if she will describe and give the value of the property referred to in the Hartlepool Community Care National Health Service Trust (Transfer of Trust Property) Order 1994—SI., 1994, No. 2989;

  (3) if she will describe and give the value of the property referred to in the South Lincolnshire Community and Mental Health Services National Health Service (Transfer of Trust Property) Order 1994—S.I., 1994, No. 2991;

  (4) if she will describe and give the value of the property referred to in the Hartlepool and Peterlee Hospitals National Health Service Trust (Transfer of Trust Property) Order 1994—S.I., 1994, No. 2990.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those services that have been market-tested by her Department and won by the private sector,
  475
  indicating the organisation that won the tender and its value.

  Mr. Sackville
  Since the beginning of the Department's market-testing programme, the following contracts have been awarded to the private sector:

  Contracts

  NHS Estates Agency Clerical Support

  Manpower

  National Diet and Nutrition Survey of Elderly People

  Social and Community Planning and University College London, and Dunn Nutrition Unit

  Health Survey for England

  Social and Community Planning Research and University College London

  Office and Building Services in Quarry House

  Facilities Management—TFM Granada

  Word Processing and office support—Manpower Security—Centuryan

  Office and Building Services— London

  Security—Reliance Catering—Compass

  Facilities Management—Procord and FBA

  Operation and Redevelopment of the Hospital Episodes Statistics System

  Data Sciences

  Welfare Foods Scheme

  NCH Promotional Services

  Reprographic Services

  Libra Business Services Group

  Storage of Printed Publications

  Her Majesty's Stationary Office

  Internal Audit

  Price Waterhouse

  Editing and Typesetting in the Medical Devices Agency

  Multiplex

  NHS Pensions Agency IT services

  Capita managed services

  Catering

  Gardner Merchant

  Aggregate information on tender values for the Department's 1992–93 programme has already been published in the "Citizens Charter Second Report", available in the Library. Aggregate figures for the 1993–94 programme will be published shortly. Information about individual tender values is considered by the Department as commercially confidential, and cannot therefore be disclosed.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received regarding the risk to humans from BSE following the publication of "Precautions for Work in Human and Animal Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies".

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received one letter regarding the risk to human health from bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she plans following the publication document produced by the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens entitled "Precautions for Work in the Human and Animal Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies".

  Mr. Sackville
  The publication of this guidance has been brought to the attention of those with an interest in the national health service including district and regional directors of public health and consultants in communicable disease control, and also to relevant professional bodies. The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens will be keeping the guidance under review.

  Working for Patients
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the document "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Malone
  "Working for Patients", which was published in 1989, set out the Government's plans for reform of the national health service. The implementation of these plans has led to major improvements in health services.

  Leeds Health Authority
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking following the further report issued on 8 December by the health service ombudsman in respect of complaints against Leeds health authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  Leeds health authority has already taken action to address the issues raised by the commissioner.

  Cot Deaths
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received about child mattresses and cot deaths; and what is her Department's policy on the matter.

  Mr. Sackville
  More than 300 written representations on child mattresses and cot deaths have been received in the Department. In addition many people have telephoned.

  Dr. Kenneth Calman, the Chief Medical Officer, has set up an expert group to steer further work by the Department of Health on cot deaths. The group will be chaired by Lady Limerick.

  The terms of reference for the group are:
  To review the findings of the report on "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome"—the "Turner report", 1991—and any subsequent data on hypotheses linking antimony with unexplained deaths in infants; and to advise the CMO on what further studies should be undertaken to investigate postulated causal relationships between chemicals and cot deaths.

  The group has been asked to review the available material and to provide the Department with advice as quickly as possible.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Hill Farmers
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to encourage hill farmers under 40 years old to remain on the land.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland operates a range of measures which either directly benefit or are available to hill farmers. None of these measures is specific to any particular age group.

  In addition to the normal range of common agricultural policy support schemes farmers in the less-favoured areas are eligible for hill livestock compensatory allowances and an LFA supplement under the sheep annual premium scheme.

  As part of its recently announced rural development programme the Department of Agriculture will be giving priority to proposals coming forward from the most deprived rural areas of Northern Ireland which would

  477
  include much of the land owned and worked by hill farmers. The programme will build on the concept of involving local communities in the development of plans for their areas. It may provide assistance for a range of beneficiaries—collectives, co-operatives and rural community organisations—with the aim of strengthening the rural economy and maintaining viable rural communities. There is considerable scope for farmers and their families to become involved in the programme. The EC Leader II rural development initiative will also target partnerships and may assist with such activities as on-farm and off-farm diversification and small rural enterprises.

  Bankruptcies

  Companies wound up

  Total

  1Costs £000

  1987–88

  169

  52

  221

  449

  1988–89

  176

  62

  238

  518

  1989–90

  243

  66

  309

  542

  1990–91

  318

  82

  400

  745

  1991–92

  293

  101

  394

  803

  1992–92

  495

  90

  585

  978

  1993–94

  487

  86

  573

  1,090

  1 The costs column represents salaries and wages and general administration expenses.

  Water Metering
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland further to his statement of 1 December,Official Report, column 1324, what plans he has to introduce water metering in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Moss
  Meters are currently installed for water supplies to commercial, public, industrial and agricultural premises in Northern Ireland. Water supplies used solely for domestic purposes are not metered and there are no plans to introduce routine metering of purely domestic supplies.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many parliamentary questions tabled in the last Session of Parliament were not answered on the ground that the information sought was not held centrally by the Department.

  Sir John Wheeler
  In 13 out of a total of 1,469 questions answered, no information could be provided because of the disproportionate cost involved. In a further 10 questions only partial information could be provided.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those services that have been market-tested by his Department and won by the private sector, indicating the organisation that won the tender and its value.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information provided relates to the period April 1992 to September 1994. In each of those cases listed an in-house bid was submitted for evaluation

  Insolvencies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost to the Exchequer, broken down by category, of the process of insolvencies in each of the past seven years; and what has been the number of cases in each category for the same period.

  Mr. Ancram
  The available information is set out in the table. A breakdown by category of the costs of processing insolvencies could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  against tenders from alternative providers and subsequently won by the private sector:

  Sludge Disposal—three tests

  Road Reinstatement

  Catering in Staff Restaurants—10 tests

  IT Mainframe Operation

  Sewer Maintenance—two tests

  Building Maintenance

  Castlenavan Quarry

  In the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, I would not wish to disclose the names of the successful contractors. We also consider that the disclosure of the tender prices could prejudice fair competition between contractors.

  Patients' Complaints
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 25 November,Official Report, columns 405–6, how many hospital patient complaints there were in the four years prior to 1993–94.

  Mr. Moss
  Information relating to hospital patient complaints was not collected centrally prior to the year 1993–94.

EMPLOYMENT

  Energy Expenditure
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total expenditure on energy for offices and buildings by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies in each of the last three years for which figures are available.
  479
  Miss Widdecombe
  The total expenditure on energy for offices for the financial year 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 is shown in the table:

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Employment Department

  1,545,105

  1,524,680

  1,457,767

  Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service

  54,598

  64,685

  86,062

  Health and Safety Executive

  1,205,929

  1,219,112

  1,307,787

  Employment Service

  8,773,640

  9,005,469

  9,088,497

  Labour Statistics
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what was the number of adult(a) male and (b) female part-time workers in Great Britain in April 1993 and the proportion of those workers whose earnings, excluding overtime, fell below (a) £5.88 per hour, (b) £5.53 per hour, (c) £4.15 per hour, (d) £4.00 per hour, (e) £3.50 per hour, (f) £3.00 per hour and (g) £2.50 per hour;

  (2) If he will list the proportions of (a) full-time employees earning less per week than (1) £221.50, (2) £208.53, (3) £156.40, (4) £150.80, (5) £131.95, (6) £113.10 and (7) £94.25, excluding overtime payments and (b) part-time employees earning less per hour than (1) £5.88, (2) £5.53, (3) £4.15, (4) £4.00, (5) £3.50, (6) £3.00 and (7) 2.50, excluding overtime payments giving (a) and (b) in relation to (A) Great Britain as a whole, (B) each county in England, (C) each county in Wales, (D) each London borough and Greater London as a whole and (E) each regional authority and borough in Scotland.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on 29 November 1994,Official Report, column 635.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the proportion of manual, non-manual and all full-time employees earning less per week than(a) £221.50 (b) £208.53, (c) £156.40, (d) £150.80, (e) £131.95, (f) £113.10 and (g) £94.25, excluding overtime payments, giving each of the above in respect of (i) men, (ii) women and (iii) both sexes by standard economic region, for Great Britain as a whole, and for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  As the information is contained in a number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy in the Library.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effects of the jobseeker's allowance and the test for availability for work on those with a disability; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In our proposals for the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance we recognise, as now, that some people with disabilities may have difficulties in making themselves available for the full range of employment opportunities. They will, therefore, be able to restrict their availability to the type or hours or 480
  work they are able to undertake within the limits of their physical or mental condition. In addition, many people with disabilities will continue to receive incapacity benefit or income support without having to be available for work. However, where people in these groups wish to claim jobseeker's allowance we propose that they should be able to do so, provided they are able to work and meet the other conditions for its receipt.

  Work Start Schemes, South-west London
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of work start schemes now in place in south-west London; and if he will list them.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Work-start has been piloted in four areas: Devon and Cornwall; Kent; Tyneside; and south and south-west London. So far 138 people in south-west London have benefited from this scheme. Eighty-five are still participating and 108 employers have been involved.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those services that have been market-tested by his Department and won by the private sector, indicating the organisation that won the tender and its value.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the following table, in line with the code of practice on access to Government information under the citizen's charter initiative. Information on individual tender values is commercially sensitive and cannot be provided, but aggregated total values for the different parts of the Employment Department group are included.

  1992–93 Programme

  Activity

  Winning organisation

  Value

  Employment Department

  Van services

  Inter Departmental Despatch Services

  Parcel Force

  Travel services

  Wagon Lits Travel

  Estates services

  Serco Hadens Facilities Management

  Security-Runcorn

  Pegasus Security Group

  Security-London

  Pegasus Security Group

  Reprographics

  HMSO

  Payroll Services

  Chessington Computer Centre

  Employment Department Total

  £6,748,212

  Employment Service

  Travel services

  Wagon Lits Travel

  Forms supply management/distribution

  Meads of Nottingham Lynx

  Employment Rehabilitation courses

  400 organisations at regional and local level. Records not held centrally.

  481

  1992–93 Programme

  Activity

  Winning organization

  Value

  Jobclubs

  JHP Training

  Midas

  Y Training

  Financial management training

  Unicorn

  Employment Service Total

  £11,553,327

  Health and Safety Executive

  Publications distribution

  Procog Ltd.

  Dillons Bookshops

  Graphics

  Snapz Presentations

  Print unit

  22 external printers invited to bid for work on a job-by-job basis

  Security

  Sigma Security

  Neptune Security

  Estates Management

  Henry Boot

  Turpy Management

  McBain Cooper

  Thorburn Calhoun

  Serco Services

  Health and Safety Executive Total

  £3,493,632

  Total 1992–93 Programme

  £21,795,171

  1993–94 Programme

  Activity

  Winning organization

  Value £

  Employment Department

  Office Services: Records Management

  Rockall Data Services

  Employment Department Total

  926,277

  Employment Service

  Field Staff Training: First Aid

  Red Cross

  Field Staff Training: Management and People Development

  Manchester College of Art and Technology

  Buildings maintenance and new works

  Simons Facilities Management plc Graham and Sibbald Peter, Fall Cowie Associates HSB Partners Drivers, Jonas WS Atkins Procord Ltd. Watts and Partners

  Employment Service Total

  3,640,733

  Total 1993–94 Programme

  4,567,010

  Note:

  The values given in the tables are derived from the successful bid prices on an annual basis.

  Young People
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide estimates of the number of 16 and 17-year-olds not currently in full-time education, work or training.

  Mr. Paice
  In October 1994, on the unadjusted basis there were 15,849 unemployed claimants aged under 18. All 16 and 17-year-olds who are not in education or a job are covered by the Government's guarantee of an offer of a youth training place.

  Employment Policy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are his policies towards maximising the number of local employees in total employment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 7 December 1994]: The route to more jobs and fewer people out of work is clear: sound economic policies based on low inflation; a deregulated, flexible labour market; and help for those who need it most, especially the long-term unemployed. We will continue to pursue these policies, which have already led to a fall of over 450,000 in unemployment since the recovery in the labour market began. There is in place a very wide range of help to get unemployed people back into work, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's Budget statement announced the extension of a number of programmes, including workwise, 1–2–1, community action, jobfinder's grant and work trials which will be available in Southwark and Bermondsey.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prevention of Terrorism Acts (Review)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made for the annual review of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts to be carried out; and how interested persons and organisations may submit their views for consideration.

  Mr. Howard
  Mr. J.J. Rowe QC will shortly begin to review the operation of the PTA in 1994. Written observations should be submitted to him c/o Room 647, Home Office, Queen Anne's gate, London SW1H 9AT by 13 January 1995.

  Football Matches (Ticket Touting)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of arrests, cautions and convictions arising from the measures to curb ticket touting at football matches, contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1994; and if he will include details of those arrests, cautions and convictions, including the dates, games and grounds at which they took place.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of people arrested for specific offences is not collected centrally.

  Information on cautioning and court proceedings data under section 166—summary offence of sale of tickets by unauthorised persons—of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 will not be available until autumn 1996.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals applied for asylum in each year from 1990–91 to 1993–94 and in

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, decisions1 2 3 and removals, 1990 to end-October 1994

  Number of principal applicants

  Total applications

  Total decisions4

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

  Total refused

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave after full consideration

  Refused on safe third country grounds5

  Refused under paragraph 180F of Immigration Rules6

  Removals and voluntary departures7

  1990

  26,205

  4,025

  920

  2,400

  705

  705

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  44,840

  6,075

  505

  2,190

  3,380

  2,325

  270

  785

  —

  1992

  24,605

  34,900

  1,115

  15,325

  18,465

  2,675

  595

  15,195

  1,345

  1993

  22,370

  23,405

  1,590

  11,125

  10,690

  4,705

  745

  5,240

  1,820

  19948 9

  26,765

  17,300

  695

  2,955

  13,650

  10,435

  695

  2,520

  1,605

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5 with '—'= unavailable.

  2 Decision figures up to and including 1991 may understate.

  3 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period.

  4 Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  5 Refusals on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.

  6 Refusals under paragraph 180F (paragraph 101 prior to 26 July 1993) of the Immigration Rules for failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period.

  7 Includes any voluntary departure, except deportation cases prior to February 1994, up to and including notification of the decision on the asylum claim, but excludes any subsequent departure.

  8 Provisional figures.

  9 Year to October.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 23 November,Official Report, columns 159–61, (1) how long each of the 129 detainees referred to who had been in detention longer than six months had been in detention;

  (2) how many of the detainees in each of the detaining locations listed in his table C were long-term Immigration Act detainees.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The available information is that as at 8 December 1994—103 people who had sought asylum have been in detention for longer than six months and a further 18 have been detained longer than 12 months.

  Information on the number of detained people as at 8 December 1994 who had sought asylum and have been in detention for longer than one month, by location of detention, is provided in the table.

  Number of people detained longer than one month as at 8 December 1994, who had sought asylum, by location of detention.

  Number detained

  Immigration service establishments

  Campsfield House

  132

  Harmonds worth

  72

  Prison service establishments

  Armley

  10

  Belfast

  1

  Birmingham

  34

  Brinsford

  5

  Bristol

  2

  Brixton

  4

  Bullingdon

  1

  Bullwood Hall

  1

  Canterbury

  1

  Cardiff

  1

  484
  the first eight months of 1994–95; how many of these applications were granted; and how many of those who were unsuccessful are known to have left the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Number of people detained longer than one month as at 8 December 1994, who had sought asylum, by location of detention.

  Number detained

  Chelmsford

  3

  Crumlin Road

  1

  Dorchester

  1

  Durham

  1

  Edinburgh

  1

  Elmley

  5

  Erlestoke House

  1

  Exeter

  2

  Feltham YC centre

  2

  Gateside

  1

  Greenock

  2

  Haslar

  75

  Highdown

  3

  Hindley remand centre

  3

  Holloway

  1

  Lewes

  3

  Manchester

  3

  Norwich

  3

  Pentonville

  1

  Risley

  56

  Rochester

  1

  Shrewsbury

  1

  Wandsworth

  5

  Winchester

  4

  Winson Green

  2

  Wolds remand prison

  2

  Wormwood scrubs

  3

  Total

  448

  Prisoners (Psychiatric Treatment)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each prison
  485
  establishment the latest estimate of the number of inmates diagnosed as requiring psychiatric treatment in a hospital environment; and if he will express the figure as a percentage of the individual prison population.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 12 December 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of inmates in each Prison Service establishment who have been diagnosed as requiring psychiatric treatment in a hospital environment.
  The most up to date information held centrally on mentally disordered offenders is for 21 September 1994. On that day there were 102 mentally disordered prisoners awaiting transfer to NHS psychiatric facilities of all types. The attached table lists by establishment the prisons in which these prisoners were held and expresses the figure for each individual establishment as a percentage of that prison's daily average population during the week beginning 4 September.

  Establishment

  Number of prisoners awaiting transfer to hospital on 21 September

  Percentage of average daily population for week beginning 4 September

  Bedford

  3

  1.0

  Belmarsh

  3

  0.4

  Birmingham

  2

  0.2

  Blundeston

  1

  0.2

  Bristol

  4

  0.9

  Brixton

  2

  0.3

  Bullingdon

  1

  0.1

  Camp Hill

  2

  0.5

  Cardiff

  3

  0.6

  Dartmoor

  3

  0.5

  Exeter

  2

  0.4

  Feltham

  1

  0.1

  Full Sutton

  2

  0.3

  Gloucester

  5

  2.1

  Gartree

  3

  1.1

  Highdown

  6

  0.9

  Holloway

  13

  2.5

  Holme House

  1

  0.1

  Lancaster Farms

  1

  0.3

  Leeds

  1

  0.1

  Leicester

  2

  0.6

  Lewes

  1

  0.3

  Lincoln

  5

  0.8

  Liverpool

  8

  0.6

  New Hall

  1

  0.6

  Parkhurst

  5

  2.1

  Pentonville

  3

  0.4

  Preston

  3

  0.6

  Shrewsbury

  1

  0.3

  Styal

  1

  0.4

  Swansea

  1

  0.4

  Swinfen Hall

  1

  0.5

  Whitemoor

  3

  0.6

  Winchester

  4

  0.9

  Wormwood Scrubs

  4

  0.5

  102

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what action he is taking to 486
  prevent the distribution of electoral registration forms with advertising material; and what assessment he has made of the extent of the practice;

  (2) what authority electoral registration officers have to take any actions in an official capacity that are not specifically required of them by law;

  (3) what authority electoral registration officers have under law to send out commercial advertising and other material covering statutory electoral registration forms;

  (4) what regulations govern the handing out by an electoral registration officer or a local authority of commercial advertising material with ballot papers in polling booths.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We are not aware of any cases involving the distribution of advertising material with electoral registration forms and no assessment has been made of the extent, if any, of this practice.

  The duties of the electoral registration officer are set out in representation of the people legislation and the Juries Act 1974. The electoral registration officer's official duties include only those duties imposed by the law relating to elections or the registration of electors. The representation of the people legislation contains no provisions relating to the distribution of commercial advertising and other material with electoral registration forms, but there is no statutory provision prohibiting the distribution of such material.

  Rules for the conduct of parliamentary elections are contained in schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983. Similar provisions are contained in the Local Elections (Principal Areas) Rules 1986 and the Local Elections (Parishes and Communities) Rules 1986. The only item which may be given to voters at the polling station is the ballot paper.

  Speeding Offences
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many motorists have been prosecuted for speeding offences in each of the last three years in each police authority region.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is contained in the table:

  Prosecutions for speeding offences by police force area

  Number of offences

  England and Wales

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Avon and Somerset

  4,908

  6,102

  3,074

  Bedfordshire

  2,173

  1,723

  803

  Cambridgeshire

  1,711

  1,748

  1,796

  Cheshire

  3,006

  2,353

  1,444

  Cleveland

  1,370

  1,752

  784

  Cumbria

  4,686

  5,109

  3,030

  Derbyshire

  4,623

  3,645

  2,143

  Devon and Cornwall

  6,377

  3,890

  2,276

  Dorset

  1,812

  1,315

  1,355

  Durham

  1,410

  1,363

  963

  Essex

  11,427

  12,249

  8,146

  Gloucestershire

  5.257

  3,770

  2,011

  Greater Manchester

  10,415

  12,322

  8,698

  Hampshire

  7,706

  7,069

  5,148

  Hertfordshire

  2,441

  2,232

  1,450

  Humberside

  2,017

  1,616

  988

  Kent

  3,393

  2,854

  3,655

  Lancashire

  8,369

  6,366

  3,072

  Leicestershire

  2,953

  2,392

  2,229

  Lincolnshire

  2,908

  3,419

  2,055

  London, City of

  146

  189

  138

  487

  Prosecutions for speeding offences by police force area

  Number of offences

  England and Wales

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Merseyside

  2,529

  2,370

  1,742

  Metropolitan Police District

  13,002

  14,376

  13,226

  Norfolk

  3,332

  3,466

  1,474

  Northamptonshire

  1,875

  1,612

  871

  Northumbria

  3,051

  3,446

  2,368

  North Yorkshire

  3,013

  2,538

  1,238

  Nottinghamshire

  1,665

  664

  344

  South Yorkshire

  2,727

  3,695

  2,077

  Staffordshire

  2,539

  3,007

  1,741

  Suffolk

  2,595

  2,618

  1,655

  Surrey

  3,411

  2,655

  1,668

  Sussex

  3,279

  4,262

  3,118

  Thames Valley

  6,595

  6,257

  3,958

  Warwickshire

  2,550

  2,177

  1,692

  West Mercia

  4,013

  3,712

  3,353

  West Midlands

  6,443

  5,306

  4,623

  West Yorkshire

  6,727

  5,954

  3,802

  Wiltshire

  4,068

  4,170

  2,466

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,108

  897

  676

  Gwent

  1,283

  1,113

  962

  North Wales

  2,708

  2,401

  1,412

  South Wales

  1,359

  1,178

  847

  England and Wales

  168,980

  161,352

  110,571

  Visas
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Macedonian nationals have applied in the last year for visas to visit the United Kingdom at British embassies in(a) Belgrade, (b) Sofia and (c) Zagreb; how many applications at each post were (i) granted, (ii) refused and (iii) decision pending; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is not available.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those services that have been market tested by his Department and won by the

  Appointed by the Home Secretary

  Appointed by the Designated members of the police authority

  Appointed by the other two members

  Avon and Somerset

  Mrs. S. Perry (Project Controller)

  Mr. D. Heath (Councillor)

  Mr. A. Morris (University Vice Chancellor)

  Bedfordshire

  Ms J. Scholes (Polytechnic Lecturer)

  Mr. A. Hesserman (Councillor)

  Ms D Yates (Marketing Consultant)

  Cambridgeshire

  Dr. P. Hampson (Research Director)

  Mr. J. Horrell (Councillor)

  Miss M. Hyde (Managing Editor-Radio)

  Cheshire

  Mr. A. Mills (Company Director)

  Mr. T. Tilling (Councillor)

  Mrs. C. Young (Citizens Advice Bureau member)

  Cleveland

  Mrs. J. Graham-Bourman (NHS Trust Chairman)

  Mr. E. Cox (Magistrate)

  Mr. D. Stevens (Retired Manager)

  Cumbria

  Mr. J. Harris (Farmer)

  Mr. R. Watson (Councillor)

  Mr. J. Ford (Retired Local Government Officer)

  Derbyshire

  Mr. B. Ashby (Chairman-Property Group)

  Mr. E. Swain (Magistrate)

  Mr. R. Stone (Businessman)

  Devon and Cornwall

  Mrs. N. Cutts (Recruitment Manager)

  Mr. O May (Councillor)

  Mr. T. Lesgood (Chairman—Training and Enterprise Council)

  Dorset

  Mrs. L. Paddison (Managing Director)

  Mrs. J. Dover (Councillor)

  Mr. D. Lovatt (Member—Probation Board)

  Durham

  Mrs. J. Round (College Principal)

  Mr. J. Knox (Councillor)

  Mr. J. Ward (Local Government Officer)

  488
  private sector, indicating the organisation that won the tender and its value.

  Mr. Howard
  The table sets out the information requested about activities which have been contracted out to a private sector supplier after a market test where there was an in-house bid.

  Activity

  Supplier

  Value of Contract

  Departmental computer services

  Sema Group plc

  About £50 million over five years

  Buckley Hall prison

  Group 4

  £33 million over five years

  Market test results are published in the monthly "Market Testing Bulletin", a copy of which is placed in the Library.

  Police Authorities
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the names and occupations of the people shortlisted by him to sit as independent members of each of the new police authorities in England and Wales;

  (2) if he will list the names and occupations of the people shortlisted by the selection panels to sit as independent members of each of the new police authorities in England and Wales.

  Mr. Maclean
  Applications for appointment as independent members of police authorities were made on an "in confidence" basis and it would not be appropriate to release the information sought as it could lead to the identification of unsuccessful applicants.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names and occupations of(a) the people he appointed to the selection panels for each of the new police authorities in England and Wales and (b) the people chosen by the selection panels themselves.

  Mr. Maclean
  The members of the selection panels for each of the 41 police authorities for England and Wales are:
  489

  Appointed by the Home Secretary

  Appointed by the Designated members of the police authority

  Appointed by the other two members

  Dyfed-Powys

  Professor J. Andrews (Chief Executive, Further and Higher Education Funding Council for Wales)

  Mr. W. Evans (Councillor)

  Mrs. H. Lewis (Former district councillor)

  Essex

  Mrs. K. Bennett (Retired Banker)

  Miss J. Hindle (Magistrate)

  Mr. M. Salmon (University Vice Chancellor)

  Gloucestershire

  Mrs. R. Fritchie (Consultant)

  Mr. J. Newall (Councillor)

  Mr. P. Murisamy (member racial equality forum)

  Greater Manchester

  Mrs. L. Clinton (Planning Manager)

  Mr. S. Mercy (Councillor)

  Mr. M. Shields (Chief Executive-Development Corporation)

  Gwent

  Mrs. A. Bennett (Businesswoman)

  Mr. B. Sutton (Councillor)

  Mr. M. Shields (Chief Executive-Development Corporation)

  Hampshire

  Mr. H. Smith (Chartered Accountant)

  Mr. M. Clark (Councillor)

  Mrs. K. Sporle (Local Government Officer)

  Hertfordshire

  Mr. P. Archer (Personnel Director)

  Mr. M. Acland (Magistrate)

  Mrs. J. Parker (Chairman—Probation Committee)

  Humberside

  Professor B. Pettman (Partner— Antiques Gallery)

  Mr. I Cawsey (Councillor)

  Rt. Rev. D. Snelgrove (Bishop)

  Kent

  Mr. J. Louden (Company Executive)

  Mrs. P. Stubbs (Magistrate)

  Mr. W. Jackson (Retired local government officer)

  Lancashire

  Mr. A. Burford (Business Consultant)

  Mr. D. Henning (Councillor)

  Mr. R. Booth (University Rector)

  Leicestershire

  Mrs. S. Spence (Businesswoman)

  Mr. R. Wann (Councillor)

  Mr. J. Mody (Member Board of Visitors Gartree Prison)

  Lincolnshire

  Mr. A Silcox-Crowe (Corporate Services Consultant)

  Mrs. D. Dobson (Magistrate)

  Mr. C. Smith (Newspaper Editor)

  Merseyside

  Mr. J. Entwistle (Solicitor)

  Mr. H. Rimmer (Councillor)

  Mrs. M. Downs (Company Director)

  Norfolk

  Mr. J. Boxall (Insurance Consultant)

  Mr. B. Landale (Magistrate)

  Mr. P. Thain (Director NHS Trust)

  Northamptonshire

  Mrs. S. King (Voluntary Worker)

  Mr. R. Dickie (Councillor)

  Rt. Rev. P. Barber (Bishop)

  Northumbria

  Dr. C. Morton (Personnel Director)

  Mr. M. Gill (Councillor)

  Mr. M. Scott (Former High Sherriff)

  Nottinghamshire

  Dr. D. Edmond (Consultant)

  Mr. C. Winterton (Councillor)

  Mrs. B. Halfpenny (Former County President—Women's Institute)

  North Wales

  Mr. J. Davies (Engineering Consultant)

  Mr. W. Jones (Councillor)

  Mrs. B. Williams (Mature Student)

  North Yorkshire

  Mr. J. Fox (Personnel Manager)

  Mrs. A. Harris (Councillor)

  Mr. R. Leyland (Retired Local Government Officer)

  South Wales

  Mr. P. Allen (Retired Managing Director)

  Mr. B. Murray (Councillor)

  Professor G. Williams (University Lecturer)

  South Yorkshire

  Mr. B. Trueman (Businessman)

  Sir. J. Layden (Councillor)

  Mr. D. Hepworth (Magistrate)

  Staffordshire

  Mrs P. Wilmot (Headmistress)

  Mr. J. Meir (Magistrate)

  Mr. R. Whitfield (Deputy Lord-Lieutenant)

  Suffolk

  Mr. R. Chesterman (Managing Director)

  Mr. M. Hyde (Councillor)

  Mr. W. French (Retired Company Secretary)

  Surrey

  Mr. J. Buckley (Chief Executive)

  Mr. A. Tisdall (Councillor)

  Mr. R. Thornton (Lord-Lieutenant)

  Sussex

  Mr. R. Goddard (Business Consultant)

  Mr. D. Bellotti (Councillor)

  Miss M. Hulmes (Retired Director of Social Services)

  Thames Valley

  Mrs. E. John (Company Secretary)

  Mrs. D. Priestley (Magistrate)

  Mr. P. Floyd (Retired County Solicitor)

  Warwickshire

  Mr. G. Evans (Personnel Director)

  Mr. M. Singh (Councillor)

  Mr. G. Stokes (College Principal)

  West Mercia

  Mr. G. Cooper (Company Director)

  Ms P. Fallow (Councillor)

  Mrs. S. Davis (Councillor)

  West Midlands

  Mrs. A. Bhalla (Community Affairs Correspondent)

  Mrs. M. Whitehouse (Councillor)

  Mr. P. Williams (Retired County Secretary)

  West Yorkshire

  Mrs. J. Searle (Catering Supervisor)

  Mr. T. Brennan (Councillor)

  Mr. J. Botterill (Retired Police Officer)

  Wiltshire

  Mrs. A. Roberts (Managing Director)

  Mr. J. Bush (Magistrate)

  Mr. G. Burgess (Farmer)

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nominations he has received for appointment as independent members to the new police authorities in England and Wales.

  Mr. Maclean
  The selection panels for the 41 police authorities in England and Wales received a total of 3,751 applications in response to the advertising for these appointments.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names and occupations of the independent members who will sit on each of the new police authorities for England and Wales.
  490
  Mr. Maclean
  Thirty-eight of the 41 new police authorities for England and Wales have made the initial appointments of their independent members. The information is as follows:

  Authority

  Name

  Occupation

  Avon and Somerset

  Mr. J. Christensen

  Pharmacist

  Mrs. S. Davies

  Retired teacher

  Mrs. C. Djianovic

  Farmer

  Mrs. P. Pyper

  Clerk

  Mr. J. Wagg

  Retired engineer

  491

  Authority

  Name

  Occupation

  Bedfordshire

  Mr. R. Charles

  Adult education tutor

  Mr. J. Hunt

  Retired company manager

  Dr. G. Owen

  Environmental consultant

  Mr. M. Scarlett

  Sales executive

  Mr. M. Thomas

  IT consultant

  Cambridgeshire

  Mr. C. Forsyth

  University lecturer

  Mr. S. Image

  Marketing director

  Mr. P. Loft

  Company director

  Mr. R. Odedra

  Company director

  Ms J. Renfrew

  University lecturer

  Cheshire

  Mr. T. Barker

  Chaplain to the Bishop of Chester

  Mr. R. Hamer

  Retired personnel director

  Mr. R. Nichols

  Solicitor

  Mr. D. Ogden

  Chamber of commerce chief executive

  Mr. M. Rothburn

  Consultant microbiologist

  Cleveland

  Mr. R. Edwards

  Retired IT administrator

  Mr. J. Featherstone

  Retired sales manager

  Mr. D Fewtrell

  Retired company chairman

  Mr. B. Foxton

  Chemicals consultant

  Mr. P. Reeder

  Company chief executive

  Cumbria

  Mr. C. Burns

  Engineering manager

  Ms E. Hawkes

  None

  Mr. D. Hodgson

  Freelance editor

  Mr. B. Kennedy

  Retired marketing manager

  Mr. A. Taylor

  Personnel manager

  Derbyshire

  Mr. A. Bakshi

  Dentist

  Mr. A. Burns

  Engineering director

  Mrs. A. O'Brien

  Company secretary

  Mrs. J. Thornton

  NHS trust member

  Mr. C. Wagstaffe

  Barrister

  Devon and Cornwall

  Ms J. Anderson

  Lecturer in education

  Ms M. Behenna

  Director of education

  Mr. P. Dickin

  Personnel manager

  Mr. L. Hudson

  Retired colonel

  Mr. J. Jasper

  Former training advisor

  Mr. B. Kerslake

  Sales manager

  Dorset

  Mrs. K. Emery

  Bookkeeper

  Mr. P. Geal

  Restaurateur

  Mr. D. Howard

  Headteacher

  Mr. P. Jones

  Publisher

  Mrs. J. Lang

  Solicitor

  Durham

  Mr. G. Hetherington

  Retired prison officer

  Miss C. McEwan

  Management training consultant

  Dr. E. Mason

  IT consultant

  Mr. T. Robinson

  Retired local government officer

  Mr. A. Smith

  Company director

  Dyfed-Powys

  Mr. J. Antoniazzi

  Shop owner

  Mr. B. Evans

  Retired marine pilot

  492

  Authority

  Name

  Occupation

  Mr. I. Gray

  Hotelier

  Mrs. M. Harris

  Farmer

  Dr. E. James

  Retired lecturer

  Mrs. E. Taylor

  Retired caterer

  Essex

  Mr. M. Easteal

  Chief executive of the Local Government Commission

  Mr. W. Garland

  Retired company manager

  Mr. N. Hicks

  Engineer

  Mr. G. Nash

  Retired headteacher

  Ms S. Sootarsingh

  Management consultant

  Gloucestershire

  Mr. K. Amlani

  Retail florist

  Brigadier M. Brown Mr. J. Dunn

  Civil servant Business consultant

  Mrs. M. McLoughlin

  Housewife

  Mrs. C. Wiggin

  NHS manager

  Greater Manchester

  Mr. V. Hodgkinson

  Retired bursar

  Mr. L. Latham

  Company chairman

  Mr. W. McMichael-Phillips

  Retired retail manager

  Mr. I. Murray

  Marketing director

  Mrs. J. Reed

  Retired teacher

  Miss S. Sodha

  Computer programmer

  Gwent

  Mr. D. Burgess

  Engineer

  Mrs. J. Davies

  Retired typing manager

  Mrs. W. Jones

  Pub landlady

  Mr. L. Morgan

  Security manager

  Mr. G. Moss

  Builder

  Hampshire

  Mr. M. Attenborough-Cox

  Accountant

  Ms C. Barratt

  Former secretary

  Mr. S. Copeland

  Bookshop owner

  Mr. M. O'Reilly

  Scouts fundraiser

  Mr. A. Park

  Railway controller

  Hertfordshire

  Mr. M. Berkley

  Company director

  Mr. D. Bucknall

  Health authority chairman

  Mr. P. Holland

  Media consultant

  Mr. B. Lund

  Management consultant

  Mr. N. Shacklock

  Naval security officer

  Humberside

  Mrs. L. Clayton

  Farmer

  Mrs. A. Deehan

  Businesswoman

  Mr. J. Parkinson

  Former estates manager

  Mr. B. Rogan

  Company director

  Mr. T. Whittingham

  Teacher

  Kent

  Mr. B. Bright

  Company secretary

  Mr. G. Clarkson

  Retired chief fire officer

  Ms J. Harrison

  Solicitor

  Mr. S. Maclachlan

  Retired solicitor

  Mr. G. Van Orden

  Brigadier

  Lancashire

  Mr. R. Banister

  Retired engineer

  Mr. G. Dykes

  Civil servant

  Dr. A. Kuchar

  Race relations consultant

  Mrs. L. Taylor

  Training consultant

  Mrs. J. Williams

  IT manager

  Leicestershire

  Mr. P. Billing

  Technologist

  Mrs. A. Freer

  Retired medical receptionist

  493

  Authority

  Name

  Occupation

  Leicestershire

  Mr. M. Harrison

  Retired bank manager

  Mr. D. Saville

  Building society manager

  Mr. C. Snushall

  Company director

  Lincolnshire

  Mr. R. Atkinson

  Retired dock master

  Mr. R. Bayliss

  RAF engineer

  Mr. M. Berry

  Retired food industry consultant

  Mrs. M. Bouch

  Retired teacher

  Brigadier B. Reeves

  Lecturer in business management

  Norfolk

  Mr. M. Anscombe

  Retailer

  Mr. M. Briggs

  NHS manager

  Mr. A. Leckie

  Management consultant

  Mr. P. Papworth

  Agricultural estate director

  Mr. H. Wilson

  Retired TV news director

  Northamptonshire

  Mr. J. Chambers

  Prison officer

  Mr. G. Chowdhury

  Teacher

  Mr. O. Davies

  Retired civil engineer

  Ms J. Quin

  Marketing director

  Mr. R. Sheppard

  Consultant haematologist

  Northumbria

  Mrs. S. Pearson

  Charity director

  Mr. G. Robinson

  Company director

  Mr. R. Tilmouth

  Retired chamber of commerce executive

  Mr. W. Locke

  Estate management director

  Dr. A. Mahmood

  Consultant haemotologist

  North Yorkshire

  Ms S. Campbell

  Retail director

  Mr. E. Christian

  Management consultant

  Mr. D. Collins

  Retired RAF officer

  Ms L. Humphreys

  Housewife

  Mr. R. Peterson

  NHS trust director

  Nottinghamshire

  Mr. S. Balmforth

  Senior operations inspector

  Mrs. J. Kenwood

  Retired customer care manager

  Mrs. C. Revill

  Teacher

  Mr. G. Solway

  Company director

  Mr. J. Woodrow

  Retired civil servant

  South Wales

  Mrs. A. Peters

  Headteacher

  Mrs. V. Rudell

  Teacher

  Mr. C. Stevens

  TV news editor

  Reverend P. White

  Canon of Llandaff cathedral

  Mr. G. Wright

  Trade union official

  Staffordshire

  Mr. M. Beatty

  Company director

  Mr. P. Finister

  Personnel consultant

  Mr. B. Harvey

  Construction consultant

  Mr. A. Millward

  Former postal manager

  Mr. F. Shaw

  Retired building society executive

  Suffolk

  Ms E. Barham

  Mature student

  Mr. A. Bhatt

  Company director

  Mr. G. Egleton

  Public affairs advisor

  Mr. C. Hilder

  Company chairman

  Mrs. C. Laverock

  Former education officer

  494

  Authority

  Name

  Occupation

  Surrey

  Mr. M. Ault

  Marketing director

  Mr. W. Donnelly

  Management consultant

  Mr. J. Gall

  Local government manager

  Mrs. E. Hewitt

  Company director

  Mrs. J. Housden

  University examiner

  Sussex

  Dr. J. Collick

  Rabbi

  Miss S. Haslam

  Farmer

  Mrs. A. Swain

  Education consultant

  Mrs. M. Turner

  Retired playgroup organiser

  Mr. T. Wiggins

  Business consultant

  Thames Valley

  Mr. A. Cluff

  Retired company director

  Mr. E. Domican

  Management consultant

  Mrs. P. Elvin

  Accountant

  Mr. G. Maybury

  Management consultant

  Professor R. Smith

  Education consultant

  Warwickshire

  Mr. A. Bird

  Company director

  Mr. W. Dean

  Head of university business studies unit

  Ms M. Fitzgerald

  University lecturer

  Mr. F. Lockett

  Retired businessman

  Mr. B. Thomas

  NHS trust chairman

  West Mercia

  Mrs. S. Garner

  Businesswoman

  Mrs. H. Gillow

  Retired researcher

  Mr. P. Kelly

  Trade union official

  Mrs. M. Kilbride

  Headteacher

  Mr. D. Watkins

  Retired veterinary surgeon

  West Midlands

  Mrs. F. Adams

  Housewife

  Mrs. B. Pearce

  None

  Mr. G. Richards

  Businessman

  Mr. S. Singh

  Fellow of Warwick University

  Mrs. A. Worley

  NHS trust director

  West Yorkshire

  Mr. J. Harris

  Management consultant

  Mr. J. Horn

  Headteacher

  Dr. M. Hughes

  Management consultant

  Mr. M. Millgate

  Personnel consultant

  Mr. K. Sarathy

  Retired deputy headteacher

  Wiltshire

  Mr. I. Davies

  Chartered accountant

  Mr. D. Jones

  Retired military advisor

  Mr. M. Lee

  Retired RAF officer

  Mr. P. Lefever

  Civil servant

  Mr. H. Woolnough

  Retired army officer

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what methods have been used to encourage nominations for the independent members of the new police authorities in England and Wales.

  Mr. Maclean
  Advertisements were placed in the following newspapers:The Independent on Sunday, The Observer, The Sunday Times, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Liverpool Daily Post and The Western Mail.

  Officials wrote to members of the public who had expressed an interest in the appointments in response to the White Paper, or who had registered an interest in this

  495
  type of work with the public appointments unit at the Cabinet Office.

  In addition, police authorities were encouraged to bring the appointments to the notice of local community groups whose members might be interested in them.

  Visas
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the visas to be offered to nationals of the former Yugoslavia deemed to be vulnerable and their close dependants have, to date, been issued; how many nationals of the former Yugoslavia have been issued with visas, outside the scheme refereed to, to obtain medical treatment in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  In November 1992, the Government agreed to accept up to 1,000 nationals of former Yugoslavia (and their dependants) considered by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to be vulnerable and in need of evacuation. To date, 831 principal applicants and 1,130 dependants have arrived in the United Kingdom under these arrangements. Of these, 77 people came specifically for medical treatment. Other nationals of former Yugoslavia have been admitted to the United Kingdom for medical treatment outside these arrangements, but no central record is kept of the number of visas issued specially for medical treatment.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the countries visited by a spouse accompanying a Minister on overseas visits since 1 October 1993; which Minister was accompanied; what was the cost of each visit; and what were the dates and the duties undertaken by the spouse during such visits.

  Mr. Howard
  Since 1 October 1993 there have been three occasions when the spouse of a Home Office Minister has accompanied the Minister on public duties overseas.

  From 1 January 1994 to 7 January 1994 I was accompanied by my spouse on a trip to the United States of America at a cost of £2,919.35. From 20 August 1994 to 2 September 1994 I was again accompanied by my spouse on a trip to Latin America, which included visits to Argentina, Bolivia and Colombia, at a cost of £5,397.65.

  On both occasions the necessary approval was sought in advance of the visit and full official programmes were followed which had been drawn up by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. These concentrated on charity work relating to Home Office interests, particularly drugs.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) undertook a trip to Greece from 17 November to 19 November 1993 when he was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. He was accompanied by his spouse at own cost.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Press Regulation
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he proposes to publish his White Paper on the regulation of the press.
  496
  Mr. Dorrell
  The White Paper on privacy and media intrusion will be published when we have completed our consideration of the legal issues relating to the proposed criminal and civil remedies.

  South Bank(Tourism)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the contribution of the south bank of the Thames in Southwark and Lambeth to London's tourism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  I consider the south side of the Thames to be an important and integral part of the tourism industry in London. This area has a rich variety of attractions enjoyed by both visitors and residents.

  On 29 November, my right hon. Friend was able to announce an additional £2 million over two years for the promotion of London tourism. This will be matched by the British Tourist Authority from existing resources and it, in conjunction with London First and the London tourist board, will seek to lever in matching funding from the private sector. This substantial new fund will make a significant contribution to further strengthen London's performance in tourism.

  Sport
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what priority the Government give to promoting excellence among the United Kingdom's sporting competitors.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government attach great importance to the pursuit of high standards of sporting achievement. This and the development of sporting opportunity for young people are the cornerstones of the Government's proposals for reform of the Sports Council which I announced to the House on 8 July,Official Report, columns 584–86.

  Fibre-optic Communications
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the implications of fibre-optic communications for television services in Wales.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Optical fibre networks offer a means of distributing television programmes, information or entertainment to the home. They can create new opportunities for programme makers and broadcasters, and can provide increasing choice for viewers, in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom.

  Foundation for Sports and the Arts
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about the Foundation for Sports and the Arts.

  Mr. Sproat
  I have received a number of representations.

  Children's Play
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the time scale for publishing the results of his consultation on the future of children's play.

  Mr. Sproat
  I am currently considering the comments received on future arrangements for children's play submitted as part of our wider consultation on Sports Council restructuring. I have asked the council to provide me with its own view of how its current functions and staffing might be realigned to take account of the proposals set out in our 8 July statement,Official Report, columns 584–86. I shall then take final decisions on policy and the timing of implementation.

  Television (Violence)
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what additional proposals he has for reducing the amount and level of violence on television.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Broadcasters in the United Kingdom are independent of Government but have clear responsibilities with regard to programme content. Earlier this year, my predecessor held meetings with the chairman of the BBC, Independent Television Commission and Broadcasting Standards Council to discuss public concern about television violence. Both the BBC and ITC undertook to monitor the amount of violence and report back and we await their findings.

  Television Transmissions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will take powers to ensure that television viewers can receive transmissions from the appropriate regional ITV and BBC stations.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. It is for the broadcasters to determine their own transmission arrangements in the light of their resources and within the constraints of frequency availability and engineering feasibility.

  National Lottery
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about the operation of the national lottery.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Director General of the National Lottery regulates the operations of the licensed operator, Camelot plc, and would be happy to write to the hon. Member about any operational matters he wishes to raise.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to monitor expenditure patterns by households and individuals on national lottery tickets.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have no plans to do so at present.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the latest number of bids received under the millennium fund; how much he envisages will be available for such projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Millennium Commission will be inviting applications from 4 January 1995. The commission has already received notification of over 300 potential millennium projects and there have been 4,000 requests for application forms. According to Camelot's forecasts, the Millennium Commission could receive around £1.6 billion between now and 31 December 2000.
  498
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many outlets that have been approved by Camelot for the sale of national lottery tickets remain unconnected to the national lottery ticket sale system; and whether these outlets will be compensated by Camelot for loss of revenue.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is an operational matter for Camelot Group plc. I have therefore asked Peter Davis, the Director-General of the National Lottery, who is responsible for regulating the operation of the lottery, to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his response in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his best estimate of the funding that will flow from the national lottery to assist sport and the arts in 1995–96.

  Mr. Dorrell
  On the basis of forecasts prepared by Camelot Group plc when it submitted its application for the licence to run the national lottery, I estimate that £750 million will be paid to the national lottery distribution fund in 1995–96. As specified in section 22 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, each of the five good causes—including sport and the arts—will receive 20 per cent. of the sum remaining in the national lottery distribution fund after expenses have been deducted. This could amount to some £150 million for each sector.

  Tourism (VAT)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment his Department made, prior to the Budget statement, of the effect that imposition of VAT on non-essential public transport would have on the United Kingdom tourism industry.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The application of VAT is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who announced on 29 November that services relating to entertainment or recreational activities and car parking at airports, which include passenger transport, will become wholly standard rated. The measure, which will affect a limited range of businesses, will not involve significant compliance costs for any business category, and is not expected to affect international competitiveness. Indeed, where supplies become wholly taxable at the standard rate instead of being apportioned, VAT accounting requirements will become simpler.

  Sports Councils
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many submissions have been received as a part of his Department's consultation process on the future of the sports councils; how many expressed an opinion on his proposals to(a) restrict sports council direct funding to a core of two to three dozen sports and (b) cut the formal links between the sports council and the regional councils for sport and recreation; and if he will divide the figures into those in favour of his proposals and those against.

  Mr. Sproat
  In accordance with the Government's code of practice on open government, I will publish the facts and analysis which were relevant and important in framing our final decisions on reform of the Sports Council when these decisions are announced publicly. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his written question of 28 November,Official Report, column 477, for the

  499
  current position on our consideration of responses to the consultation exercise.

SCOTLAND

  Energy Expenditure
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total expenditure on energy for offices and buildings by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is set out in the tables.

  The Scottish Office and Associated Departments

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Total1

  3,021,651

  3,203,726

  3,079,573

  1 Includes Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency, which is collocated in a Scottish Office building and separate records are not available.

  Agencies for which the Secretary of State is responsible

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Scottish Record Office

  97,226

  96,615

  93,895

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  163,649

  165,970

  169,775

  General Register Office

  68,221

  92,450

  92,184

  Students Awards Agency Scotland

  63,240

  70,561

  87,576

  Historic Scotland

  458,000

  411,000

  456,000

  Scottish Office Pension Agency2

  0

  0

  14,871

  Registers of Scotland

  187,618

  214,100

  245,777

  Scottish Prison Service

  2,773,773

  3,273,674

  3,193,684

  Total

  3,811,727

  4,324,370

  4,353,762

  2 Previous years' figures included in the Scottish Office total.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total expenditure on energy for each property owned or leased by his Department for the use of ministers in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  Expenditure on energy at Bute house, the Secretary of State's official residence, was as follows:

  Year

  £

  1991–92

  4,415

  1992–93

  5,216

  1993–94

  5,293

  Health Care Purchases
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent by(a) district health authorities, (b) family health services authorities, (c) regional health authorities, (d) trusts and (e) general practitioner fundholders on health care purchases from non-NHS providers in each of the last three years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In Scotland, the purchase of hospital, community and family health care is primarily the responsibility of health boards. The following table shows expenditure on purchases of health care from private providers:

  Purchases of Health Care from Private Providers

  1991–92 £000

  1992–93 £000

  1993–94 (Provisional) £000

  Health Boards

  2,642

  21,475

  16,255

  GP Fundholders

  34

  131

  23

  Health boards also have contracts with local authorities, hospices and voluntary agencies where these organisations are registered charities undertaking specific contracted activities but information on these is no longer collected centrally. Expenditure by NHS trusts on purchases from private providers in Scotland is not held centrally.

  Food Allergies
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many physicians in Scottish NHS hospitals are specialists in the treatment of food allergies,

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Consultants in various specialties may practise in the treatment of food allergies. Information is not collected on how many doctors carry out such work.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those services that have been market-tested by his Department and won by the private sector, indicating the organisation that won the tender and its value.

  Mr. Lang
  Since 1 April 1992, the activities set out in the table have been contracted out as part of my "Competing for Quality" programme.

  Activity

  Awarded to

  Audit of 1st wave NHS Trusts

  KPMG Peat Marwick; Coopers and Lybrand

  Audit of 2nd wave NHS Trusts1

  KPMG Peat Marwick; Price Waterhouse; Ernst and Young

  Audit of 3rd wave NHS Trusts1

  Ernst and Young; Scott Moncrieff; KPMG Peat Marwick; Price Waterhouse

  501

  Activity

  Awarded to

  Audit of NHS Boards1

  KPMG Peat Marwick; Coopers and Lybrand; Price Waterhouse

  Scottish Fire Service Training School Catering

  Gardner Merchant

  Building and Electrical Maintenance Works at HM Prison, Barlinnie

  AMEC

  Marine Laboratory Property Management1

  Bell Ingram

  Maintenance of new microwave radio systems for the Scottish Ambulance Service and other Health Service Users1

  National Transcommunications Ltd.

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency Security1

  Burns Security

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency pensions administration systems1

  McDonnell Information Systems

  Data Preparation work1

  Saztec; Alpha Numeric

  1 Strategically contracted out without an in-house bid.

  Bids are made to the Scottish Office on a commercial-in-confidence basis by companies and it is the Scottish Office's normal policy not to reveal the values of contracts let for individual market tests. The estimated aggregate value over the lifetimes of the above contracts is £9.7 million. The length of contract ranges from one to seven years.

  General Practitioner Lists
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will itemise the number of patients who have been removed from general practitioner lists because of(a) registration with another doctor, (b) the death or resignation of the doctor, (c) the death or emigration of the patient, (d) removal at the doctor's request and (e) other causes in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 December 1994]: The information requested is not held centrally.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the(a) surpluses or (b) deficits recorded by each individual trust in each year since its inception.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 December 1994]: The information requested is provided in the table—no deficits have been recorded by individual trusts since their inception:

  NHS trust

  Surplus 1992–93 £000

  Surplus 1993–94 £000

  First wave

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals

  2,707

  696

  South Ayrshire Hospitals

  480

  727

  Second wave

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare

  1,021

  502

  NHS trust

  Surplus 1992–93 £000

  Surplus 1993–94 £000

  Caithness and Sutherland

  319

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals

  1,284

  Grampian Healthcare

  3,546

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals

  904

  Moray Health Services

  354

  North Ayrshire and Arran

  1,593

  Raigmore Hospital

  1,171

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  1,114

  Royal Scottish National Hospital and Community

  975

  Southern General

  1,106

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  899

  Victoria Infirmary

  526

  West Lothian

  1,612

  Yorkhill

  601

  Patients' Complaints
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patient complaints were received per 1,000 patients treated in each year since 1989–90 by region.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 December 1994]: This information is not available in the form requested. Information about complaints has been collected centrally since January 1993. Details of the number of primary care consultations are not available but for hospital services the information for 1993–94 is as follows:

  Health board

  Number of complaints per 1,000 patients treated

  Argyll and Clyde

  0.52

  Ayrshire and Arran

  0.68

  Borders

  0.50

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0.62

  Fife

  0.76

  Forth Valley

  0.59

  Grampian

  0.87

  Greater Glasgow

  0.87

  Highland

  0.80

  Lanarkshire

  0.94

  Lothian

  0.81

  Orkney

  0.69

  Shetland

  0.37

  Tayside

  0.70

  Western Isles

  0.33

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide an estimate for the value of fundholding allocations retained by general practitioner fundholders at the year end in each of the last four years by region.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 November 1994]: In Scotland, trusts have been progressively introduced since 1 April 1992. Staffing information for 1992 is not readily available centrally. There were 17 NHS trusts at 30 September 1993 and 39 from 1 April 1994; managerial staff information available is shown in the table. The managerial staff figures shown for 1993 and 1994 are not comparable

  503
  as different numbers of trusts may be included within each health board for each of the years. The figures also include staff previously employed by health boards who transferred to trust employment on the establishment of trusts. They also include staff from other staff groups who have transferred to senior manager grades. In addition, new payment arrangements for general and senior managers progressively introduced in Scotland from 1 September 1993 changed the pay threshold to a lower one at which a member of staff can be classified as a senior manager.

  NHSiS Managers in Post within Trusts; by health board1 3

  Whole time equivalent

  19932 30 September

  19942* 1 April

  Scotland

  447.1

  1,149.5

  Argyll and Clyde

  15.0

  46.4

  Ayrshire and Arran

  95.4

  2132.6

  Borders

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  16.4

  Fife

  —

  102.3

  Forth Valley

  26.0

  46.0

  Grampian

  126.6

  130.4

  Greater Glasgow

  66.3

  219.0

  Highland

  28.0

  65.8

  Lanarkshire

  23.8

  79.3

  Lothian

  31.0

  209.1

  Orkney

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  Tayside

  35.0

  102.2

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  Source:

  National Manpower Statistics.

  Notes:

  * Provisional data.

  1 Includes general managers, senior managers, staff on A and C grades 7 and above and protected grades.

  2 There were 17 NHS trusts at 30 September 1993 and 39 from 1 April 1994.

  3 Some of the change between 1993 and 1994 is accounted for by staff transferring to senior manager grades. For example, staff employed on estates', A and C, senior nurse manager and other grades have so transferred. This is illustrated by Ayrshire and Arran where over 30 such transfers have occurred between 1993 and 1994.

  4 The pay threshold for classification as a senior manager was lowered in September 1993 from £14,940 to £13,086.

  Pigs
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what grant aid is available to pig producers in Scotland to convert sow tether and stall accommodation.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Grants are not available to pig producers in Scotland for the conversion of sow tether and stall accommodation.

  Agricultural Assistance
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by agricultural scheme the number of claims received after the prescribed closing date which have been allowed for reasons of force majeure in each of the last five years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Forestry
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by county all Forestry Commission woodlands for sale, indicating for each woodland its size and whether an access agreement is in place to protect public access.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 23 November 1994]: The following Forestry Commission woodlands are currently for sale on the open market:

  County/Region

  Name of property

  Area (hectares)

  England

  Avon

  Fifty Acre Wood

  221

  Old Park Wood

  210

  Three Cornered Wood

  23

  Buckinghamshire

  Stokepark Wood

  265

  Cambridgeshire

  West Wood

  229

  Cornwall

  Hay Wood

  254

  Port Elliot, Pathada and Perdredda

  295

  Treworgey Wood

  217

  Cumbria

  Black Knors

  225

  Derbyshire

  Kennel Wood—part

  36

  Devon

  Bedpark

  28

  Deershill Wood

  211

  Durham

  Stanley Wood Cottages

  331

  Essex

  Hales Wood

  226

  Martins Wood

  24

  Millpond

  23

  Pounce Wood

  25

  Robins Grove

  29

  Whitehill Wood

  25

  Hampshire

  Bassett Green, Land at

  22

  Isle of Wight

  Grammars Common

  217

  Kemphill Moor

  220

  Lincolnshire

  Big Wood

  212

  Big Plantation—Stourton

  28

  Halstead Wood

  226

  Six Acre Plantation

  210

  Stourton Wood

  219

  North Yorkshire

  Cottage Wood

  24

  Hagg Wood

  243

  Lodge Plantation

  29

  Scackleton Moor

  235

  Scoreby Wood

  233

  Nottinghamshire

  Coombs Wood

  216

  Shropshire

  Coed Detton

  214

  Somerset

  Higher Bitcombe

  230

  South Yorkshire

  Owston and Duck Holt Woods

  266

  Suffolk

  Wrights Plantation

  35

  Scotland

  Borders

  Craig Douglas

  2352

  Craigend

  2l8

  Fruid, Land at

  240

  Gala Blocks

  1127

  Central

  Stronvar

  22

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Daljarrock

  251

  Glaik

  262

  Fife

  Kirkton Barns

  226

  Grampian

  Auquharney

  1128

  Braes of Gight

  1137

  Brunthill Wood

  237

  Glenbuchat

  2539

  Greenness

  2115

  Lenabo

  1322

  New Pitsligo

  242

  White Cow Wood

  1448

  Wood of Wrae

  150

  Highland

  Abriachan Plantation

  2865

  Achrugan

  1559

  Ardelve

  226

  Balmore-Craskie

  249

  Balmore-Glencannich

  270

  Balmore-Muchrachd

  229

  Blarnbee

  263

  Duisky

  289

  Garbole

  2696

  505

  County/Region

  Name of property

  Area (hectares)

  Glenmeanie

  2397

  Glen Tarbert

  284

  Inverchoran

  2129

  Loch Ashie

  2437

  Lochlait

  190

  Lundavra

  1148

  Rinuden

  188

  Tote

  2421

  Strathclyde

  Blarghour

  219

  Glenmard

  256

  Kirnan

  2222

  Tayside

  Camusericht

  2295

  Claysykes

  217

  Cowden Wood

  320

  Long

  280

  Mill of Fortune

  2119

  Tulloes

  269

  Wales

  Clwyd

  Coed Graig Goch

  28

  Coed Melin y Moch

  212

  Crown Wood

  229

  Foel Uchaf

  118

  Gelli Wood

  26

  Halton Wood

  279

  Pentre Potes—Coed y Pent

  116

  Dyfed

  Allt Cil y Llyn Fawr

  23

  Allt Llyn Dyfrion

  111

  Bwlch Newydd

  18

  Bylchau Duon

  261

  Cilflower Wood

  15

  Coed Cefn Pwll Hen

  220

  Glan Teifi Wood

  22

  Llwyn y Gwair

  213

  Pant Eynon and Allt y Forlan

  229

  Pencwmfawr

  2>9

  Penhill Wood

  24

  Pont Henri

  121

  Rams Wood

  226

  Scolton Wood

  230

  Tynton

  25

  Ty'r Shyme

  26

  Waun Baglan Wood

  126

  Gwent

  Coed Gwaun Y Ffeiriad

  243

  Ty Fry Big Wood

  217

  White Mill Common and Roughets Wood

  26

  Gwynedd

  Aberdunant

  221

  Coed Ty Uchaf

  214

  Pant y Wrach

  154

  The Glyn

  249

  Powys

  Allt Yscoedreddfin

  29

  West Glamorgan

  Gelligaer

  133

  Nant y Stalwyn

  144

  1 Woodlands where an access agreement has been concluded.

  2 Woodlands where the local authority, or a third party with an interest, declined to enter into an access agreement.

  3 Woodlands where the local authority is considering whether to enter into an access agreement.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Advisory Bodies
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the functions and objectives of(a) the Monitoring Committee on Misleading Price Indications, (b) the Standards Quality and Measurement Advisory Committee, (c) the Energy Advisory Panel, (d) the Advisory Committee for the Joint Environmental Markets Unit and (e) the Advisory Committee on Coal Research.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The information requested is as follows:
  506
  (a) Monitoring Committee on Misleading Price Indications
  The Committee was formally disbanded in May 1993 by the then Minister for Consumer Affairs.

  (b) Standards Quality and Measurement Advisory Committee (SQMAC)

  The SQMAC became the Measurements Advisory Committee, MAC, on 1 July 1994. The function of the MAC is to advise the Department on:
  —the effectiveness with which the National Measurement System supports UK industry, and
  —the priorities which the Department should assign to programmes of work undertaken to meet the demands of the national measurement system.

  Its objectives are:
  —advising on the broad objectives, balance and strategy for Government support of measurement and proposing effective means for the delivery of that message to business in general in support of wealth creation;:
  —advising on the commercial opportunities resulting from the research and development carried out by contractors, in support of the national measurement system;
  —contributing to an annual longer term perspective, as input to the Department's annual "Forward Look" at programme expenditure over the next five years and longer;
  —identifying key priorities for the UK measurement system within a European and global context;
  —taking account of the advice of technical experts (Working Groups), to advise on priorities for funding.

  (c) Energy Advisory Panel

  The function of the panel is to assist in the preparation of the annual energy report which the Government undertook to prepare, as explained at paragraphs 3.31 and 3.32 of the White Paper "The Prospects for Coal: Conclusions of the Government's Coal Review" (CM 2235, March 1993). The panel's objectives are:-
  —to offer views on the structure, content and balance of the report against the background of Government energy policy as outlined in the White Paper.

  (d) Advisory Committee for the Joint Environmental Markets Unit (JEPU)

  The function of the committee is to advise the Department on the priorities and future work of JEPU. Its objectives are:-
  —to consider how Government and industry can most effectively identify and exploit environmental market opportunities at home and overseas;
  —to assess and recommend specific actions to pursue these objectives.
  —to consider how to encourage firms, particularly small and medium sized enterprises to take up new environmental opportunities.

  (e) Advisory Committee on Coal Research
  The advisory committee was established in 1993 to provide advice to the Department with respect to its coal research and development programme. The terms of reference for the Committee and its membership are listed in annex B of Energy Paper 63, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the functions and objectives of(a) the Advisory Council on Research and Development for Fuel and Power, (b) the Offshore Industry Liaison Committee and (c) the Overseas Projects Board.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Advisory Council on Research and Development for Fuel and Power
  The council's primary function was to give Minister's detailed technical overview of the research and development plans of the nationalised energy industries. The privatisation of these industries essentially removed the need for this function and

  507
  with the establishment of the Energy advisory panel in October 1993, ACORD was dissolved.

  (b) Offshore Industry Liaison Committee
  The function of the committee is to advise the Minister responsible for the oil and gas sector regarding the progress of the United Kingdom offshore supplies industry on the United Kingdom continental shelf. Its objectives are;
  — to analyse problems affecting the competitiveness of the industry, identify gaps in its capability and propose strategies for improving its performance and coverage.

  (c) Overseas Project Board
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 7 July 1994, Official Report, column 295.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy in respect of the requirement on the Official Receiver to implement the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 when the Official Receiver is undertaking the investigation of possible offences referred to him by contractors undertaking case administration work.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Legal advice indicates that the role of official receivers in conducting further interviews of bankrupts and company directors would remain unchanged.

  Package Travel Directive
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which member states of the European Union have transposed the package travel directive into their national law; and on which dates.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The United Kingdom implemented the directive on package travel, package holidays and package tours on 23 December 1992.

  Information on the transposition of Community legislation into national law is available on the Commission's CELEX database. This records that the directive has been implemented by the following other member states—the date given is that of the latest piece of implementing legislation shown on the database:

  Belgium—1 April 1994

  Denmark—21 September 1993

  France—17 June 1994

  Luxembourg—6 July 1994

  Netherlands—26 January 1993

  Portugal—6 May 1994

  Germany, Spain, Greece, Ireland and Italy are not recorded as having implemented the directive. In Spain implementation is the responsibility of the regional governments.

  Energy Expenditure
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total expenditure on energy for offices and buildings by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Total expenditure on energy by the DTI and its agencies was as follows:

  £000

  1991–92

  5,950

  1992–93

  5,490

  1993–94

  5,377

  508
  Because agency and departmental staff are co-located on some sites, it is not possible to provide accurate information for expenditure by agencies separately.

  Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral answer of 23 November,Official Report, column 583,whether he will show the percentage increase in United Kingdom exports between 1990 and 1992 compared with the weighted average increase in exports from other developed countries, the number of those countries which did better than the United Kingdom and the number which did worse, and which countries on the basis of the latest quarterly figure in each case have done better than the United Kingdom since 1992 and which have done worse.

  Mr. Needham
  In $US terms United Kingdom exports grew 2.8 per cent. between 1990 and 1992, compared with 9.2 per cent. for the weighted average of the remaining OECD countries. Eighteen countries did better than the United Kingdom and four worse.

  Based on the latest available quarterly figures the following eleven OECD countries did better than the United Kingdom in terms of increasing exports in SUS terms since 1992: Australia, Canada, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and USA. Ten countries did worse than the United Kingdom: Austria, Belgium/Luxembourg, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and Switzerland. There have been no internationally published Danish export figures since the introduction of Intrastat in January 1993.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral answer of 23 November,Official Report, column 583, what has been the change since October 1990 in United Kingdom export unit values for finished manufactures in terms of dollars; and what have been the figures in (a) Germany, (b) France and (c) Italy.

  Mr. Needham
  United Kingdom export unit values for finished manufactures in terms of $US increased 1.2 per cent. between October 1990 and August 1994. Comparable figures for Germany, France, and Italy are not readily available, and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral answer of 23 November,Official Report, column 583, if he will publish the United Kingdom share of the volume of exports of manufacturers by the main manufacturing countries in 1970, 1978 and each year from 1987 to 1993; and if he will add corresponding figures for France and Italy.

  Mr. Needham
  The United Kingdom figures, where available, are given in the CSO publication "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics—Annual Supplement 1992", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Corresponding figures for France and Italy could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral answer of 23 November,Official Report, column 583, what was the reduction in the deficit on the balance of trade in finished manufactures this year to date at an annual rate compared with 1992 in respect of (a) all countries and (b) for the EEC.
  509
  Mr. Needham
  Information on United Kingdom trade in finished manufactures in total and to the EC is available from the Central Statistical Office's central shared database and is published in the monthly review of external trade statistics. The database and the publication may be accessed from the Library of the House.

  Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral answer of 23 November,Official Report, column 583, what was the increase in output of manufacturing (a) since 1973 and (b) between 1964 and 1973; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is available from the Central Statistical Office's central shared database which can be accessed in the Library of the House. Manufacturing output is growing strongly: in the three months to October output was 5.3 per cent. higher than a year earlier.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral answer 23 November,Official Report, column 583. what was the level of import penetration of the United Kingdom market for manufactures in 1979, 1988, 1990, 1992 and 1993 together with his forecast for 1994.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested was published until 1989 in "Business Monitor MQ12", which is available in the Library of the House. The Central Statistical Office expects to publish provisional 1993 figures in the "Monthly Digest of Statistics" early in 1995. Figures for 1990 and 1992 are not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral answer of 23 November,Official Report, column 583, what was the level of import penetration in the market for manufactures in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) Italy.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested was published until 1989 in "Business Monitor MQ12", which is available in the Library of the House. The Central Statistical Office expects to publish provisional 1993 figures in the "Monthly Digest of Statistics" early in 1995. The information requested with respect of France and Italy is not readily available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral answer of 23 November,Official Report, column 583, whether he will publish the latest figures for import penetration of the United Kingdom market for manufactures by two-digit sectors of the standard industrial classification.

  Mr. Needham
  The Central Statistical Office expects to publish provisional 1993 data on import penetration by industry sector, in the "Monthly Digest of Statistics", early in 1995.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral answer of 23 November 1994,Official Report, column 583, what has been the change in the nominal exchange rate for sterling against (a) the Deutschmark, (b) the ecu and (c) the non-ecu currencies since February 1993, together with his estimate of the likely effects on imports and exports of finished manufactures.
  510
  Mr. Needham
  A selection of exchange rates, including the Deutschmark and the European currency unit, are regularly published in the Central Statistical Office's financial statistics, table 7.1A, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. An exchange rate index for non-ecu currencies is not available and could be calculated only at disproportionate cost. The Government's assessment of trade performance, published in chapter 3 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" took into account all relevant factors, including past movements in exchange rates.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral answer of 23 November 1994 Official Report, column 583, what has been the fall in the value of sterling and the lira since August 1992 together with (i) the balance of visible trade in 1992, 1993 and this year to date in each case in terms of dollars and (ii) the increase since August 1992 in producer prices.

  Mr. Needham
  Between August 1992 and October 1994 the values of sterling and the lira against the US$ fell 21.0 and 40.4 per cent. respectively. Between August 1992 and July 1994 United Kingdom and Italian producer prices for manufacturing increased 5.1 and 10.1 per cent. respectively.

  Visible trade balances

  US$ million

  1992

  1993

  January 1994 to date

  United Kingdom

  -23,148

  -19,833

  -9,9131

  Italy

  -10,320

  20,760

  11.9402

  Note:

  1 Up to August 1994

  2 Up to June 1994

  Sources:

  OECD Main Economic Indicators, CSO

  Motor Vehicles
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the value of imports and exports of motor vehicle components in 1992, 1993 and 1994 to date for trade with the EEC, together with his estimate of the import content of cars produced or assembled in the United Kingdom in 1973 and 1993 for trade with(a) all countries and (b) the EEC.

  Mr. Needham
  Figures of trade in motor vehicle components with EC countries are published in "Business Monitors" MA20 for 1992, MQ20 for 1993 and 1994 to date—which are available in the Library of the House.

  Information on the import content of cars produced or assembled in the United Kingdom is not held centrally, and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  "Marketing Your Business"
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much was paid to Strategic Consultants for "Marketing Your Business"; and if he will list other contracts between his Department and this company over the last three years.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  "Marketing Your Business" was one of a series of business skills seminar workbooks which were originally written in 1988 by a group of experienced training providers on behalf of the Training Agency. It is
  511
  not possible to identify the separate cost of writing this workbook. Since April 1992 Strategic Consultants Limited has undertaken the following contracts for my Department:
  July 1992—Testing and editing material for two business skills seminar titles—cost £4,284
  December 1992—Review and revision of business skills seminar material (5 titles)—cost £5,875
  February 1994—Revision of business skills seminar material (3 titles) - cost £7,373

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of producing and distributing "Marketing Your Business"; how many copies were produced; how many have been withdrawn; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  "Marketing Your Business" was one of a series of business skills seminar workbooks originally written in 1988 by a group of experienced training providers on behalf of the Training Agency. It is not possible to identify the separate cost of writing this workbook. The printing, publishing and sale of business skills seminar workbooks is licensed by Her Majesty's Stationery Office to Vector Business Development and involves no cost to my Department. I understand that around 50,000 copies have been produced and distributed since 1988. Distribution has now ceased.

  Radioisotopes
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what types, quantities and values of radioisotopes and nuclear materials have been imported from the Russian Federation since 1992.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is not available due to commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information has been provided to his Department in regard to the licensing of the imports of radioisotopes from the Russian Federation by Amersham International.

  Mr. Needham
  Information which businesses provide in support of applications for import licences is treated as commercially confidential.

  Hualon
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the representations he has received objecting to the Government grant to Hualon to set up in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since Hualon's plans first became known my Department has received representations from five organisations within the textile industry and two members of the public.

  US Product Liability Laws
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to assist small firms who export to the United States of America to meet the requirements of US product liability laws.

  Mr. Needham
  My Department regularly provides advice to small firms on US product liability requirements.

  A "North America Now" publication on US product liability was prepared earlier this year for DTI by an American lawyer practising in London, and is freely
  512
  available to British companies. DTI has also held, throughout the United Kingdom, a number of "North America Now" seminars, involving experts in legal and insurance aspects of US product liability.

  Copyright
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how he proposes to implement in United Kingdom law the Council directive on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, 93/98 EEC.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I intend to implement Council directive 93/98 EEC by regulations amending the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 made under the powers conferred by section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. The regulations will take into account comments received in response to a consultative document recently issued by my Department on certain matters which the directive leaves to be decided by member states.

  National Fibre Optic Network
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects a national fibre optic network to be in place.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government's policy of telecommunications liberalisation has encouraged substantial investment in modern telecommunications networks. The promotion of competition between interconnected networks is essential if the full benefits of liberalisation are to be realised for consumers. The main fixed link telecommunications operators already have wholly fibre optic trunk networks, and provide fibre optic links to business customers. Cable TV operators are providing fibre closer to the home.

  Optical fibre is one of a number of technologies which can be used to provide residential customers with access to communications networks—including optical fibre, coaxial copper cable, copper wire, radio or satellite. For many residential consumers the superhighway applications now being developed are likely to be delivered through using advanced compression technologies over copper networks rather than through wholly fibre optic networks. This process is already underway.

  Information Superhighway
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to develop the information superhighway.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government published a Command Paper, "Creating the Superhighways of the Future: Developing Broadband Communications in the UK", on 22 November, which set out the Government's vision for establishing information superhighways in this country, building on the billions of pounds of investment in telecommunications networks and infrastructure made by the private sector in recent years. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Internet.

  Steel
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has made to the
  513
  European Commission on the subject of state aids to national steel industries, with particular reference to subsidies provided by the Italian and Spanish Governments; and with what result.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have urged the European Commission—most recently at the Industry Council on 8 November—to intensify its monitoring of the state aid cases agreed in December 1993 to ensure that the strict conditions agreed then are adhered to; and I obtained a firm commitment that they would take firm action against breaches, including repayment of the subsidy. I am determined that the highly efficient, unsubsidised United Kingdom industry should not be disadvantaged by illegally subsidised competition.

  Aluminium
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has made to the European Commission on the subject of state aids to national aluminium industries, with particular reference to subsidies provided by the Italian and Spanish Governments; and with what result.

  Mr. Eggar
  My officials recently met the Commission to pursue the aluminium state aid cases which my right hon. Friend brought to our attention. When the Commission has completed its inquiries I will write to inform him of the result.

  Balance of Trade
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish details of the United Kingdom balance of trade with other members of the European Union for the years since the establishment of the single market.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is published in the 1994 issue of "The Pink Book—United Kingdom Balance of Payments", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Table 9.1 gives the UK balance of trade with other members of the European Union for each year from 1983 to 1993.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those services that have been market tested by his Department and won by the private sector, indicating the organisation that won the tender and its value.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Of the services market tested, and where an in-house bid was made, the IT services contract was won by Hoskyns Group plc. The contract value will depend on the volume of work.

  Mortgage Insurance
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to ensure that mortgage providers draw consumers' attention to sources of mortgage insurance other than that supplied by the said mortgage provider.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 8 December 1994]: I am not taking any such action; nor am I persuaded that it would be appropriate to do so. The protection which consumers need is to be told by any person who offers them insurance whether that person is an independent
  514
  intermediary or is offering only the products of a restricted range of insurers. Such disclosure is a requirement under the general insurance business code of practice of the Association of British Insurers.

  Cot Mattresses
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice he is currently giving retailers on the sale of cot mattresses.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 25 November 1994]: The Department has been in close contact with the Department of Health over recent claims that cot deaths have resulted from the use of fire retardant treatments in cot mattresses. The theory that flame retardants in cot mattresses released toxic gases, which caused sudden infant death syndrome, was thoroughly investigated by an expert working group set up by the Chief Medical Officer of Health in 1990. The working group concluded—the Turner report, 1991—that this theory was not supported by the experimental evidence.

  The Department of Health has advised that there is nothing in the recent claims which invalidates the conclusions of the Turner report of May 1991 and that there is no reason for retailers to withdraw cot mattresses from sale.

  The Chief Medical Officer of Health has recently set up a working group of experts to study the questions which were raised by the current media speculation surrounding the research contained in the Rubens Institute study. The Department will be kept fully informed of their deliberations.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the changes in ECGD premium rates for political risks, by country, for 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 8 December 1994]: ECGD premium rates are reviewed annually. As political risk premiums are set individually for each country, the type of cover required and the terms of individual transactions, it would not be cost-effective to calculate and detail the changes in rates for each country over this period. However looking at all countries overall, ECGD's political risk premiums have fallen on average broadly as follows in the years in question:

  1993 by around 20 per cent.

  1994 by around 7.5 per cent.

  1995 by around 10 per cent.

  Any changes to rates for 1996 will depend on the outcome of future reviews.

WALES

  Cynon Valley
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has received the report on the Welsh Development Agency's action in relation to the development of certain sites in the Cynon valley.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Development Agency commissioned an inquiry, undertaken by Grant Thornton, into the actions of the agency in connection with the
  515
  development of sites in the Cynon valley, Mid Glamorgan. These arose from the establishment of a joint venture board in 1991 comprising the WDA, Cynon Valley borough council and Mid Glamorgan county council. I have received a copy of the report from the chairman of the agency.

  The report notes that the inquiry team was granted full access to the agency and Welsh Office papers and also to those of a number of other organisations. It concludes that there is no evidence of improper pecuniary gain or collusion by any of the parties. It concludes, too, that conflicts of interest which arose were properly declared and dealt with by agency board members. But the report identifies weaknesses in the agency's procedures and serious lapses in management control over its joint venture activities. It also questions whether value for money was secured.

  The agency chief executive has informed me that he is sending a copy of the Grant Thornton report and the agency's response to the recommendations to the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts. I note the comprehensive remedial action contained in the response of the new management and I will be discussing the report's findings and the proposed measures with the chairman. The chairman of the agency agrees with me that the former management's conduct fell short of the standards we expect.

  The report examines a number of transactions which also involve Cynon Valley borough council. The council did not allow Grant Thornton access to certain papers, but I hope that those concerned will study the report carefully and, where appropriate, carry out their own investigation of these matters. It would, of course, be for the district auditor to respond to any requests for an inquiry into the council's activities.

  The chief executive as accounting officer has also informed the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts about other matters which the new management of the agency has been investigating which go back many years. These concern redundancy and pension payments, the underwriting of share issues, the engagement of consultants, procurement issues and breaches of delegated authority. Some of these instances of non-compliance continued until earlier this year.

  I have considered the agency's past underwriting activities. The agency has not engaged in underwriting or sub-underwriting since 1991 and has no plans to do so. In my view, however, this is no longer an appropriate role for the WDA, even in relation to Welsh-based companies, and I have so informed the board.

  The chairman has assured me that he will continue to investigate and expose all instances of non-compliance which the agency can identify, however long ago they might have occurred, and to continue to act swiftly wherever necessary to bring agency practice and procedures in line with the proper stewardship of public funds. The new management of the agency understands the standards which I and this House expect of it. The chairman has also assured me that he and his senior management team attach the highest importance to open communication between the agency and my Department.

  A copy of the Grant Thornton report and the agency's response to the recommendations have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he proposes to make to the cash limits for class XV, vote 2 and to the local authority capital cash limit for his Department for the current financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  The cash limit on class XV, vote 2 will be reduced by £6,750,000 from £160,331,000 to £153,581,000. The local authority capital limit tWO/LACAP—will be increased by £6,750,000 from £476,465,000 to £483,215,000.

  The reduction in the cash limit for vote 2 results from a forecast underspend on urban regeneration schemes and lower than forecast costs for land reclamation projects on account of reduced inflation and competitive pricing.

  The increase in WO/LACAP provides for expenditure on information technology for local government reorganisation.

  Neither of the proposed changes will add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Railways
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps his Department will be taking to enable Welsh railway lines to meet the required rate of return both before and after privatisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is for Railtrack to determine Welsh rail investment priorities in the light of its commercial discussions with customers and the availability of resources. These resources might include any support for projects sponsored by local authorities under the strategic development scheme. I do not expect these arrangements to change after the privatisation of Railtrack.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the importance of a railway infrastructure in the overall process of encouraging inward investment and job creation in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Communications are important in the attraction of inward investment and to indigenous companies in Wales. The Government's proposal to transfer the responsibility for the railway to the private sector ensures that they develop in a way that is appropriate to the needs of the industry.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guarantees his Department has sought on the subject of socially necessary services in the Welsh railway network; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The franchising director is responsible for deciding passenger service requirements to be included in franchise agreements. My right hon. Friend and I have recently met him and he is aware of the situation in Wales.

  Tourism
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest estimate of the total number of people employed in the tourism industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of employees employed in tourism-related industries in Wales was 79,300 in September 1991 according to the 1991 census
  517
  of employment. Employment data at this level of industrial activity are only collected in the biennial censuses of employment and 1991 is the latest year for which data are available. The figure includes only those industries which are classified as tourism related in table 1.14 of Employment Gazette, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what safeguards are in place to protect dental services to the public where an area is not served by a dental practice taking NHS patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  Family health services authorities are able to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to employ salaried dentists in areas where there is a shortfall in NHS provision. The community dental service acts as a safety net for those unable to obtain treatment under the general dental services.

  In addition, a general practitioner may refer patients requiring emergency treatment to an oral surgery department of a general hospital.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dentists there are in each Welsh constituency who are prepared to take new patients under the NHS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  The information is not held centrally. Dentists are independent contractors who are free to choose who they can accept onto their NHS dentist list. Most dentists have NHS patients on their lists but may open and close their books to new patients on a daily basis.

  If any person has difficulty in obtaining treatment from a general dental practitioner, they should contact their local family health services authority, which is best placed to advise on local availability of dental treatment. This includes reference to the community dental service which offers a safety net provision for those unable to secure NHS treatment from a general dental practitioner.

  A483 (Pool Quay)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many fatalities have occurred in road accidents on the A483 trunk road at Pool Quay, Powys since 1 January 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since 1 January 1988, there have been three fatalities on the A483 trunk road in the vicinity of Pool Quay, Powys. These fatalities occurred on 19 January 1988, 1 February 1993 and 26 November 1994.

  Housing
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he has given to district councils on the inspection of properties(a) prior to the award of housing benefit and (b) after it has been awarded.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Housing benefit regulations do not require properties to be inspected.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are in place to ensure that properties in multiple occupation do not present any safety or public health hazards.
  518
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Houses in multiple occupation must meet standards of fitness for human habitation and fitness for the number of occupants. They must have adequate means of escape from fire and adequate fire precautions. Local authorities have powers to enforce these requirements.

  Bridgend and District NHS Trust
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many responses to his consultation paper on the re-organisation of health service administration supported his proposal to transfer the Bridgend and District NHS trust to the West Glamorgan area health authority; and from whom they were received.

  Mr. Richards
  The Bridgend and District NHS trust does not form part of any health authority. The following respondents to our consultation explicitly supported establishing a new health authority responsibility for commissioning health care for people in West Glamorgan and Bridgend: Clwyd DHA; Gwent Health Commission; Dyfed FHSA; Nevill Hall and District NHS trust; Swansea NHS trust; University Hospital of Wales and Royal Cardiff group; Swansea/Lliw Valley CHC; Children in Wales; MENCAP; and Health Promotion Wales.

  Community Care
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Assembly of Welsh Counties social services committee in relation to the adequacy of funding and the consistency of working arrangements with health commissioning authorities in relation to community care for(a) the prospective 199495 outturn and (b) 1995–96.

  Mr. Redwood
  Community care funding and the distribution of community care resources between county councils is discussed by the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, which includes the Assembly of Welsh Counties. The resources are allocated to county councils in accordance with distribution formulae ratified by the WCCLGF.

  Working arrangements between local authorities and health authorities are for local agreement. The White Paper, "Caring for People", Cm. 849, and subsequent guidance have stressed the need for joint working.

  Health Authority Finance
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were(a) the surpluses and (b) the deficits recorded by each health authority in each of the last tree years.

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is as follows:

  Health authority

  1991–92 £000

  1992–93 £000

  1993–94 £000

  Clwyd

  2,703

  (3,312)

  119

  East Dyfed

  (2,176)

  (112)

  (751)

  Gwent

  500

  1,915

  4,434

  Gwynedd

  (231)

  (998)

  (1,002)

  Mid Glamorgan

  (478)

  1,687

  (573)

  Pembrokeshire

  1,234

  (2,126)

  94

  519

  Health authority

  1991–92 £000

  1992–93 £000

  1993–94 £000

  Powys

  (126)

  116

  (1,593)

  South Glamorgan

  1,103

  (906)

  2,654

  West Glamorgan

  101

  566

  2,430

  Source:

  Health authorities annual accounts.

  Notes:

  (i) 1993–94 figures are provisional.

  (ii) Figures in bracket indicate deficits.

  Sea Fisheries Committee
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in relation to the setting up of a unified sea fisheries committee structure for Wales

  Mr. Redwood
  Along with other interested parties I have received a paper prepared by the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee on options for the future structure of sea fisheries committees in Wales.

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost of phase II of the Wrexham Maelor hospital, Wrexham.

  Mr. Richards
  The final construction cost of phase II of the Wrexham Maelor hospital was £21,035 million including fees and VAT.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the prime contractor and sub-contractors on phase II of the Wrexham Maelor hospital, Wrexham.

  Mr. Richards
  The main contractor for phase II of the Wrexham Maelor hospital development was Alfred McAlpine Building North and the only nominated sub-contractor was Evans Lifts Ltd. Additionally there were a substantial number of sub-contractors engaged by the main contractor.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those services that have been market tested by his Department and won by the private sector, indicating the organisation that won the tender and its value.

  Mr. Redwood
  The following list covers the period October 1992 to date:

  Service

  Organisation

  Tender value

  Managing agents for building works

  Kirkham, Williams and Lewis of Newport, Gwent

  Not available. Fee based call-off contract.

  Staff training

  Training Services (Wales) Ltd. of Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan

  Total not available. Part call-off contract. Fee for three years non-call-off element £286,750, excluding VAT.

  Pigs
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what grant aid is available to pig producers in Wales to convert sow tether and stall accommodation.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None. Producers have eight years from 1991 over which to spread these costs.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farming
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people were employed in the farming industry in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement about the unemployment rate among former farm workers.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 1 December 19941: a) The number of people employed in the farming industry in the United Kingdom at June in each of the last five years is shown in the table:

  Number of persons working on holdings in the United Kingdom—

  1989 to 1994—farmers, growers and workers

  Year

  Number

  1989

  646300

  1990

  644,600

  1991

  630,500

  1992

  624,400

  1993

  622,300

  19941

  615,600

  Notes:

  (a) Source: Agricultural and Horticultural June census.

  (b) Includes estimates for minor holdings in England, Wales and Northern Ireland but not for Scotland.

  (c) In England and Wales figures exclude School children but include trainees employed under an official youth training scheme and paid at agricultural wages board rates or above. In Scotland and Northern Ireland school children and all trainees are excluded.

  (d) Figures include farmers, growers, partners, directors, spouses, managers, regular and hired workers, seasonal and casual workers.

  1 Provisional figures only.

  The labour force survey conducted in spring 1994—this is a sample survey of 65,000 private households in the United Kingdom carried out every spring since 1984—showed that there are approximately 31,000 unemployed people in the United Kingdom who recorded their last occupation as farming. This represents an unemployment rate for this socio-economic grouping of 7 per cent., which is significantly lower than the equivalent rate for all socio-economic groupings in the United Kingdom which at this time was 10 per cent.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will set up a working group of officials from his Department and representatives of the fishing industry to review the burdens of existing legislation on fishermen as it relates to bureaucracy;

  (2) what representations he has received on deregulation relating to the burdens of bureaucracy on the fishing industry.

  Mr. Jack
  Following representations from the fishing industry, I secured last June a commitment from the
  521
  European Fisheries Commissioner that the Commission would examine how the body of regulation under the common fisheries policy could be simplified. We invited our industry to make suggestions for simplification but it has not yet been able to offer any. A meeting with the industry is now planned which I hope will be able to make some useful progress.

  Ostriches
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what current legislation exists to protect the welfare of ostriches at slaughter;

  (2) how many ostriches were slaughtered in each year since 1991;

  (3) what consideration he has given to introducing provisions to protect the welfare of ostriches at slaughter;

  (4) if he will make a statement on the welfare of ostriches at slaughter.

  Mrs. Browning
  The welfare of ostriches at slaughter is currently protected by the general provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 which make it an offence to cause unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress to livestock on agricultural land and the Protection of Animals Act 1911 which makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any domestic animal. New welfare at slaughter legislation to implement the EC slaughter directive will be introduced next year and will provide additional protection for ostriches when slaughtered.

  There is no commercial slaughter industry for ostriches at present in this country. Some small numbers will have been killed on farms since 1991 but no figures are available. Officers of the State Veterinary Service will monitor any developments in this area.

  Research and Development
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the projected expenditure by his Department on research and development in(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My Department's total research and development expenditure for 1994–95 and 1995–96 is estimated to be £136 million and £140 million respectively.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the cost of implementing nitrate-vulnerable zones in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jack
  Farmers in nitrate-vulnerable zones will be affected in different ways, depending on such factors as the type of enterprise, stocking density and existing storage capacity for organic manure-for example, arable farmers who are already following good agricultural practice should incur no significant cost as a result of the rules which will apply in vulnerable zones. Some intensive livestock units may, however, incur costs through having to transport manure off farm, and provide additional storage during the closed period for the application of organic manure. Costs are being examined and a compliance cost assessment will be issued when the detailed draft action programme of measures is published in 1995.
  522
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the level of nitrate pollution in the River Stour in Essex and Suffolk; and what information he has about the state of the River Rhine in Germany.

  Mr. Jack
  Figures for nitrate pollution in the River Stour taken at Langham-the abstraction point used for drinking water purposes-for the 1992 calendar year are set out:

  1992

  Nitrate mg/l

  06 January

  30.88

  08 January

  33.05

  20 January

  49.17

  28 January

  41.64

  03 February

  48.73

  05 February

  47.40

  17 February

  38.36

  25 February

  36.77

  02 March

  33.36

  04 March

  34.38

  16 March

  32.69

  24 March

  31.81

  30 March

  77.08

  01 April

  88.60

  14 April

  27.60

  28 April

  33.05

  05 May

  27.55

  12 May

  25.03

  18 May

  18.03

  27 May

  17.01

  01 June

  15.24

  03 June

  15.24

  15 June

  17.19

  23 June

  14.00

  29 June

  5.89

  08 July

  12.36

  13 July

  11.03

  21 July

  17.81

  27 July

  13.51

  05 August

  13.29

  10 August

  13.07

  18 August

  16.57

  24 August

  9.88

  09 September

  14.09

  14 September

  14.57

  22 September

  19.71

  28 September

  44.30

  07 October

  45.19

  12 October

  42.00

  20 October

  32.29

  27 October

  55.38

  04 November

  47.84

  09 November

  40.71

  17 November

  57.15

  23 November

  54.93

  02 December

  62.02

  07 December

  58.03

  15 December

  61.58

  With the Stour exceeding the nitrate parameter of 50 mg/litre eight times out of the 48 samples taken at the abstraction point, the river is considered a polluted water under the terms of the EC nitrate directive and the Nayland nitrate vulnerable zone has been proposed on this basis. We have no detailed information of the nitrate

  523
  pollution in the River Rhine. However, Germany is expected to designate its entire territory as a nitrate vulnerable zone.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the distribution by

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  4

  3

  9

  1988

  6

  4

  4

  2

  3

  9

  24

  86

  106

  102

  56

  66

  1989

  24

  18

  17

  11

  8

  8

  13

  16

  13

  11

  2

  —

  The following tables are of the animals in the cohort study confirmed to have BSE, sorted into six-monthly periods by date of clinical onset and giving details of

  1987–88

  Period

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  July-December 1991

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  January-June 1992

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  July-December 1992

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  January-June 1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  July-December 1993

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  January-June 1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  July-December 1994

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1

  2

  1

  5

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  6

  1988–89

  Period

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  April

  Total

  July-December 91

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  January-June 92

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  July-December 92

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  January-June 93

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  July-December 93

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  January-June 94

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  8

  July-December 94

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Total

  5

  5

  2

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  133

  1 Total for September 1987—April 1989.

  Horticultural Survey
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the cost to date of the study of the horticultural sector initiated in October 1993.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 7 December 1994]: In addition to my own time, and that of my small team of industry advisors, given without charge, I was assisted on an ad hoc basis by a grade 7 official from our horticulture division. The costs, including staff time and travel costs, amounted to about £12,000. As part of the project, we also contributed £10,000 to the Fresh Produce Consortium/Strathclyde university study on the future of the wholesale markets.

TRANSPORT

  Vehicle Licensing
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for introducing continuous licensing for 524
  month of the dates of birth of each animal in the BSE cohort study and (b) the date of birth of each animal that has been confirmed with BSE in each six-monthly period from the start of the cohort study.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The following is a table, by month and year of birth, of the number of animals in the cohort study:

  month and year of birth. It is not known how many of the confirmed cases are offspring and how many are controls as the study is being carried out blind:

  commercial vehicles and heavy goods vehicles to mitigate problems of illegal operation.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no plans to introduce continuous licensing for goods vehicles in excess of 3.5 tonnes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, however, announced his intention to introduce a number of other measures for goods vehicles—including clarifying their definition and weight, and reducing the number of concessionary classes—which will help to reduce evasion.

  M11 Link Road
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total cost to his Department and the Highways Agency(a) to occupy the premises in Claremont road, Leytonstone and (b) for the security and associated costs of the M11 link road project as a whole; if he will break this expenditure down into its main components; and if he will indicate the extent of the continuing cost.
  525
  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 12 December 1994:
  I have been asked to write to you in response to your Parliamentary Question about the costs of occupying Claremont Road and security costs for the Al2 Hackney Wick to M11 Link Road as a whole, since these are operational matters for the Highways Agency.
  We estimate the cost to the Agency of last weeks operation at Claremont Road at about £1 million.
  The protestors' action also meant that we were unable to salvage valuable materials from the properties, which had to be rapidly demolished and the resultant rubble carted away to the tip at a cost of £100,000.
  The total for other security and associated costs for the whole Link Road project since construction began in September 1993 is about £3 million for security staff costs, together with £185,000 paid in fees to Brays Detective Agency and legal costs of about £180,000.
  Levels of security are geared to the perceived likelihood of protest action involving trespass on to sites. If current levels are maintained, expenditure on security staff would be about £500,000 per month. The situation is, however, monitored all the time and if the activity of protestors diminishes, as it now should, this expenditure could, in turn, be reduced. Similarly expenditure on Brays Detective Agency, currently about £25,000 per month, will be reviewed but there remains continuing involvement for them with injunction proceedings at least until the end of January 1995.
  Legal costs in this connection will run at about £4,000 per month, but this figure could be higher dependent upon the number and length of Court hearings, which are unpredictable at present.

  Eastern European Fishing Vessels
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current estimate of the number of former eastern bloc fishing vessels in United Kingdom waters within the harbour limits of Lerwick; in each case how many are klondykers; what assessment he has made of the implications for safety of life at sea arising from such vessels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. Bradley to Ms Joan Walley, dated 12 December 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of former eastern bloc fishing vessels within the harbour limits of Lerwick.
  The number of fishing vessels within the harbour limits fluctuates daily in response to changes in weather conditions and the location of the fish shoals. At midday on Tuesday 6 December there were 59 former eastern bloc fishing vessels in Lerwick harbour, all of which are considered to be klondykers. Each of these klondykers has been inspected by surveyors from the Marine Safety Agency (MSA) since the second inspection campaign began in July 1994.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which vessels from the former eastern bloc have been subjected to port state control within the last 18 months; which vessels were klondykers; and if he will give the date and details of the inspections.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  526
  Letter from R Bradley to Ms Joan Walley, dated 12 December 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the port state control inspections carried out on vessels from the former eastern bloc.

  During the past 18 months, ships from the following former eastern bloc countries have been inspected:

  Country

  Number of inspections of klondykers

  Number of inspections of other ships

  Total number of port state inspections

  Azerbaijan

  —

  1

  1

  Bulgaria

  14

  15

  29

  Croatia

  —

  4

  4

  Czechia

  —

  5

  5

  Estonia

  4

  9

  13

  Georgia

  —

  5

  5

  Latvia

  19

  23

  42

  Lithuania

  11

  18

  29

  Poland

  1

  48

  49

  Romania

  —

  11

  11

  Russia

  132

  227

  359

  Ukraine

  9

  40

  49

  The Marine Safety Agency publishes monthly a report of ships which have been detained in United Kingdom ports. Full details of former eastern bloc ships inspected and detained since June 1994, when publication began, can be found in these reports.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will request his shipping Minister to include in his visit to Shetland a visit to Lerwick harbour to assess the implications for safe shipping, search and rescue and marine pollution from former eastern bloc-owned klondykers.

  Mr. Norris
  My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping visited the Shetland islands on 4 November 1994. His visit included an informative and useful discussion with the chief executive and chairman of the Lerwick harbour trust, as well as providing an opportunity to see at first hand the problems posed by the klondykers.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what joint discussions he has held with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Scottish Office to resolve any problems arising from the klondyker fleet.

  Mr. Norris
  My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping met my hon. Friend the Minster with responsibility for agriculture and the environment at the Scottish Office on 31 October to agree a joint approach to tackling the problems arising from the klondyker fleet. The Scottish Office will be consulting on proposals to limit the numbers of fish transshipment licences and to introduce an advance notice requirement for licence applications. In addition, my officials have had several meetings with their counterparts in the Scottish Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Our Departments are working together to produce a further consultation paper on additional measures which could be taken to ensure adequate standards of safety and insurance on these ships.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to establish whether vessels from the former eastern bloc anchored within United Kingdom waters are fully insured.

  Mr. Norris
  Only oil tankers are required to carry proof of adequate liability insurance. The Marine Safety Agency's inspections of foreign fish factory ships have therefore not included a check of insurance documents.
  527
  There is, however, clear evidence that few, if any, of these ships carry adequate insurance.

  Energy Expenditure
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total expenditure on energy for offices and buildings by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norris
  The figures are as follows:

  (a)Department of Transport Total

  199–93£

  1993–94£

  1994–95£

  4,455,870

  4,379,338

  4,377,023

  (b) Executive agencies total

  3,937,470

  3,950,681

  3,748,965

  The figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94 include agencies created at the start of 1994–95.

  Donaldson Report
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when and how he proposes to implement each of the recommendations of the Donaldson report.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on 29 November Official Report, columns 657–59.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the roadside enforcement activities of the vehicle inspectorate between April and September 1994; how many people were employed; and how many prohibition notices were issued to(a) heavy and light goods vehicles, (b) buses and (c) coaches.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Vehicle Inspectorate Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. Oliver to Ms Joan Walley, dated 12 December 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about roadside enforcement activities at the Vehicle Inspectorate.
  The Vehicle Inspectorate employed, on average, 237 Vehicle Examiners and 164 Traffic Examiners on its roadside enforcement activities between April and September 1994.
  I attach a table (Annex A) which shows the number of prohibition notices issued for the same period.
  If you have any further questions about these data please contact me.

  Number of prohibition notices issued by VI from April to September 1994

  HGV

  PSV

  LGV

  Total

  Roadworthiness

  Enforcement

  11,996

  1,706

  1,552

  15,254

  Traffic Enforcement

  2,658

  47

  227

  2,932

  Total

  14,654

  1,753

  1,779

  18,186

  Notes:

  i. Roadworthiness Enforcement includes all prohibitions, although some of the inspections may not have taken place at the roadside.
  528
  ii. Traffic Enforcement includes all over weight prohibitions issued, including those issued at port checks, and foreign vehicle prohibitions for drivers' hours offences.

  iii. We have used the Inspectorate's standard definitions—Heavy Goods Vehicles, Public Service Vehicles and Light Goods Vehicles. We are not able to break down these groups further—for instance between buses and coaches.

  Great Central Railway
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much is owed by the Highways Agency to the Great Central Railway in respect of work carried out at(a) Thurcaston on the A6 and (b) on the same road between Loughborough and Quorn; and when these payments will be made.

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Mike Hall, dated 12 December 1994:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about monies owed by the Highways Agency to the Great Central Railway in respect of work carried out on the A6 at Thurcaston and between Loughborough and Quorn.
  The only outstanding payment is a further advance of £13,500, plus interest, in respect of compensation for the works at Thurcaston. The payment is being processed and will complete the 90 per cent. advance payment of compensation required by the Land Compensation Act. The balance, with interest, will be paid as soon as final settlement is reached.

  Motorway Cleaning
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how motorway cleaning is funded; and what is its annual cost;

  (2) how often the M1 in Northamptonshire is cleaned.

  Mr. Watts
  These are operational matters for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. James Pausey, dated 12 December 1994:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads has asked me to answer your questions to the Secretary of State about motorway cleaning.
  The Highways Agency is responsible for ensuring trunk motorways are kept clean in accordance with a statutory Code of Practice issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We spend some £5 millions annually from our maintenance budget on litter clearance, sweeping, grass cutting and other associated cleansing activities. In addition, regular safety patrols are undertaken to check, amongst other things, for hazardous debris.
  In Northamptonshire, the County Council is our Agent Authority for this maintenance work. Daily safety inspections are carried out on the M1. Any debris causing a safety hazard to road users is removed as quickly as possible—usually immediately. The presence of litter on the verges and side slopes is noted and cleared as soon as possible. The hard shoulder is swept mechanically every 8–10 weeks. Because of the dangers inherent in gaining access to the central reserve, and the disruption to traffic, cleaning there is undertaken in conjunction with routine or emergency maintenance operations to meet the standards of the Environmental Protection Act.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road accidents occurred where bus
  529
  lanes and pedestrian crossings meet in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norris
  The required information is not available.

  Radioisotopes
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many transportation licences his Department has issued for the import of radioisotopes from the Russian Federation in each year since 1992.

  Mr. Norris
  None. The Department issues package design approvals for the safe transport of radioactive material. Import licences are issued by the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Channel Tunnel Freight Trains
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he is having and with whom about the channel tunnel freight trains and the possible effects this service will have on the local environment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  I have met some hon. Members for constituencies traversed by channel tunnel freight trains. I am visiting the West London line on 15 December. A demonstration of new electric locomotives and new rolling stock will be arranged in the new year.

  Noise Pollution
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning potential similar cases arising from building the A46–47 link road and the eastern district distribution road in Leicester following the recent Court of Appeal decision to allow Colonel David Owen full compensation for the noise blight which has devalued his home; and what assessment he has made of the effects of potential claims for blight and the rise in costs on the continued viability of the A46–A47 link road and the EDDR.

  Mr. Watts
  The right to compensation where an interest in land is depreciated by noise from the use of a new or improved highway is set out in part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973. In addition section 246 of the Highways Act 1980 provides highway authorities with a discretionary power to acquire by agreement land to mitigate the adverse effects of constructing or improving a highway.

  The A46–A47 link road and the EDDR are roads for which Leicestershire county council is the highway authority. I am advised that the county council does not exercise its discretionary powers in respect of the purchase of properties. Information about the cost of these local road schemes can be obtained from the county council.

  Highways Agency
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what public service standard he has set the Highways Agency in terms of response times of reaction to telephoned or written queries from local authorities and members of the general public.
  530
  Mr. Watts
  Standards for dealing with correspondence are set out in the Highways Agency's business plan. The agency is required to reply to all correspondence within 15 working days of receipt.

  Age Concern
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from Age Concern as part of its 1994 annual campaign on transport and mobility; what other representations he has received; and what action his Department has taken to implement the recommendations of the campaigns.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has worked closely with Age Concern at national and regional level throughout the year. Ministers and officials have taken part in Age Concern conferences. These have provided an opportunity to hear at first hand the concerns of older people and to work with them in developing appropriate solutions.

  We will continue to give priority to meeting the needs of older people as public transport users, pedestrians and motorists.

  European Year of Older People
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contribution his Department has made in 1994 to follow up the European Year of Older People and Solidarity between Generations in 1993.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has, through conducting research and issuing guidelines and advice to local authorities, manufacturers, operators and individuals, continued to develop and promote solutions to the problems faced by older people as public transport users, pedestrians and motorists.

  Tyres
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure that part-worn tyres imported into the United Kingdom for resale meet the standards required by British law.

  Mr. Norris
  Further to the answer I gave on 18 November,Official Report, column 119, the measure which applies to both domestic and imported tyres was laid in Parliament on 8 December 1994.

  Rolling Stock Leasing Companies
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to ensure that the rolling stock leasing companies which remain in the public sector have sufficient passenger train stock to meet the demands of Regional Railways Central in the summer peak of 1995; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  The three rolling-stock leasing companies own almost the whole British Rail passenger fleet. I am not aware of any prospective shortfall of trains to be leased to the central train operating unit in summer 1995.

  Railtrack
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when Railtrack will publish its 10-year plan for the railway industry; and who will undertake this role after Railtrack has been privatised.
  531
  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack will publish its first 10-year investment plan next year. It will continue to be required under the terms of its network operator's licence to do so annually after privatisation.

  Rail Investment
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the forecast level of investment for(a) Railtrack, (b) BR and (c) European passenger services for 1995–96; and if he will indicate under each heading how much of this expenditure is committed to projects already authorised and how much is available for investment in projects not yet authorised.

  Mr. Watts
  Overall investment in the railway industry in 1995–96 is expected to be of the order of £1 billion, of which around a quarter will be financed by the private sector. A detailed breakdown will not be available until the individual budgets have been settled.

  Rail Finance
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what grant will be payable to the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising in respect of support for passenger services in 1995–96;

  (2) what the external financing limits will be for (a) BR and (b) Railtrack in 1995–96.

  Mr. Watts
  The 1995–96 external finance limits for BR and Railtrack, and support to passenger services, will be set out in the "Transport Report 1995".

  Road Safety
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost of the present publicity programme "Kill your Speed, Not a Child".

  Mr. Norris
  Some £2.65 million.

  Public Transport (Definition)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the definition of public transport used by his Department.

  Mr. Watts
  Any form of domestic passenger service by road, rail, air or water which is available for use by the public at large in return for the payment of a fare.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions the Scottish air traffic control centre has been overloaded by excessive flights over the past five years.

  Mr. Norris
  Before 1993 if air traffic controllers considered that their workload on their sector had become too high they could submit a report which was investigated by both the unit management and the safety data analysis unit at Gatwick. The figures in Scotland for the period 1989 to 1992 were:

  1 sector incident in 1989

  4 sector incident in 1990

  2 sector incident in 1991

  1 sector incident in 1992

  In 1993, a new recording system was introduced which cannot be directly compared with the previous system.
  532
  There were 13 investigations in 1993 and 10 investigations so far in 1994.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what method is used to deal with excess flight pressure on the air traffic control system; and how many times this has been used in the past five years.

  Mr. Norris
  Within the United Kingdom, National Air Traffic Services establishes a flow rate for each sector of air space which takes into account air traffic controller manning. In order to prevent air traffic control demand exceeding the agreed level in United Kingdom air space the London flow management unit, situated at Heathrow, applies departure and flow restrictions measures. Such measures are designed to ensure that safety is not compromised and are applied throughout the busy times of the day.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those services that have been market-tested by his Department and won by the private sector, indicating the organisation that won the tender and its value.

  Mr. Norris
  Items in the Department's "Competing for Quality" programmes which have resulted in contracts being let to the private sector are listed.

  Item

  Contractor(s)

  Annual value (£ million, excluding VAT)

  IT and facilities management

  EDS

  13.895(a)

  Computer bureau facilities

  Digital

  0.238

  Distribution services

  Eros Marketing Support, HMSO (b)

  0.146

  Stationery supplies

  Dudley Stationery

  0.300

  Book and periodical procurement

  Dawsons, HMSO (b)

  0.346 (c)

  Office machinery

  AM International, Highway Business Systems, Dahle, Berrys of Holborn, HMSO (b)

  0.129

  Vehicle Certification Agency: microfilming, data storage and reprographics

  REM Office Systems— Bristol

  0.015

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency forms design

  Claydon Heeley

  0.080

  Vehicle Inspectorate: I strategy support

  EDS

  0.240

  Vehicle Inspectorate: roller brake testing maintenance

  VL Test Systems

  0.265

  533

  Item

  Contractor(s)

  Annual value (£ million, excluding VAT)

  Vehicle Inspectorate: weighbridge maintenance

  Metler Toledo

  0.220

  Coastguard property management

  HSB Partnership, Povall-Worthington, Bell Ingram, W S Atkins

  0.440

  Road Workers (Injuries)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department has of injuries to workers on(a) motorways, (b) other trunk roads and (c) other roads during each of the last five years involved in (i) construction, (ii) repairs and (iii) cleaning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Executive does not record information on injuries to road workers in the form requested.

  The table shows the number of injuries to workers while carrying out road surfacing work and highway maintenance for the last five years:

  Injuries to workers1 arising from surfacing and highway maintenance work as reported to the Health and Safety Executive's Field Operations Division 1989–90 to 1993–94—provisional

  Year

  Fatal

  Surfacing3 Major5

  Over 3 days5

  Total

  1989–90

  7

  133

  1,613

  1,753

  1990–91

  6

  109

  1,464

  1,579

  1991–92

  4

  92

  1,219

  1,315

  1992–93

  7

  95

  981

  1,083

  1993–97

  4

  105

  744

  853

  Year (b)

  Highway Maintenance4 Fatal

  Major5

  Over 3 days6

  Total

  1989–90

  1

  37

  1588

  1626

  1990–91

  1

  68

  1467

  1536

  1991–92

  —

  51

  1198

  1249

  1992–93

  3

  53

  926

  982

  1993–947

  —

  42

  814

  856

  1 Employees and self-employed people.

  2 Years commencing I April.

  3 Includes road building and repair.

  4 Includes street cleaning, maintenance of street furniture and gritting, etcetera.

  5 As defined under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 and are chiefly amputations, serious fractures and other injuries causing hospitalisation for more than 24 hours.

  6 Injuries causing incapacity for normal work for more than three days.

  7 Provisional.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Benefits
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of state for Social Security how many families have been eligible for, and what has been the cost to public funds of,(a) family income supplement and (b) family credit since their introduction.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information is not available on the total numbers eligible for the two benefits.

  The table provides details of the number of families receiving either family income supplement or family credit in each year since 1971 and the benefit expenditure for each financial year.

  Financial year

  Families in receipt2 000's

  Cost3 £ million

  Family Income Supplement (FIS)1

  1971–72

  55

  4

  1972–73

  92

  10

  1973–74

  106

  13

  1974–75

  79

  12

  1975–76

  63

  12

  1976–77

  71

  18

  1977–78

  81

  25

  1978–79

  89

  24

  1979–80

  74

  27

  1980–81

  89

  42

  1981–82

  124

  66

  1982–83

  158

  94

  1983–84

  204

  123

  1984–85

  207

  126

  1985–86

  201

  130

  1986–87

  220

  161

  1987–88

  224

  180

  Family Credit1

  1988–89

  281

  394

  1989–90

  319

  425

  1990–91

  327

  494

  1991–92

  353

  626

  1992–93

  448

  929

  1993–94

  515

  1,091

  Notes:

  1 Family Income Supplement was introduced in August 1971 and replaced by family credit in April 1988.

  2 Source:

  —for 1971–72 to 1973–74 based on a 20 per cent. sample of awards.

  —for 1974–75 to 1987–88 based on a 10 per cent. sample of awards.

  —for 1988–89 to 1993–94 based on a 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  Figures given are for September in each financial year with the exception of 1987–88 where the figure is for October.

  3 Source:

  Various editions of the public expenditure White Paper and departmental report.

  Energy Expenditure
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total expenditure on energy for offices and buildings by(a) his Department

  535
  and (b) his agencies in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the tables.

  Year

  £

  DSS Total

  1991–92

  14,213,000

  1992–9293

  15,600,000

  1993–9294

  16,121,000

  Benefits Agency

  1991–9292

  10,799,109

  1992–9293

  11,788,296

  1993–9294

  10,412,815

  Contributions Agency

  1991–9292

  2Not applicable

  1992–9293

  Not applicable

  1993–9294

  1,483,226

  Information Technology Services Agency

  1991–9292

  2,901,788

  1992–9293

  3,126,456

  1993–9294

  3,094,726

  Resettlement Agency

  1991–9292

  512,103

  1992–9293

  340,360

  1993–9294

  305,808

  Child Support Agency

  1993–9294

  448,425

  DSS (HQ)

  1991–9292

  1Not applicable

  1992–9293

  344,888

  1993–9294

  376,000

  Notes:

  A number of the agencies which form the Department have not been in existence for three years.

  1 In the year 1991–92 the DSS—HQ—was not responsible for payment of energy costs, therefore details are not held by the Department.

  2 The Contributions Agency was not responsible for energy costs in the years 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Policy measure

  Benefit expenditure effect in 1996–97 £ million

  Benefit expenditure effect in 1997–98 £ million

  Relevant clause(s) in Jobseekers Bill

  Contributory entitlement six months

  -70

  -180

  Clause 5(1)

  No Adult Dependency Increases in contributory benefit

  -10

  -20

  Clause 4(1) and Schedule 2(20)

  Unified rates of benefit: effect on 18–24 year old claimants

  -20

  -30

  Clause 4(1)

  Treatment of income from occupational and personal pensions

  -10

  -10

  Clause 4(1) and Schedule 1(7)

  Waiting days in income-based JSA

  -40

  -40

  Schedule 1(4)

  Anti-fraud measures

  -10

  -10

  Clause 27 and 28

  Benefit sanctions

  -10

  -10

  Clauses 15 and 16

  Treatment of earnings: disregard £10 per week per couple; partners may work up to 24 hours

  +20

  +20

  Clauses 3(1), 4, 9 and 10

  Net effect

  +140

  -270

  Notes:

  1. Assumes 2.4 million unemployed; 500,000 unemployment benefit cases; inflow into claimant unemployment of 3.8 million.

  2. All estimates rounded to nearest £10 million.

  3. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  4. Estimates in cash prices.

  5. Excludes measures related to back to work bonus and national insurance contribution rebate.

  6. Benefit sanction estimates are net of hardship payments.

  7. Estimates are net of any effects in other benefits.

  8. Based on 1993 annual statistical inquiry, 1993 and 1994 unemployment benefit statistics, 1993–94 adjudication officer statistics and the policy simulation model using 1990–91–92 family expenditure data.

  9. The estimated effects relating to adult dependency increases unified rates assume contributory entitlement lasts six months.

  Benefit savings are also likely to arise from aligning the treatment of earnings for contributory claimants with that for income-based claimants. Further information is currently being collected to allow this to be assessed.

  Jobseekers Bill
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the elements of the Jobseekers Bill which promote the assistance of persons without a settled way of life.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Clause 25 in the Bill allows the Resettlement Agency to complete its task of disengaging the Government from the running of resettlement units by funding more appropriate provision provided by voluntary organisations, local authorities or private organisations.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy in respect of people who make themselves voluntarily unemployed or who refuse job vacancies continuing to receive automatic hardship payments under the allowance.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Sanctioned claimants will not receive automatic benefit payments under the jobseeker's allowance. Claimants who are not in vulnerable groups will receive no benefit for the first two weeks of a sanction; thereafter, they may receive hardship payments at a reduced rate if they can demonstrate that they or their partner would otherwise suffer hardship. Claimants in vulnerable groups—those with children, who are sick or pregnant or have a sick or pregnant partner, or who have caring responsibilities—may have access to hardship payments throughout the period of the sanction.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much of the expected reduction in expenditure on benefits of around £140 million in 1996–97 and £270 million in 1997–98 as a result of the introduction of the jobseekers allowance will arise from each clause of the Jobseekers Bill

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table. Estimates do not take account of tax or behavioural effects.
  537
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his assessment of the number of people who will give up work as a result of their unemployed partners being eligible for non-means-tested benefit for only six months instead of 12 months under the jobseekers allowance.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Of the 165,000 people estimated to lose entitlement to contribution-based jobseekers allowance as a result of the length of contributory entitlement being reduced to six months, 55,000 are estimated to have partners with earnings. It is not possible to provide an estimate of the number of these partners who may decide to give up work once contributory benefit is lost. However, any such effect is likely to be small as most couples in this position will be substantially better off with one partner in work than with neither.

  We will also be introducing measures which are designed to encourage the partners of jobseekers allowance and income support claimants to remain in work, including increasing the partner's hours threshold from 16 to 24 hours, and introducing the back to work bonus.

  Notes:
  Estimated using the policy simulation model with 1990–91–92 family expenditure survey data and the 1993 and 1994 unemployment benefit statistics.
  All estimates rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  Youth Aid and Barnardo's Report
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response he has made to the Youth Aid and Barnardo's report of 1993, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Since publication of the report, we have substantially improved access to youth training; the number of young people awaiting a youth training place for eight weeks or more has dropped significantly to around 2,400. Our policy remains one of encouraging young people to take up education, work or training, not dependency on benefits, although income support remains available to young people at risk of severe hardship.

  National Insurance
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women in the United Kingdom were still paying the reduced married women's national insurance contributions in 1993–94 at the latest available date.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) on 21 October,Official Report, column 381. Information regarding 1993–94 is not yet complete.

  Habitual Residency Test
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional resources or training has been given to local Benefits Agency staff to implement decisions under the habitual residency test; and what safeguards exist to ensure the test is not applied in a racially discriminatory way.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  538
  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Max Madden, dated 9 December 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the introduction of the habitual residence test.
  An allocation of £800,000 has been distributed among Benefits Agency (BA) District offices and the need for any additional resources is being kept under review as management information is collected about the impact of the new procedures.
  Prior to the introduction of the test, self instruction training material was produced by the BA in conjunction with staff from the office of the Chief Adjudication Officer. This material set out the requirements imposed by the test and was issued to Managers of all local BA offices. Managers are responsible for deciding who amongst their staff should receive the training.
  The BA is committed to equal opportunities and has published an equal opportunities policy statement which makes it clear that no form of discrimination, whether against customers or staff by customers or staff, will be tolerated. This policy statement has been implemented through local action plans that are regularly monitored. Any complaints or suggestions of discrimination will always be treated seriously and immediately investigated by management. In addition, the Chief Adjudication Officer's staff are currently conducting a monitoring exercise to confirm uniformity in the application of the test and decision making throughout the country and as a part of this exercise will this month hold seminars with local Adjudication Officers.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the bid by Computer Sciences Corporation to take over the day-to-day running of the information technology operations and support services of the Information Technology Services Agency.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The deadline for initial bids for this procurement was 12pm on 2 December 1994. No bid had been received from Computer Sciences Corporation by this deadline.

  Divorce Settlements
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to be able to make a statement to the House regarding clean-break divorce financial settlements for wives and children.

  Mr. Burt
  The Government are aware of the concerns about the treatment of clean-break settlements in the child support arrangements. We have been conducting our own review of the child support system and are now considering carefully the recent report of the Social Security Select Committee. We will respond with proposals for policy changes in due course.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will now summarise in a report to the House the responses to his consultation paper on the Government's proposals in regard to discrimination against disabled people, or place a summarised version of the responses in the Library.

  Mr. Hague
  I intend to publish an analysis of the responses when it is available. Copies will be placed in the Library.
  539
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make it his policy to draft his proposed Bill on discrimination against disabled people in such a way that its scope will not prevent any attempt to substitute a disability rights commission, with the powers provided for by the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, for the proposed National Disability Council;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to draft the money resolution for his proposed Bill on discrimination against disabled people in such a way as not to preclude amendments to substitute a Disability Rights Commission, with the powers provided for by the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, for the proposed National Disability Council.

  Mr. Hague
  We are in the process of drafting the Bill. The Bill's scope and the money resolution will depend on the final contents. It is not our intention to draft the Bill in such a way as to rule out full discussion of this issue.

  Pensions
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the amount of the normal uprating in April 1995 for(a) a single pensioner not on income support, (b) a pensioner couple not on income support, (c) a single pensioner on income support, (d) a pensioner couple on income support and alongside set out the money over and above that uprating for VAT home heating compensation.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 8 December to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr Gale),Official Report, column 376.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those services that have been market-tested by his Department and won by the private sector, indicating the organisation that won the tender and its value.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information requested by the hon. Member is published in the "Market Testing Bulletin", copies of which are held in the Library.

  Project

  Value £ million

  Successful tenderer

  ITSA Audit

  1.2

  CSL Ltd

  HQ A and OS Facilities Management

  0.68

  TFM (Granada)

  CA Cleaning

  0.73

  ISS Contract Cleaning Ltd

  BA Storage Archives

  0.46

  Britannia Data Management

  ITSA ACC1 Livingston

  6.1

  ISSC

  BA Publishing

  4.08

  Management Employee Buyout

  BA A and OS Wales & Central AD3

  1.39

  Group 4

  BA Storage Printed Materials

  2.56

  HMSO

  BA A and OS Longbenton

  0.86

  Manpower plc

  BA A and OS Wales & Central AD2

  1.28

  Procord Ltd

  BA A and OS Wales & Central AD3

  0.59

  Turner & Townsend FM

  BA A and OS Southern AD7

  2.25

  BET Facilities Management

  BAA and OS SAD1

  2.07

  Group 4

  540

  Project

  Value £ million

  Successful tenderer

  ITSA Security Guarding

  0.42

  Wakenhut UK

  BA A and OS Southern AD4

  5.13

  Haden Facilities Management

  BA A and OS Wales & Central AD2

  1.26

  BET Facilities Management

  BA A and OS Southern AD2

  5.07

  BET Facilities Management

  BA A and OS Wales & Central AD5

  2.63

  Procord Ltd

  BA A and OS Southern AD5

  4.82

  Serco Ltd

  BA A and OS Wales & Central AD7

  3.88

  BET Facilities Management

  BA A and OS Wales & Central AD2

  1.32

  BET Facilities Management

  BA A and OS Southern AD7

  1.51

  BET Facilities Management

  BA A and OS Southern ADI

  1.09

  Group 4

  BA A and OS Scotland & Northern AD1

  0.83

  Mowlem Facilities Management

  BA A and OS Wales & Central AD1

  0.72

  Mowlem Facilities Management

  BA A and OS Wales & Central AD1

  0.18

  Reliance Security Services

  BA A and OS Scotland & Northern AD2

  3.6

  BET Facilities Management

  BA A and OS Wales & Central AD6

  0.77

  Turner & Townsend FM

  BA A and OS Quarry House Facilities Management

  10.84

  TFM Granada

  BA A and OS Quarry House Word Processing

  Manpower

  BA A and OS Quarry House Office Support

  Manpower

  BA A and OS Quarry House Security

  Centuryan

  BA A and OS Quarry House maintenance

  Crown House AMT

  BA Training Wales & Central AD1

  212.48

  Group 4

  BA Training Wales & Central AD2

  Group 4

  BA Training Wales & Central AD3

  Group 4

  BA Training Wales & Central AD5

  City College Manchester

  BA Training Wales & Central AD6

  City College Manchester

  BA Training Southern AD4

  Plymouth College

  1 The cost of the service that went out to tender for the Quarry house contracts cannot be broken down into individual contracts as this is a notional figure.

  2 Due to the nature of the market test BA Training was submitted to, much of the information cannot be obtained at contract level, having been calculated on a national level at the time. The value of £12.48 million therefore includes the 16 in-house wins.

  VAT (Fuel)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much compensation towards the
  541
  extra cost of value added tax on domestic fuel there will be within the benefit rates from next April for pensioners and disabled people.

  Mr. Lilley
  Average amounts of compensation are shown in the table. Fuel prices have fallen in real terms over the last two years inclusive of VAT. Pensioners and disabled people should therefore have experienced gains in addition to those due to VAT compensation next year exceeding the impact of eight per cent. VAT on average fuel bills.

  VAT: 8 per cent, of estimated average fuel bill, for each group of recipients, in 1995–96 —per week £

  Compensation in 1995–96—per week. (includes amounts added into benefit rates in 1994–95 and 1995–96) £

  Pensioners1

  0.85

  0.90

  Disabled people2

  0.90

  1.00

  1 The average of VAT and compensation for all single people over pension age, and all couples where the head of the couple is over pension age.

  2The average of VAT and compensation for all single disabled people, and all couples where at least one person in the couple is disabled.

  Note:

  Modelled using the 1990–91–92 family expenditure surveys, uprated to 1995–96 levels. Amounts of VAT and compensation are calculated at benefit unit level. Estimates of VAT for pensioners are similar—within 5p—to those produced by Age Concern from the 1993 family expenditure survey.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the changes to his proposals, consequent upon the decision not to proceed with the second phase of value added tax on domestic fuel following his annual review of national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Lilley
  The revised contribution rates and thresholds are in the table.

  CLASS 1

  Lower Earnings Limit1 £58 a week

  Upper Earnings Limit £440 a week

  Employees contributions2

  Initial rate 2 per cent.—on earnings up to the LEL

  Main rate 10 per cent. —on earnings between the LEL and UEL

  542
  Employer contributions2

  Weekly earnings

  Contribution rate

  £58-£104.99

  3 per cent.

  £105-£149.99

  5 per cent.

  £150-£204.99

  7 per cent.

  £205 and over

  10.2 per cent.

  CLASS 2

  Self employed rate1 £5.75 a week

  Limit of net earnings for exception from

  Class 2 liability1 £3,260 a year

  CLASS 3

  Voluntary contributions rate £5.75 a week

  CLASS 4

  Lower Profits Limit £6,640

  Upper Profits Limit £22,880

  Contribution rate 7.3 per cent.

  Note:

  1 Revised in light of the decision not to proceed with the second phase of VAT. 2 Not contracted-out rates shown. A contracted-out rebate of 3 per cent. for employers and 1.8 per cent. for employees applies to earnings between the lower earnings limit and the upper earnings limit.

  Benefit Upratings
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost, in a full year, of full uprating of child dependency additions of all categories using their year of introduction as a base.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 5 December 1994]: The estimated net cost would be £90 million in 1994–95:

  Notes:

  1. The estimate has been calculated by:

  (i) taking the child dependency increase rate—CDI—for the eldest child payable in 1948, the year of introduction; then

  (ii) inflating that figure to take account of upratings from 1948 up to and including April 1994. The percentage rate of increase used is the same as that of personal retirement pension; then

  (iii) deducting the rates of child benefit payable from April 1994 to arrive at the rates that would apply for both the eldest child and subsequent children; then

  (iv) following conversion to an annual gross figure, applying an offsetting reduction on expenditure on income-related benefits.

  2. The estimate excludes the cost of restoring sickness benefit, maternity allowance and unemployment benefit CDIs, which were discounted with effect from November 1984.

  3. The estimate has been rounded to the nearest £5 million and should be treated with caution owing to small sample sizes.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Worcester): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

School Inspections
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they expect to meet their targets for the inspection of primary and special schools.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the legislation provides for the independent external inspection of all maintained schools over a four-year cycle. In this, the first term of the primary and special school inspection cycle, the number of contracts let has fallen some way below expectations. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector announced on 8th December a package of measures designed to remedy that shortfall. The Government attach importance to achieving the four-year inspection cycle and are keeping the situation under close review.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very informative Answer. It is quite clear that my Question was well targeted. Apparently, inspections for 1995 were going to be about 1,800 below target and the cycle would have been seven and half years rather than four years had not some plans been hastily made. Will the Minister say who will be doing the inspections? Am I correct in my understanding that a good many of the inspectors were trained to inspect just secondary schools and not primary schools? Will that affect the quality of the inspection that is provided?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the quality of the inspection remains of prime importance. The Government will do nothing which will put that in jeopardy. By and large the inspections will be provided by those who are already trained as inspectors. Ofsted has set out a number of measures to encourage those who have been trained and who have not yet come forward to undertake inspections, to do so. To a certain extent some temporary help will be provided by Her Majesty's inspectors themselves. But under no circumstances do we envisage half-trained or untrained people undertaking inspections.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is rather bizarre to hear implied criticisms of this nature coming from the Benches opposite, bearing in mind the colossal damage that socialist ideology has done to the British education system since the last war? Does he further agree that, whatever teething problems our new inspection system may have, it is a huge improvement on the previous situation, whereby only 100 primary schools were inspected annually, and that therefore the average primary school was inspected just once in every 190 years?
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords, we believe that it is a great improvement on what went before. In general, we are very pleased with the results that the system is producing. We are disappointed that the number of
1080
inspections to date is falling below target. But we are determined to make sure that we catch up again over the next few years.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate the fact that the Government removed from local education authorities at 1990–91 prices approximately £75 million to fund the new inspection service? Given that quite clearly Ofsted is unable to implement successfully an inspection policy, should not at least a proportion of that money be returned to local government so that it can be properly funded for inspecting schools, which it does remarkably well?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, that is complete nonsense. The money is in Ofsted to undertake the inspections and the inspections will be undertaken. I quite agree that the local education authorities are now beginning to do an excellent job in helping primary schools. One of the reasons why Ofsted is finding that inspectors are not coming forward to do its inspections is because local authorities at last are devoting more of their resources to helping their own primary schools. We feel that is an excellent development.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there is to be a cut in the money available for inspections? According to the Budget Statement on DfE expenditure plans, there was a £13 million cut in expenditure for Ofsted, which is a 12½ per cent. cut. Can he explain that?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not have that particular figure in front of me. I can tell the noble Baroness that the Budget allows for an increase in total Ofsted expenditure from £98 million in 1995–96 to £121 million in 1997–98. That does not represent a cut. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector is quite satisfied that he has the resources necessary to complete the inspection cycle and all the other work that he undertakes.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that I obtained those figures from a reliable source? Will he write to me and explain why those figures appeared in the Budget statement if they are not correct?
Lord Lucas: Certainly, my Lords.

County Hall
2.36 p.m.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that the work currently being done within the County Hall on London's south bank to turn the building into a high quality hotel is carried out in accordance with the planning consent which has been given.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, Parliament has determined that it is the responsibility of the appropriate local planning authority to ensure that the work is done in accordance with the relevant planning and listed building

1081
consents. English Heritage is satisfied that the work being carried out to the Riverside building is in accordance with listed building consent.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Does he appreciate that County Hall occupies a prime location in the heart of the capital and should not be allowed to lapse into an eastern bazaar? Is he further aware that the Secretary of State for the Environment has published a consultation paper, Quality in Town and Country, and intends to issue guidance to planners requiring them to consider the quality of architecture and buildings, especially in prime locations? In an interview, he added:
"What might be acceptable in a run of the mill area might not be acceptable in a fine location".
Is he aware too that the London Borough of Lambeth is the planning authority and cannot even manage its own affairs? Does he agree that special attention ought to be given to that building of special importance?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, the comments which he attributed to the Secretary of State referred to planning policy. It is indeed the case that the Riverside House part of the County Hall complex is an important building. It is in a conservation area and is grade 2 star listed. In order for any change to be carried out to that building which is not in accordance with existing planning permissions and listed building consents, further planning permission and listed building consent would be required. So far as I know, no such application has been made. Were that to happen on such an important site, as my noble friend pointed out, the Secretary of State would have to consider whether he would call it in.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the building was originally built for the purpose of housing London government? Is he further aware that it would be very good if that building could be recovered for the purpose for which it was originally designed? Is he still further aware that an administration which will follow the present one—perhaps a wider administration—will seek to recover the building for its original purpose?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am indeed aware that County Hall was built as the seat of a pan-London authority. I myself do not claim to have any great connection with it, but my mother was a member of the old LCC for four years between 1949 and 1952. I was born in 1951. So I dare say that I could be said to have played a part in it myself. Parliament determined that the GLC should be abolished and therefore it was. Obviously, it is open to any future parliament to take whatever decision in the future that it thinks best. But the House can rest assured that so long as we on these Benches remain in power the eventuality of that happening is both far distant and unlikely.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when he was only a twinkle in his father's eye I was actually a member of the London County Council?
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the story of the relationships between the London
1082
Residuary Body and the Japanese entrepreneurs has been a total disaster? Is it not possible to go back to the far more appropriate scheme of turning this building over to the London School of Economics to give us a major educational edifice on this prime site which would be a credit to the entire country and a magnet for London?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, the terms of reference under which the London Residuary Body operates are determined by statute. It was made quite clear that it was the function of the LRB to dispose of any land held by it which was not required by it for carrying out its functions at the best consideration that could be obtained unless the Secretary of State directed otherwise. The best consideration that could be obtained for the County Hall site included the sale of Riverside House to Shirayama. In those circumstances, bearing in mind the previous planning history which included an action in the High Court, I really do not think it would have been proper for the London Residuary Body to have done anything other than it did.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the Minister really saying that the best consideration always means the best financial consideration and that no other considerations have to be taken into account when making such a change? Will he pass on to his noble friend Lord Plummer, who made references to Lambeth, the fact that Lambeth is changing very fast, with a sixfold increase in Liberal Democrats on Lambeth Council?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Plummer will have heard her observations on the borough. On the question of the best consideration, it would have been extremely difficult to find a convincing and watertight case which would have justified not selling the County Hall site as it was sold.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, following the shambles of the Shirayama deal, will the Minister now agree at least to set up a committee of inquiry to examine the future, as the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, so rightly said, of one of London's most important buildings? Can an acceptable scheme be commercially viable after two such schemes have now collapsed? Should, instead, the building be used for higher education, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, suggested, or should it instead become a home for the dozen or so London-wide quangos that replaced the GLC together with the many voluntary and charitable bodies which are looking for a home in London? There are very many options which would bring the building back into public use. Will the Minister now agree to a committee of inquiry to consider them?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the important point which I think the noble Baroness has overlooked is that the building does not actually belong to the Government. The building is owned by Shirayama, which is entitled to own the building. It is entitled to occupy and carry on activities in that building in accordance with listed building consent and planning permission; there is no evidence to suppose that there

1083
have been any problems. In the circumstances, it is rather difficult to see how the kind of proposals being advocated by the noble Baroness could be properly implemented.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is a particular site? It is not just another site. This is County Hall, which is revered and loved by many Londoners. Is it not a fact that this building ought to be a symbol of local government and all that it represents? It does not matter which party is in power. Surely against that background for the Minister to get up and talk the way he has and waffle the way he has is of no consequence at all.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the planning permission which I understand Shirayama is currently proposing to implement was granted by the London Borough of Lambeth. It was preceded by another planning permission which was granted by the Secretary of State after two inquiries. That was upheld following an action in the High Court. That is the legal position. Any British citizen who owns a building and has planning permission for it—and not only British citizens but anyone within the realm of Britain—is entitled to implement it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many people believe that the GLC was destroyed because of the audacity of the overwhelming majority of Londoners to remain constantly loyal to the Labour Party and always vote Labour, which I can well understand was not liked by the Conservative Party? The Conservatives could never defeat Labour so they thought that they would get rid of the Greater London Council hall. Is the Minister further aware that many London authorities of all political persuasions believe that there ought to be somewhere where they can meet, if only for a few times a year, to discuss problems which affect them all? Will the Government consider that plea and save perhaps a small part of this famous hall for that very worthwhile purpose?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we on these Benches understand all the noble Lord's comments about people's feelings. Nonetheless, it was Parliament that ended the GLC—
Noble Lords: It was a government Bill!
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it was a government Bill but it was Parliament that ended the GLC. Therefore, it is for Parliament to put it back if it wishes to do so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think the Minister should rely on Parliament in that way. After all, the same example applies to the poll tax and to the privatisation of the railways. However, is it not the case that the financial consideration to which the Minister referred as being the prime concern of the London Residuary Body has patently not worked and that after all these years we have a building which is still not occupied, and does not seem likely to be occupied, by its legal owners? Under those
1084
circumstances, is it not proper for the Minister to reconsider not only the rights but the obligations of those who have bought the building?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to have a much clearer idea of the intentions and activities of the owners of the building than almost anyone else in the capital city. If he can advise us on that, no doubt we shall be interested to hear from him. However, at the same time—I go back to my earlier point—we are in the position that the building is occupied legally and the activity that is being carried on inside it is being carried on entirely within the law.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in retrospect perhaps it would have been much better not to have sold the building but to have used it to house government offices rather than pay £100 million more for the monstrosity at Vauxhall Cross in order to house MI5?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as far as I know, no suggestion was put to the London Residuary Body that County Hall should be used for office purposes and no offer was made.

International Year of the Family
2.48 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in response to the, Agenda for Action published on Thursday 8th December by the United Kingdom Committee for the International Year of the Family.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health launched a major initiative on 8th December to promote better support for parents in response to the Family Agenda for Action. The initiative covers better co-ordination of government policy, collaboration with the voluntary sector through informal meetings and development projects, a research theme on bringing up children and supporting families, and a survey of parents' concerns.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. I do not think anyone could doubt her commitment and that of her right honourable friend to supporting families in their role as educators and carers. However, will she accept that there are at least six other Departments of State whose decisions impact on the functioning of families? Can she give a commitment that her right honourable friends who are responsible for those departments are also committed to putting the well-being of families at the heart of policy-making, as recommended in the Agenda for Action of the IYF?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is absolutely right. It is fair to say that nearly every government department touches on this issue. That is why the Cabinet and its main committees

1085
will always need to bear this in mind and supply the necessary perspective from day-to-day. We have now decided that Ministers shall meet periodically to look at the impact of government policies as a whole on the family.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on Friday the committee about which the Question is tabled, together with the United Nations Association, the British Refugee Council and other organisations concerned with the family, presented to the Prime Minister a petition containing a very large number of signatures, and that that petition sought to ensure that those who have permission to remain, through the Home Office, will be able to have family reunification? Has the Minister a comment to make on that proposal which is part of the action plan?
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords, that is left for another colleague in the Government.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that all families are much happier when every child in the family is a wanted child? Therefore, will she help to ensure that family planning services and advice within the National Health Service are available to all parents and potential parents, including teenage girls?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, I can give that assurance to my noble friend. The prevention of unwanted pregnancies is one of the Health of the Nation targets.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Baroness really believe that the Government have given a good example to the rest of the world in their policies regarding care for the family? Is she aware, and will she confirm, that the Government have cut the value of the married couple's tax relief by 40 per cent. over the past 18 months? Is she further aware that the Government continually refuse to allow personal tax allowances to be transferred between spouses? Will she also confirm that families in this country have been badly hit, and will continue to be so, by the reduction from 25 per cent. tax relief to 15 per cent. for mortgages? Finally, is she also aware that families have been further hurt by an increase of 1 per cent. in interest rates over the past six months?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government have a whole range of initiatives which strengthen family life. The Children Act 1989 was a charter for children. Child benefit remains a cornerstone of our family policy. The Child Support Act reinforces the principle of parental responsibility. The National Health Service and community care Acts support the care of frail and elderly people within their own families. The adoption White Paper seeks to give adopted children the same prospects as other children and the childcare disregard was introduced in October 1994 for people on low incomes claiming benefits. We have a proud record in this field.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I am sure she is—of the research carried out
1086
by the Joseph Rowntree Trust and Great Ormond Street Hospital, which reflects that children are influenced by their parents and that their behaviour is dependent on either the happiness or unhappiness of their parents? Does she not agree that at the moment the social services are spending a great deal of time on child support work, but very little time on helping parents? Does the Minister agree that that may be due to lack of resources or to other factors? Does she further agree that it is important that parents—and thus the children—should be helped?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. I believe that bringing up a family is one of the most difficult things that any parent or individual has to face. The maximum support that can be given is important. However, I believe that the family is essentially a private affair. Although it may need help—which is another aspect—the privacy of family life needs to be respected as well.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Agenda for Action contains some quite specific proposals? Can the Minister respond to some of those in addition to the general points which she has made? They include reinstating benefits for 16 to 18 year-olds, establishing a legislative framework for family leave and abolishing fault as a ground for divorce? These are specific proposals in the Agenda for Action. How do the Government react?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there will be a full response, which I shall be happy to give to the noble Baroness in due course.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Minister listed a range of matters which she said supported the family. My understanding of that list is that each one of those items is targeted at individuals, whether as children, parents or mothers and fathers, but that none of them is targeted as regards support for the family. Will the Minister answer the question that my noble friend Lord Stoddart asked, which identifies the action that the Government could take to support the family?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the reform of family credit supports families. In October 1994 there was the offset of childcare costs against earnings, which supports families. A range of things support the family.

Homeless People: London Area
2.55 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the recent reports from charitable organisations indicating that the number of homeless people in and around London could be as high as 100,000.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the report to which the noble Lord refers was produced by a body called Health Action for Homeless People to inform the Thames regional health authorities of potential demand on their services. Its methodology is flawed in a number of respects. Many of the people described by the report as

1087
homeless are in fact properly accommodated. The Government are tackling the problem of homelessness and the Rough Sleepers Initiative in central London has reduced the number of people sleeping rough in the capital by three-quarters.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I do not accept for one moment the Answer to my Question, which is based on a report from a responsible body? Is he further aware that the report states quite clearly that more than 100,000 people are sleeping rough or living in temporary hostels around London, according to figures shown today, but that the true number of those without a place to call their own is thought to be twice as great because of hidden homelessness? Is the Minister aware that that shows a gross deterioration in the situation over the past three to four years? Is the Minister also aware that in the Budget last week the Chancellor of Exchequer cut funding to the Housing Corporation so much that it can only budget for 15,000 starts in contracts which can be let in the next 12 months? Ministers at the Dispatch Box have promised me over the years that the target for Housing Corporation and housing association housing was to be 65,000 a year, but that figure is now to be reduced to 15,000. These figures can only get worse. What are the Government going to do about it?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I said in my earlier reply, I do not accept the gloss which the noble Lord has put on the report. The noble Lord then criticised the Government for cutting back in the Budget on moneys for the Housing Corporation. In an era of difficult times,, difficult decisions have to be taken. We have to try to find accommodation for people and one of the ways of doing so is by building more houses. We hope that over the next three years 180,000 additional lettings will be created. In addition, we have to see how the existing housing stock can be more efficiently used. There is plenty of potential there to make sure that for many people with housing problems their circumstances could be improved.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that charities, such as Centrepoint, and the London local authorities estimate that there are probably about 140,000 single homeless people in London? Above all, there are the very young 16 and 17 year-olds and the mentally ill who face the failure of our social security system and of care in the community. When the Minister says that the response we need is to provide more houses, how does he reconcile that with the fact that the DoE permitted London boroughs last year to build just 250 council houses to meet the needs of about 200,000 homeless people?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, before answering the question, perhaps I may congratulate Centrepoint on its 25th birthday, which I understand is this week. The noble Baroness refers to various statistics which have been produced by Centrepoint and others as regards homelessness in London. It is clear that while the problem is serious—and, as I said, the Government are addressing it—it is extremely difficult to analyse the problem. It is pretty certain that, looking back over the
1088
past few years, the nature of the problem has changed. With initiatives such as the Rough Sleepers Initiative, we are trying to tackle the issue in the right way. The figures that the noble Baroness gave do not help to solve the problem. As I said earlier, we must try to identify the problem precisely because if we do not we shall end up wasting large amounts of public resources and not benefiting people.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, although I welcome the progress that has been made by the Rough Sleepers Initiative, does the noble Lord accept that a core of young people and, indeed, children remain homeless? The Children's Society report, Running the Risk, states that 10,000 young people will lose complete contact with their families. Can the noble Lord tell me why the Rough Sleepers Initiative is to be disbanded in March 1996?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Rough Sleepers Initiative was established for a six-year period and is due to end in March 1996, as the right reverend Prelate said. Over that period more than £182 million has been spent in endeavouring to tackle the problem that we are describing. One aspect of that programme was to build a capital reserve of about 3,300 units of accommodation. At the end of 1996, we shall have to look forward to decide what is appropriate for the future. The department is already having informal consultations with those involved in the outreach organisations to see how we can proceed. One thing is for sure, there is now a capital reserve of 3,300 units which did not exist before the initiative began. Inevitably, future provision will take a different form.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the European Summit.

European Communities (Finance) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill; read a first time and ordered to be printed.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Earl of Gowrie and the Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn be appointed to the Select Committee on House of Lords' Offices in place of the Lord Dainton and the Lord Gibson.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Viscount St. Davids and the Lord Taylor of Blackburn be appointed to the Panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees in place of the Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agricultural Tenancies Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Meaning of 'farm business tenancy']:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("or the notice conditions").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 8, which is consequential upon it. The purpose of the first group of amendments is to discover what the Government intend by the phrase "farm business tenancy" and what they see as the true nature of such a tenancy. We believe that the notice procedure that is set out in the Bill opens the way for so-called "farm business tenancies" to be used for lettings of farmland which may be non-agricultural in character.
Assuming that Clause 1(2) (a) is not amended—we shall come to that later—a farm business tenancy may be created when "part" of the land is farmed. There is no qualification as to how large or small that part of the land should be, although we have tabled an amendment to deal with the definition of "small" as mentioned in the Bill. Presumably in court it would be argued that that part of the land should be sufficiently large to ensure that the property retains the character of an agricultural holding, but that is not stated in the Bill.
We shall deal later with the definition of "farming of land" that is given in Clause 36(2). That subsection states:
"References in this Act to the farming of land include references to the carrying on in relation to land of any agricultural activity".
Presumably that means that "farming of land" is not exclusively an agricultural activity. It would be left to the courts to decide whether "estate management" in a broader sense is part of farming. Our concern is that the provisions might allow commercial leisure activities and developments, sporting facilities, timber growing, turf cutting, set-aside and, at the outer limits, sand and gravel extraction.
The question that we have to consider is whether it is intended that the creation of a farm business tenancy is a means of avoiding the creation of a business tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. We think that that is the Government's intention. If that is the case, it is important to have it on the record.
Let us consider the example of a tenant who is anxious to build a golf course. He negotiates a farm business tenancy at the insistence of the landowner for the acreage that he needs, with 20 acres of adjacent land being included in the letting. Both serve Clause 1 formal notices on each other. At the beginning of the tenancy, the farm is primarily agricultural in its use, but once the tenancy is up and running that is no longer a requirement. I understand that the Government's intention is, "Once a farm business tenancy, always a farm business tenancy". In the hypothetical case that I have just quoted, to keep himself within bounds, the tenant continues to use the 20 acres for agricultural purposes. He thus satisfies the business conditions although it is arguable that he may not even need to do that. The tenant then gets planning permission and develops a golf course and leisure complex on the land.
I am sure that the Committee will understand that our amendments seek to discover the Government's intention behind the words "farm business tenancy" and the true nature of such a tenancy. Once both landlord and tenant have agreed that such a tenancy should exist, can anything change the tenancy or will it always be termed a "farm business tenancy"? I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has spoken also to Amendment No. 8, it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to indicate to your Lordships at this stage that, if Amendment No. 8 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 inclusive.
Earl Howe: Clause 1 defines two possible types of farm business tenancy, a tenancy which allows for the possibility of farm diversification through an exchange of written notices between the parties, and a tenancy which does not because such notices are not exchanged. In the first case, it is the written notices which guarantee that, provided the tenancy begins its life as at least a mainly agricultural business and provided that at least some of the land is farmed, in the conventional sense, for a trade or business throughout the term of the tenancy, no matter what the balance of farming and non-farming activity is on the holding as time goes on, the tenancy will remain a farm business tenancy in law, with all that that implies in terms of the safeguards and other provisions that are contained in the Bill.
If, on the other hand, whether through inadvertence or otherwise, the parties fail to exchange notices at the outset, the tenancy may still qualify as a farm business tenancy but both parties run the risk that at some point a substantial diversification on the farm would render the tenancy subject to legislation other than this if ever its status were challenged.
I appreciate that this is intended as a probing amendment and I trust that what I have said clarifies the points of uncertainty which the noble Lord raised. We regard the notice conditions as important for providing

1091
the parties with the necessary option to ensure that, providing the tenancy continues to satisfy the business conditions, it will remain a farm business tenancy throughout its duration even though there may be major diversification into non-agricultural enterprises. The industry organisations have all along attached great importance to such a provision so that the parties will know where they stand.
If the provision were deleted, the tenancy might at some unpredictable point during its life become subject to other legislation, most probably the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. That could result in, for example, the tenant losing his right to compensation for improvements made, or the landlord losing his right to regain possession at the end of the term. It is clearly unsatisfactory for such a change to occur accidentally. The likely effect of that would be that landlords would seek to safeguard their legal position against that happening in some other way.
Unfortunately the most obvious way would be to impose many more restrictions in tenancy agreements which would prevent tenants from diversifying their enterprises and thereby ensure that the holding remained agricultural in character. That would clearly act as an obstacle to the diversification that we wish to encourage. Were the amendment to be carried, which I know is not the noble Lord's intention, that would be undesirable. I hope that what I have said has been of help to the noble Lord.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister. He must not assume that I am not going to divide on the amendments. It was more than a probing amendment"- The Minister referred to the industry group. We shall be referring to it on a number of later amendments. I shall deal with the views of the industry group when we come to the debate on Clause 1 stand part.
It is important that we now have on the record that the Government—I understand the Government's philosophy on the Bill—believe that the exchange of written notices is crucial so as to give certainty to the parties. The point that I have been trying to explore—we have now flushed out the argument—relates to the surrounding rural community. The Minister said that so long as some of the land remains agricultural—whatever the balance between the farming and non-farming activity—then, as I said, once a farm business tenancy, always a farm business tenancy. I should be interested to know what groups outside the House such as those interested in conservation and rural structure, for instance, feel about that.
The Minister said that a failure to exchange notices puts the business at risk. The parties would have to go to court to see whether it is a farm business tenancy or is caught by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. I understand the reasoning behind the Government's philosophy. The industry group is concerned about diversification, but in the Government's anxiety to achieve that effect, I wonder whether they have thought about what would happen were a farm to change its nature substantially and affect the surrounding rural community. The two parties could then sit back and say, "It is OK. The law says we have a farm business
1092
tenancy, even though not much farming is going on. There is a bit of farming but lots of other things as well. The Government have said that they intended to encourage diversification and so long as the parties to the contract are happy. That is enough". We do not believe that it is enough. We shall wish to return to this matter on Report. I felt it important at the outset to get on record—perhaps the Minister wants to intervene.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps I may clarify one or two further points. He said that our position was that once a tenancy became a farm business tenancy it would always remain so. That is the case, of course, provided that notices were exchanged in the first instance. If they were not exchanged, then, as I said, the parties run the risk that the tenancy falls out of this legislation into some other legislation.
With regard to the point that the noble Lord was just making, of course nothing in the Bill overrides planning legislation. It is up to the local community to put its stamp of approval on any diversification proposals should those proposals require planning consent. That is an important point that I should make.
Lord Carter: That is helpful. It means that the Government are relying on the lawyers to get the notices right in the first place and then the planners to look after the rural community. I understand the point that the Government make. I understand why they have it in the Bill. As I said, it is important to get on record the philosophy lying behind it. I shall read with great care what the Minister said. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 15, after ("or") insert ("the main").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which deal with the same point. We turn now to the business conditions as opposed to the notice conditions. As presently worded, the business condition requires that part only of the land need be farmed. The arguments on these amendments will sound repetitive because the same argument will occur on all of them. Technically, as I said on the previous group of amendments, that could be a small area of a substantial acreage, the remainder of which is used perhaps by a golf course.
The main part would probably be interpreted by the courts as meaning more than half the land. There should be no problem with the change proposed in Amendment No. 2 for those who are coupling the business conditions with the agriculture conditions because the character of the holding must, as the Bill provides, be primarily agricultural.
If the amendment were to be accepted there is a problem which I shall reveal to save the Minister telling me about it. The problem will come when the business conditions are coupled with the notice conditions, because under those, while the tenancy must be

1093
primarily agricultural at the beginning of the tenancy, it need not remain so, as the Minister confirmed on the previous amendment.
There is an argument that if, say, more than half the land area is put to a use other than farming, a separate business tenancy should be created to cover that activity, which will then be subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. It would be undesirable were the farm business tenancy to be used in rural areas as a cloak to avoid the consequences of affording the tenant the protection of the 1954 Act. That is the important point that lies behind the wording of the Bill and the amendment. Throughout all our amendments, we shall be seeking to improve security and protection for the tenant.
At present it is possible for a business tenant to waive some of the protections, as we know, but only on a joint application by both parties to the county court or the High Court under Section 38(4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. That facility was added to the business tenancy legislation following a recommendation from the Law Commission.
We then turn to the problem of using the word "land" as opposed to "holding". Amendment No. 3 proposes to leave out "land" and insert "holding". Under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, as I understand it, non-agricultural activities—those which do not affect the character of the tenancy—need have no connection with the agricultural business carried on by the same person; for example, bed and breakfast or farm shops which sell produce other than that grown on the farm in question.
In the latest version of the MAFF proposals for consultation, No. 4 mentions bed and breakfast but then emphasises activities on the holding. That has led to some confusion as to whether we should be talking about the land or the holding. There is need for clarification to discover which non-agricultural activities would come within the business tenancy and which would fall outside. If they fall outside, does the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 then come into play?
We have discussed already the effect of a change in the non-agricultural activity, the shift of emphasis in the tenant's enterprise, and so forth. In Amendment No.3 we seek to find out whether it would be better to say "holding" instead of "land".
Amendment No. 4 proposes that the word "farmed" should be left out and that "occupied" should be inserted. That is a point I discussed with the Minister when we had a helpful meeting between Second Reading and Committee. It is important to get on the record what is the Government's thinking on this point, because we are informed that if the word "farmed" is used rather than "occupied", horsiculture and the keeping of horses are excluded from a farm business tenancy. Opinions on that vary, but I am told that if we were to say "occupied" rather than "farmed" the confusion that exists on that point would be dealt with.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and I shall leave him to speak to them. As I understand it, those amendments redefine the business condition which
1094
forms part of the definition of the new concept. The amendments provide that so long as the land was farmed immediately after the commencement of the tenancy it does not matter if the business ceases subsequently to be agricultural. These amendments have been grouped together because they are related. However, the Committee will understand our anxiety about the change in the nature of the tenancy after it has been agreed by the landlord and tenant that the farm business tenancy exists.
Amendment No. 7 deals with the problem of "farmed" and "occupied". The three central issues are to insert "the main" part of the holding; the preference for "holding" instead of "land"; and the preference for "occupied" instead of "farmed". Perhaps the Minister can explain why the Government have adopted their wording, which we are advised is, to say the least, ambiguous. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has spoken to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. I wish to indicate to the Committee that if Amendment No. 6 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 7.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, which stand in my name, are similar to others in the group. Their intention is to clarify the position and I begin by referring to what was said by my noble friend Lord Howe in respect of Amendment No. 1. He referred to "some of the land", which immediately raises a query. What does that phrase mean? In my opinion it creates an ambiguity. Secondly, if the tenant oversteps his mark there is a case that his tenancy might become invalid. My amendment is proposed in order to clear up that matter.
If, when the tenant takes on the tenancy, he wishes to diversify outside the terms of the farm business tenancy my amendment proposes that he should be allowed to do so. As the Bill stands, the tenants must continue to farm as laid down in Clause 1(2), which states that all or part of the land must be farmed. Unless my amendment is accepted there will be a muddle, as has been pointed out. That could cause problems for a tenant who found a successful form of diversification, which is exactly what we have been implored to do by every party for the past five or six years. If the tenant found something that was successful he might be in trouble. The key principle of the Bill is to allow tenants to diversify when they get the chance.
I accept that in order to remain within a farm business tenancy a tenant could perhaps keep a small part of the land in agriculture. However, that too creates an ambiguity and is apocryphal. The farmer could act bogusly and have four chickens, which would be ridiculous and a cause for litigation.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the 1954 Act. My amendment would solve that problem. The 1954 Act would not apply because a farm business tenancy would apply throughout, however much a farmer would wish to diversify.

1095
My amendments are supported by the CLA, the NFU, the Young Farmers, the RICS and CAAV.
Lord Middleton: It is desirable that a farm business tenant should be able to diversify into other lines of rural businesses. As we have heard, such a business might take up part of his land. If that is the case, under the Bill the farm business tenancy persists under the agreed terms. If, however, the business takes up the whole of the land, as might be the case, under Clause 1(2) it ceases to be a farm business tenancy. The rights of the parties would then be governed by a code of rules which were not contemplated nor intended to apply to a tenancy agreement.
I support my noble friend Lord Stanley, whose amendment I prefer. It would allow full diversification and still maintain intact the terms of the original tenancy agreement.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to Members of the Committee who have spoken in support of one or other set of amendments. In particular, I was interested in the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Stanley in support of his amendments. I can see that where the farming element of the business had become small, it would give landlords and tenants greater certainty that the tenancy would not accidentally fall out of the farm business tenancies legislation. I also recognise the logic in allowing a tenant whose non-agricultural activities are thriving but whose farming enterprise may, perhaps, be failing to diversify completely, provided that that is permissible under his tenancy agreement.
At the same time, there are arguments against that. It could be argued that the present condition in Clause 1(2) is hardly onerous; it simply requires at least part of the land to be farmed for the purposes of a trade or business. I can see nothing wrong in principle about that. It seems somewhat difficult to justify a farm business tenancy continuing to be treated as such when there is, in fact, no farming.
Nevertheless, Members of the Committee have indicated a measure of support for the principle behind these amendments and therefore, with the agreement of the Committee, I ask for a little more time to reflect on the implications of what my noble friend in particular has proposed.
Perhaps I may address a couple of the queries posed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He asked whether it would be better to refer to "holding" as opposed to "land". I am advised that there is no substantive difference in the context of the Bill. "Holding" is defined later in the Bill as the land comprised in the tenancy and "land" in law includes the buildings on the land.
The noble Lord also asked about the meaning of "farmed" and whether it excludes horsiculture. I am advised that "farmed" may include horse grazing but not horse keeping. Perhaps that distinction will be followed up at a later stage. Any activities outside farming that could be undertaken on a farm business tenancy could include any non-agricultural activity; for example, food processing or bed and breakfast. It includes any form of diversification. On the other hand, the use of the word "occupied" would allow the tenant to go 100 per cent. non-agricultural instead of keeping four chickens, as my noble friend put it. That is precisely why we do not want
1096
a farm business tenancy to act as a cloak for a business tenancy. It is also why we have insisted in the Bill that at the outset a farm business tenancy should be wholly or mainly agricultural in character and that as a minimum condition farming must continue on part of the holding throughout.
Between now and the Report stage the Government will consider whether an amendment along the lines proposed either by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, or by my noble friend Lord Stanley is likely to be helpful to business enterprises and, if so, what precise change to the business conditions in Clause 1(2) would best achieve that result. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lords will feel content not to press their amendments.
Lord Carter: I am sure that the equine community will feel an immense sense of relief at the connoisseur's distinction between horse grazing and horse keeping. We look forward to discussing the matter at a later stage and I am sure that I shall have to seek advice on it.
The discussion has been helpful; we now understand that the Government are anxious to promote diversification. However, when the Bill refers to part of the land being farmed the crucial question is: how much? I suspect that in the end that may well be an area on which the courts will have to decide as to the meaning. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, you may keep a few chickens and sheep and then you can do what you like with the rest of the farm, subject to planning. I believe that 80 per cent. of our land mass is rural. I am sure that the Government expect that an increasing proportion of it will be let under farm business tenancies. It seems that they are extremely relaxed about the matter. Many people outside are not relaxed and we may wish to return to the subject on Report.
If the Government refuse to define what they mean by "part of the land"—and again we shall return to this point—there are no criteria in the Bill as to what will constitute a good farm business tenancy other than the definition of rent, the period of notice and compensation. They are all important matters, but during our farming lives we are used to Acts of Parliament defining the matters which should be included in an agricultural tenancy and the areas that a good agricultural tenancy should deal with. We shall return to those issues on later amendments. As I say, at a later stage too we may try again to define what is meant by "part of the land" because we believe that that could open the door to all kinds of abuse.
It is helpful to hear the Minister confirm with regard to holding of land that there is no need to make the change which we suggest. As I say, we may have to explore those matters again on Report.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: Would not the tenancy agreement spell out how the land would be used? When one talks about "part of the land", surely that gives a very welcome flexibility, which the industry wants. Surely the written tenancy agreement would spell out those matters.
Lord Carter: It would be nice to think that that was the case. It would be helpful were the Bill to require that. When I move amendments to that effect later on, I shall

1097
look to the noble Earl to support our amendments because that is what we propose but is not at present a requirement of the Bill. It is entirely up to the landlord and the tenant. There may even be an unwritten agreement, which is another point with which we must deal. It will be an extremely interesting situation where there is an unwritten agreement and only part of the land is used for farming. That could lead to a great deal of litigation. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 not moved.]
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 1, at end insert ("which may be a statement included in an instrument signed by the landlord and the tenant confirming the terms of the tenancy and which takes effect from the same date.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 9, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 88 with which it is grouped. Amendment No. 88 is further on in the Bill in Clause 36 but I shall refer to it in dealing with this amendment.
The purpose of the amendment to Clause 1 is to clarify aspects of the notice conditions. First, it would confirm that the written notices referred to in the subsection could form part of the tenancy agreement, thus reducing any risk of doubt about the parties' later intentions.
Secondly, it is not infrequently the case that the drawing up of a tenancy agreement may follow some time after the tenancy has commenced. The amendment allows the parties to contract in to the notice conditions in those circumstances.
The third purpose of the amendment is to probe the question of when the tenancy is deemed to have. commenced. Clause 36(3) states that:
"A tenancy granted pursuant to a contract shall be taken … to have been granted when the contract was entered into".
However, as it is not necessary for tenancies to be in written form—a point that has already emerged in the course of our discussions—does the tenancy commence from the time at which the oral agreement may have been made?
The four industry organisations, which will figure prominently in our deliberations both today and tomorrow, believe that it is desirable to have as much Certainty as possible about those matters and, therefore, it should be made clear that the provision in Clause 36(3) concerning tenancies granted pursuant to a contract applies to a written contract. The second amendment achieves that. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: As the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has explained, the two amendments are concerned primarily with the notice conditions. The first amendment to Clause 1(4), as I understand it, is intended to enable parties to incorporate the notice in the tenancy agreement itself. Although I see the attractions of that approach, the purpose of the notice is to draw attention to the type of agreement into which the parties will enter. We have adopted that approach both to protect the tenant and to protect the landlord. If a tenant is unsure what is meant by a farm business tenancy, he has the opportunity to take advice and find out what the implications are. I am not
1098
convinced that that would be achieved by a clause in the tenancy agreement. We feel that it is important that the parties should both state their intentions clearly and do so explicitly for the avoidance of doubt.
Neither am I convinced that the parties should be able to contract in to the notice conditions at some later date. The whole idea is that the notice conditions must be complied with before the tenancy is granted. That is what the Bill provides. Again that is necessary for the avoidance of doubt as to the nature of the tenancy entered into.
I see no need to amend Clause 36(3) to refer to "written" contracts. Under the subsection as drafted, where a tenancy is granted pursuant to a written or oral contract, the tenancy is taken to have been granted when the contract was entered into. That reflects the fact that both written and oral contracts to grant a lease are enforceable in law. I hope that in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his response. He wishes to draw the attention of the parties to what is in the agreement. For that reason, he says that the tenant can seek advice. It may be that in the light of his remarks on this side of the Committee we shall have to do the same.
The noble Earl does not like the prospect of the parties not contracting in until later. That also is something which we shall need to discuss.
Although the noble Earl's reply was adequate, I confess that I am still puzzled with regard to the necessity or otherwise of the agreements to be in writing either at the time or subsequently. Nevertheless, I shall read his remarks and in so doing I shall take account of his observation that there is no need for Clause 36(3) to take note. That may affect our attitude on Report, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Inglewood: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Council, Essen
3.38 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the European Council at Essen. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the European Council at Essen which I attended with my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Council's conclusions have been placed in the Library of the House.

1099
"The European Council achieved five key British objectives: strong support for the peace initiative in Northern Ireland, including additional funding of £240 million; commitment to an intensified fight against fraud and mismanagement; solid progress on subsidiarity—and it is agreed that next year the Council will complete its review of the existing Community statute book; priority for labour market flexibility and deregulation to make Europe competitive and create jobs; and a strategy to prepare for accession to the Union of the six central and eastern European associate members.
"At the request of the presidency, I briefed the European Council on the peace process in Northern Ireland. There was unanimous agreement to a Commission proposal to provide an extra £240 million over three years to help urban and rural regeneration in Northern Ireland and the border counties of the Republic. I am grateful for the strong support that President Delors has given to Northern Ireland.
"I raised the subject of fraud, waste and mismanagement of the budget following the Court of Auditors report. I said that the European Union would not enjoy popular support unless it took vigorous action against those abuses. I made a number of proposals which were agreed by the Council. Those were as follows. The Council must ensure that reports from the Court of Auditors are rigorously scrutinised and followed up. Each member state must report to ECOFIN on what it is doing to combat fraud in its own country. Agreement should be reached rapidly in Brussels on measures now under discussion. These include a British proposal put forward by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary which would oblige member states to co-operate and act effectively to fight criminal fraud against the EC budget. Finally, the new powers given in the Maastricht Treaty—as a result of British initiatives—to the Court of Auditors, the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council should be used to the full.
"I made clear that the taxpayer's money must not be misused. The fight against fraud, waste and mismanagement will remain high on our agenda. That view was strongly endorsed by the Commission and a number of member states.
"The European Council confirmed again that subsidiarity—the principle of minimum community interference—must be a guiding principle of the European Union's future work, as agreed at Edinburgh. I am encouraged that so far in 1994 there have only been 42 Commission proposals for significant legislation compared with 185 in 1990. But the new Commission must keep up the fight against unnecessary interference.
"Discussion of the economy focused on the need to create jobs. Yet again the policies that we have been following in this country were widely accepted to be right for the European Union. We agreed that Europe must be more competitive. We agreed on the need for more flexible working arrangements, for the reduction of labour costs and for better education and training.
1100
"There was nothing in our discussion to suggest that socialism had triumphed over market liberalism. The reverse is plainly the case.
"The European Council added three new priority transport projects to the list of TransEuropean Networks agreed at Corfu. Four out of the 14 are United Kingdom projects: the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the West Coast Main Line, the rail route from Cork to Lame and the Holyhead to Felixstowe road link.
"The Essen Council effectively rejected the long-debated proposal for a European Union-wide carbon energy tax. It supported instead the approach which Britain has advocated all along: a flexible framework allowing those member states which wish to introduce a carbon energy tax to do so. We will not wish to do so.
"Enlargement of the European Union has long been a British objective. At the Edinburgh and Copenhagen Councils the decision in principle to open membership to the six countries of central and eastern Europe was taken. At Essen, leaders of the 15 European Union states, including Austria, Finland and Sweden, met their central and eastern European counterparts. Agreement at the Council on a strategy to draw the six associate members closer to the Union was another important step to help prepare for their eventual accession.
"On Bosnia, there was strong support for the UNPROFOR commanders and the work being done by the brave men and women who they lead. They are saving lives and bringing better living conditions to many parts of Bosnia than would otherwise be possible. We agreed that UNPROFOR must be allowed by the Bosnian-Serbs to get on with its job without obstruction and should stay, provided the risks were acceptable. It was our unanimous view that the enforced withdrawal of UNPROFOR could have disastrous consequences—above all, for the people of Bosnia. But we agreed that we needed to plan for all eventualities and to keep in close touch with other troop contributors and interested governments.
"The European Council gave strong backing to the Contact Group's efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement. The immediate need is for a durable ceasefire as a prerequisite to a successful negotiation.
"Finally, over dinner the heads of state and government had an informal discussion about the future development of the European Union, taking account of the need for further enlargement. That was the first such wide-ranging discussion that I can recall, and it was very welcome. I emphasised the Community's achievement in helping to bring 50 years of peace and prosperity to Western Europe. In squabbles over other matters that priceless achievement is often overlooked. I also commented that 40 years ago the founders of the Community had a broad vision of their objectives many years ahead and that those objectives had already been exceeded. Within a few years we shall have about 20 members and some time later perhaps as many as 27. The Union is changing beyond recognition. I said that it was time to rethink the Union's future constructively,

1101
and I set out the need for realism in the period ahead. That is essential if the European Union is to regain popular support.
"I do not underestimate the difficult tasks that the Union faces. But I was greatly encouraged by general acceptance of the need for flexibility and substantial changes so that the European Union can successfully meet the challenges ahead".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place.
On reading the communiqué of the summit, it seemed to me that, on the whole, it was a workmanlike rather than a dramatic one. For example, no major new initiatives were taken and there was no new grand course set for the development of the European Union; indeed, it was more a matter of building upon what had been achieved in the past in the hope that further progress would be made in the future.
At the outset I am bound to say that, on reading the communiqué and then the Prime Minister's Statement (which I received about five minutes before it was repeated in this House), parts of them seem to describe two different meetings. Faced with his own party in the other place, I can well understand that the Prime Minister may feel the necessity, so to speak, to gild one or two of the lilies or dress up some of the more difficult parts of the report.
I turn, first, to the section dealing with jobs and job creation. As regards what the Prime Minister said to the House of Commons and what the report actually says, the two are so diametrically opposed that I must tell the noble Viscount that when I was jotting down a few notes after reading the communique regarding the section dealing with employment—that is, not what the Prime Minister said—I actually wrote down the words:
"Glad to see that the Government now endorse a more interventionist approach to investment, training and job creation".
I urge noble Lords to read the communiqué and not to rely on the one sentence that appears in the Prime Minister's Statement.
In the employment section the communiqué says that it was agreed:
"The measures should include the following five key areas:
Improving employment opportunities … by promoting investment in vocational training.
Increasing the employment-intensiveness of growth…more flexible organisation of work … a wage policy which encourages job-creating investment … and … the promotion of initiatives, particularly at regional and local level, that create jobs".
It continues:
"Particular efforts are necessary to help young people … who have virtually no qualifications, by offering them either employment or training … The fight against long-term unemployment must be a major aspect of labour-market policy … Special attention should be paid in the difficult situation of unemployed women and older employees".
1102
What the Prime Minister said about all that was:
"Yet again the policies that we have been following in this country were widely accepted to be right for the European Union".
With great respect to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, what the Prime Minister said about that aspect of the communiqué is, frankly, a travesty of what seems to have been agreed. May I say a word about Northern Ireland—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Richard: My Lords, all I have is the communiqué. There is no point in Ministers shouting at me. I have the communiqué, which I have read, and I have what the Prime Minister said about it. All I am saying to the House and to Ministers, and particularly a Minister who may have been present, is that the two do not match up.
I hope I may say a word about Northern Ireland. The fact that the Community is to produce £240 million for Northern Ireland is extraordinarily welcome. It is interesting to note, too, that a good bit of intervention is called for if the £240 million is to be forthcoming. It is to provide support,
"in the areas of urban and rural regeneration, employment, cross-border development, social inclusion and investment promotion".
Is that money to be genuinely additional; in other words, do the Government have to put up their £240 million before the Community produces its £240 million? I am delighted to see the nods on the Government Front Bench. The only trouble is the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal is nodding his head up and down and the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, is nodding her head from left to right. It happens in all governments but no doubt before the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal gets up, perhaps someone can tell him whether the Government have to put up £240 million of their own money in order to get the £240 million from Brussels. If they have to match the Brussels contribution, can we have an assurance from the Government that they will match it? I pause for nods but there are none forthcoming. How wise!
I hope I may say one or two words about eastern Europe. I think the steps that have been taken at the summit were useful steps towards preparing for further enlargement. It is clear that no serious negotiations will take place with anyone until after 1996. I suppose, frankly, that that is right. The communiqué refers to the three Baltic states and to Slovenia. It seems that the objective is to bring those four also into the negotiating process for enlargement. Does that mean that we are now contemplating, and seriously envisaging, the possibility of an extra 10 members of the European Union, the six East Europeans plus the three Baltics and Slovenia, by a date towards the end of this century, and if so, what do the Government think that will do to the Maastricht timetable for a common European currency and for greater integration in Europe?
I now wish to say a word about Bosnia. It is an unhappy story in which confusion of aims has produced confusion of policies. I think there is very much a feeling—it does emerge from this special communiqué on Bosnia—that things are slipping in a way which

1103
makes them increasingly uncontrollable. I welcome the declaration and agree that UNPROFOR should remain so long as it is doing a helpful job. I recognise indeed that our troops there are becoming increasingly vulnerable. Can we be assured that economic and political pressure on the Serbs, both in Serbia and in Bosnia, will be kept up, and that there is now unanimity in the European Council on the next steps to be taken?
I said that much had been left over until after 1996. Do the Government recognise that this will no longer be a conference solely about the updating of Maastricht or the implementation of what was then agreed? It is beginning to assume a much greater importance with the increased possibilities of further enlargement by the end of the century. I think we have to get the institutional framework right if that enlargement is to succeed. I hope the Government are giving that some very serious thought indeed.
Finally, I wish to say one word about the president of the Commission, M. Delors. The communiqué was generous in what it had to say about his 10 years as president of the Commission. I think it was somewhat ungracious—if I may say so—of the Prime Minister not even to mention it in the course of his Statement. Whatever one thinks about the policies of M. Delors, he has pursued his vision with consistency, with determination and with a very considerable degree of success. I think it would have been better had the Government recognised that this afternoon in the Statement.
3.54 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches wish also to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement. The fact that the press regarded it as a rather dull summit is all to the good. It is nice when they cannot find anything particular to snipe at. We also are glad to see that the European Community is prepared to provide an additional £240 million over three years for Northern Ireland. However, I, too, would like the confirmation for which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked, as to how this stands in relation to what the British Government will have to produce.
I would also like to suggest that the people who have been sniping so hard at the additional payment to be made to the funds of the European Union should take note of the fact that we are getting an additional £240 million for Northern Ireland. That must be very welcome and a fairly good exchange for the extra £90 million that we are committed to paying.
Of course we welcome the attack on fraud. We in this House have a good record of having revealed and opposed the fraud that is taking place in the Community. Those on all sides of the House, the pro-Europeans and the anti-Europeans, are, I think, agreed that fraud is intolerable. Can the noble Lord tell us what means are being adopted to check up on what happens? We have heard acceptable statements about the unsuitability and the intolerable behaviour of people who carry out fraud, but we want to know what methods will be used to make sure that it stops, because that is the only thing that will make any difference.
1104
I was interested in the enthusiastic support for subsidiarity. I see that the Prime Minister defines it as the,
"principle of minimum community interference".
I believe it is also frequently referred to as being decisions made at the lowest level at which they can effectively be undertaken. Has it escaped the Government's attention that this definition of subsidiarity, which we all support, is entirely compatible with federalism as understood everywhere except in the United Kingdom? It is interesting that the so-called federalists, who are indeed federalists, in the rest of the Community accept subsidiarity as much as it is accepted by Her Majesty's Government because they have a better understanding of what federalism—as we in our party have always understood it —in fact means.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, we are, of course, very concerned about the increase in jobs and what that will really mean in terms of extra funds that may be forthcoming. To be fair to the Government they have of course always recognised that it was necessary to put more money into education and training. They have put a great deal more into education and training than have any Labour government that I can recall. We are glad to see that this is supported by the Commission and hope that the Government will take it up vigorously.
Additional money, which would of course also create jobs, is, I notice, forthcoming for the Channel Tunnel rail link. Does this mean that, with good fortune, we shall no longer have the same opportunity that President Mitterrand pointed out for admiring the Kent countryside on the way to the port, and if so, how quickly will this take place? Many Members of your Lordships' House had the pleasant experience of travelling in the tunnel and it is delightful to be able to get to Paris in three hours. However, we would have a much better journey if we could get to the Kent coast rather more swiftly than we did on the occasion to which I refer. Perhaps some of that money could be used to make a high speed link, which we have wanted to see for so long, really work.
Regarding the future of the European Union, of course we welcome the fact that enlargement is being accepted. We welcome the new additions to the Union and support entirely the move towards further enlargement. However, that must mean that we need to take a very good look at the institutions of the European Union. The language problem alone is horrific, when one thinks of all the possible permutations and combinations of languages which will be required. The dominance of the interpreters will increase to an intolerable degree unless something is done. However, that is only one aspect of the reform of the institutions which should be undertaken in anticipation of enlargement. Can we be told what is likely to happen in that regard?
There is also the question of Bosnia and the disturbances in the countries of the former Soviet Union. I have to refer to them in that way because I am quite unable to pronounce the names of the areas in which military action is taking place. Does that not underline the importance of much greater co-ordination on defence and foreign affairs in the European Union as a

1105
whole? If there had been better co-ordination we might have made a better job of dealing with the problems in Bosnia. We must anticipate that there will be problems of that kind in the future and consider how, as a union, we address the issues with which we are confronted. Up until now it has been too little and too late because we have not had the institutions and the machinery to deal with the problems as they arose.
We on these Benches very much support the continued presence of the UNPROFOR troops and the continuation of the humanitarian work in Bosnia. Having seen some of the work at first hand, I can say that it would be deplorable if we were unable to continue to give that help. We should not forget that there are probably hundreds of thousands of people alive today who would be dead if that help had not been given and who will probably die if the support is discontinued.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am very grateful for the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about the generality of what was achieved at Essen. The noble Baroness said that dullness could be a good thing. If she means by that what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, identified as a workmanlike performance building on what has already been achieved, I agree with her. These are matters of considerable importance. It is as well that we make sure that we have foundations in place before erecting substantial structures above the ground which, if built on poor foundations, might all too easily collapse. Therefore, I take what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said as general approval for what may be seen as a somewhat dull performance.
However, I take a somewhat different view from the noble Lord, Lord Richard, with the greatest reluctance, in relation to the contrast which he affected to draw between the communiqué and the Statement which I have just read out. It is worth pointing out to the noble Lord that virtually all of the themes which only three or fours years ago were seen as purely British preoccupations now appear, from what was agreed at Essen, to be in the very mainstream of European thinking or, to coin a phrase, at the heart of Europe—liberalisation; freeing up markets; reforming welfare systems; and above all (and I say this with the greatest respect to the noble Lord) reducing the cost of jobs.
Essen fully recognised that fighting unemployment means making labour markets work effectively. Indeed, the Council called for more work in areas such as improved vocational education. Even though the noble Lord, Lord Richard, did not recognise that, I am extremely grateful for the kind remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on the subject. It is a matter to which I referred during the course of the debate on the humble Address a few days ago.
As regards Northern Ireland, I am delighted that both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness welcomed the promise of money. I am able to give the noble Lord the reassurance he seeks. The funding agreed will be genuinely additional money from Community funds and genuinely additional money in terms of Government
1106
spending. It is in addition to current government budgets for Northern Ireland. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
So far as concerns the noble Lord's remarks about the Baltic states, I believe that we can conclude from the proceedings at Essen that the Baltic states have taken a step on the road towards membership. Both he and the noble Baroness referred to the importance of looking at the Union's institutional arrangements in the light of the substantial increase in the number of members which the negotiations foresee. Those are not only the three members from EFTA but also a possible six members from Central and Eastern Europe. If the Baltic states are to join those countries in the Union, clearly the dangers to which the noble Baroness drew attention should be at the forefront of our minds. I certainly do not dissent when she makes that point.
There was an expectation, which in the event was not realised, that Bosnia might easily elbow out all other matters, however important, during the course of the Essen conversations. That did not happen, and that was right. Nevertheless, Bosnia occupied a great deal of attention, and rightly so. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked whether pressure on the Serbs—both the Belgrade Serbs and the Bosnian Serbs—would be kept up. The answer is clearly yes. The noble Lord will be aware that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and his French opposite number, M. Juppé, have been at the forefront of the pressure on Mr. Milosevic. Indeed, in the Statement which she repeated in your Lordships' House last week, my noble friend Lady Chalker drew attention to a glimpse of hope from the delegation of Bosnian Serbs from their so-called capital, Pale. That gave some hope that cracks are beginning to appear there. Nevertheless, it would be unwise to pin too much hope on those developments.
We should remember what the UNPROFOR forces were sent to Bosnia to achieve. Initially their only objective was to deliver humanitarian aid. I certainly welcome the remarks of the noble Baroness drawing attention to the remarkable job which the UNPROFOR forces have achieved in delivering aid, and, as she so rightly said, saving hundreds of thousands of lives in the process. However, I believe that your Lordships would wish me to underline the fact that the safety of our own troops is nevertheless paramount. If it becomes impossible for us to continue to carry out the task which the United Nations has given the UNPROFOR forces, then it will be up to those providing those forces to decide whether they can continue to do that job. At the moment the judgment is that the job is still doable, or substantially so, and we are all too aware of the possible consequences of withdrawal. However, I can assure your Lordships that contingency plans are in place in case withdrawal becomes necessary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned fraud. All I add to what she said is that this conference has been a considerable breakthrough from the point of view of Her Majesty's Government. It is a question in which I know that many Members of your Lordships' House—I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, sitting in his place—have taken a considerable interest and, if I may say so, rightly too.

1107
The noble Baroness asked me what specific initiatives the United Kingdom managed to secure. I put the issue in that way quite deliberately in view of our own position on the matter.
We have seen several United Kingdom initiatives coming to fruition. In particular, the Essen conference called on the Court of Auditors fully to exercise powers that we ensured were put in place at Maastricht. It also called for the anti-fraud proposal on criminal aspects of fraud to be agreed by June next year. We secured all our objectives; and I can assure your Lordships that there will be no retreat in this battle. I am delighted to say that everyone at Essen was committed to ensuring that full use was made of the Treaty provisions. I believe that your Lordships will ensure that I and my noble friend will keep your Lordships fully informed on this important matter in the weeks and months to come.
The only other matter on which I wish to comment, with your Lordships' permission, is that of subsidiarity, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I am well aware that federalism can mean different things to different nations, in particular in western Europe. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that we have taken a substantial step towards achieving a high degree of unanimity in the course of the Essen conversations for our own objective for a co-operative Europe of nations rather than the united states of Europe, which so many of us in this country have feared for so long.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it seems clear from the Statement that the meeting was a considerable achievement, not to say triumph, by our own Prime Minister, who seems to have achieved a good many important national objectives. I know that my noble friend will understand when I say that to many of us the fact that the Prime Minister has had that success is a very cheering and encouraging factor on which we would wish, very respectfully, to express our congratulations to him and to the Government.
I have only a few brief questions to ask. First, is it not a matter of great congratulation that £240 million has been obtained to help the position in Northern Ireland? That is a considerable achievement and will do a great deal of good.
My noble friend was less precise regarding new members of the Community. Apart from the three which are now definitely joining, and Norway which we hope will do so sooner or later, what are the other states under consideration? He referred, I believe, to half a dozen. It would be interesting to know what are those states, obviously without my noble friend committing himself. That seems to me fairly important.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, sought to rebuke my noble friend, for not referring to M. Delors. As M. Delors is going, it is probably tactful not to say what one thinks of him. I think that on this subject silence is golden.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he said, in particular for reminding me that I did not respond to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, about M. Delors. I believe that we can all agree with the noble Lord that M. Delors has shown consistency, single-mindedness and determination
1108
during the tenure of his presidency, and that M. Delors is a Christian gentleman. We have had our differences with him in the way in which we saw the European Community developing, but we certainly wish him well in what appears to be a well-earned retirement—that is, if he does not change his mind.
I should like to point out that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister signed the communiqué to which the noble Lord referred. Since the noble Lord will have read the communiqué, he will know that all the European Union leaders subscribed to the thanks which the communiqué expressed to M. Delors for his year as President of the Commission.
I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his analysis of the achievements of our right honourable friend. For reasons best known to the yellow press, my right honourable friend has had something of a difficult time in public prints lately. I only hope that they will give honour where honour is due. My right honourable friend's very remarkable capacity to negotiate under the most difficult conditions has been evidenced time and again during his premiership, whether in Northern Ireland, Maastricht or in other European fora. It is entirely appropriate for my noble friend and myself to pay tribute to that skill and perhaps to speculate that another Prime Minister would not have brought home the bacon in quite the same way. My noble friend is perfectly right: in particular the Northern Ireland financing is a considerable achievement.
My noble friend asked what other states are in view. There are the six associate members known as the CEE. That is, the Visegrad Four, plus Bulgaria and Romania. On top of that, there is discussion for Malta and Cyprus to be part of the next round of negotiations. I understand that that status, which was agreed at the Corfu Summit, was confirmed. I hope that that answers my noble friend.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I regret that I cannot entirely share the unadulterated enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on the results of the Essen conference. I should have thought that they contain nothing which gives rise to the jubilation better expressed as game, set and match.
As the noble Viscount has been good enough to mention, I have a particular interest in the whole question of fraud and irregularity. I have not had the opportunity yet of seeing the Statement. However, I gather from the noble Viscount that there was wide agreement at the Essen conference as to the increased and more effective steps that are to be taken within member states to prevent fraud and irregularity and to enforce the law within each individual country; and the Commission concurred.
I regret to say that it is quite evident that the Government have not read the report of the Court of Auditors covering the year 1993. There are precedents for Ministers of high office not reading important documents. In particular, I refer to the Treaty of Maastricht which was not read at the time by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the noble Viscount will recall. The report mentions the necessity for preventing

1109
fraud within individual member states. Incidentally, it does not state whether the institutions of the Community are to be regarded as part of the state of Belgium for the purpose of enforcement of the law in Belgium and the entry of police into the Commission premises. It would be interesting to know that.
However, one matter is quite clear. The Government have not assimilated the fact that the main part of the 1993 report of the Court of Auditors dealt with the very serious shortcomings of the Commission itself. There has been no indication from the Government that the stringent criticisms that have been made over the past 10 years by the Court of Auditors, and reiterated with even greater emphasis in the more recent report, have been understood, assimilated, or even supported by Her Majesty's Government. I therefore hope that by the time the European finance Bill comes before your Lordships' House, on, I believe, 9th and 10th January, Members of the House will have assimilated the contents of the report. I assure the noble Viscount that many of us in all parts of the House are quite determined that the Commission shall be forced to take the action which has been pressed upon it for many years by the Court of Auditors, but which has not so far been forcefully supported by Her Majesty's Government.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, until the noble Lord uttered the last few words of his intervention, I thought for one glorious moment that I should be able to agree with almost everything he said. If I may say so, he is less than fair to Her Majesty's Government, particularly in view of the assurances which I gave his noble friend Lord Richard. The United Kingdom has been at the forefront in making sure that fraud has leapt to the top of the agenda in the administration of European matters. The Court of Auditors was given power by the much derided Maastricht Treaty, which was derided by the noble Lord himself. The Essen summit called on the Court of Auditors fully to exercise those powers, as I made clear a moment ago. He will know as well as I do that tackling fraud is a battle which will never come to an end. It is up to us to ensure that we put the machinery in place which will tackle it effectively. Time will be the judge and I am reassured that the noble Lord himself will be up there in the front line with us making sure that fraud is tackled in the way that he and I want.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, instead of a five-minute speech I should like to ask my noble friend a simple question. Is there any further news of the dissidents, representing about a quarter of the membership of the Karadzic Assembly of Parliament at Paleé, who came to Belgrade last week and declared their support for peace?
Viscount Cranborne: No, my Lords, I can assure my noble friend that I have nothing to add to what my noble friend Lady Chalker said last week. However, if there is any change I am sure that my noble friend will come to the House and inform it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister three questions. First, in relation to
1110
fraud, there were reports last week that there was under consideration a proposal that members of all police forces in the European Community should be allowed to cross borders to make their investigations. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that that is not true and that the Labour Government—I am anticipating matters, I am sorry—the present Government will not in any way agree to it.
Secondly, I note that the Commission will contribute £240 million to Northern Ireland over three years. I make that £80 million a year. Does that mean that our estimate of our net contribution of £3,500 million a year for the next three years will be reduced by £80 million for each of those years?
Finally, on the matter of subsidiarity, can the Minister assure me that the Government are more concerned about it than they appeared to be when they answered questions last week on the British double-decker bus? Can the Minister assure me that the Commission will now ensure that it will not bring forward the kind of regulations and directives that would force Britain to phase out double-decker buses or do anything else quite so stupid?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, taking the last question first, I can assure the noble Lord that the aim of any directive should be to have an open European market in all buses and coaches, including double-deckers. That will not only increase our chances of preserving a valued symbol and an extremely efficient form of transport in this country but it will also enable us to have a better chance of exporting such vehicles abroad, including to the countries of Western Europe. I believe I can give the noble Lord the reassurance that he needs on his question.
As regards crime, the noble Lord will be well aware that there are already a number of proposals in place which will be further explored, particularly during the coming French presidency, to try to ensure that there is co-operation between nations on crime, as opposed to the supranational arrangements which the noble Lord fears. I am also sure that we shall be able to keep him informed on the matter, as negotiations develop.
As regards the money for Northern Ireland, I do not believe I have anything to add to what I have already said. I can reassure the noble Lord and others who asked about it that this is new money both from the Government's point of view and from the point of view of the European budget.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, on Northern Ireland, will my noble friend confirm that it was Jacques Delors who took the lead in the Commission and the Council in pressing that the £240 million should be given to Northern Ireland?
Secondly, will he also confirm that, on fraud, the most interesting point in the communiqué, if one reads it carefully, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, encouraged us to do, is the admission there that fraud is primarily the responsibility of the governments of the member states? When we come to debate the issue—as I hope we shall—I propose to prove that point. Is it not the position that in an incautious remark on Radio 4 recently, the president of the Court of Auditors said that

1111
80 per cent. of the fault rested with the governments of the member states, not the Commission at all? All the Commission does is to reimburse the member states for what those member states have spent. If we are going to shoot somebody, ought we not to start by shooting the right person?
Perhaps I may raise a third point. I am greatly in favour of further enlargement of the Community. Will my noble friend confirm that, before that enlargement can take place, it will be necessary to have a total reconstruction of the finances of the Community? That reconstruction will necessarily carry with it a root and branch review of many of the policies of the Community, including the common agricultural policy.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, whose expertise in such matters is very much greater than mine. I can confirm that the Essen conference received an initial proposal from M. Delors that the Commission should provide the money which I have described. We are duly grateful to him for his help in that.
As regards fraud, I very much look forward to my noble friend's speech. I can confirm to him that, as I understand it, the communiqué makes the references which he described.
On enlargement, I can also confirm that there will need to be a reconstruction of many policies before an enlarged Community can hope to work effectively. That point was made by both the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. One aspect, if not the most important aspect, of that reappraisal will be a further look at the common agricultural policy.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I too thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made in the other place. I was particularly glad to hear the references to the Channel Tunnel rail link and the west coast main line. The noble Lord, the Leader of the House, will be aware that many Members of Parliament of both Houses have for a number of years pressed for the modernisation and improvement of these essential elements of infrastructure to enable the manufacturing heartlands of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow to get their products into the centre of the European market. We are glad that the Heads of Government of the European Union nations believe that these transport infrastructure elements are essential parts of the trans-European network. Bearing in mind those factors, I ask the Government what efforts will be made to ensure that these projects are brought to an early conclusion. The delays up to now have been scandalous. What urgency do the Government now place upon these public infrastructure projects?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord welcomes the construction of the Channel Tunnel rail link. Much of the speed that he desires is in your Lordships' hands with the introduction of the Hybrid Bill on this subject in your Lordships' House in the coming Session.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, does my noble friend recall our recent debate about the report of the Court of Auditors and the frauds mentioned therein?
1112
Does he also recall the significant difference between what came out of that debate—namely, that the Council took absolutely no notice of what the Court of Auditors said—and what happened at the latest meeting of the Council? Is it not a fact that the change has come about through the efforts of the Prime Minister in insisting that the role of the Court of Auditors be improved? Further, is it not true that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is a little ungenerous in not seeing any improvement? He sought immediate perfection, which is never possible. This is a big improvement.
I raise one query. The Commission now fully backs the move to settle these frauds and deal with them. However, I notice that the Statement states that a number of Members of the Council also gave support. Are there other members who are not so forthcoming in their support, and are those members significantly related to where the inquiries are most needed?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I agree with the first part of my noble friend's question. However, I would not dream of commenting on his second question.

Agricultural Tenancies Bill [H.L.]
4.33 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert:
("(iii) in any case where a residence forms part of the tenancy, containing a statement that at the end of the tenancy any residence occupied by the farm business tenant must be vacated, and setting out such arrangements, if any, as have been agreed between the parties with a view to ensuring that alternative accommodation will be available to the tenant and his family at the end of the tenancy.").
The noble Lord said: With so many leaving the Chamber it is depressing that your Lordships think that agriculture is so much less important than the European Union. I rise to move Amendment No. 10 and beg leave to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 11. I believe that on all sides of the House and industry the object of the Bill is to achieve something together. What we are trying to achieve is that landlords should be willing to let their land, thereby enlarging the size of the tenanted sector; in other words, we want to make the legislation work.
I suggest to your Lordships that the family home has been at the crux of the problems relating to agricultural tenancy legislation over the years. The family home is an emotional problem. It was suggested to me recently by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, that it would be on the day that the first family was evicted from its fanning home under this Bill that the effectiveness of this legislation would break down. I suggest that it is in the interests of both landlord and tenant to try to minimise the trauma that will arise at the end of an agricultural business tenancy.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, in his amendment relating to whether or not Clause 1 should stand part addresses this question. However, I respectfully suggest to him that he addresses it in a way that is not in the spirit of the Bill, or indeed in the spirit of what has been

1113
agreed between the various sides of the industry. My amendment is much more modest. It simply seeks to ensure that the landlord and tenant, on the day they go into disagreement or shortly before, have sat down and thought about it. I have suggested that they should be required to give notice, or that there should be an acknowledgement and acceptance within the text of the tenancy agreement, that the effect of this Bill is that when the tenancy comes to an end the tenant will have to quit the main residence.
I believe that when the two parties sit down to consider this matter they will realise that it will be a bad moment for both of them unless they think constructively on what can be done about it. I hope that a good landlord will say to a tenant, just as a good employer says to an employee, "What about pension arrangements? Have we got something sorted out for the time when you will not have this source of income any more?"—or, in the case of a farm business tenancy, "this house".
If a landlord values his reputation he does not want to have a tenant who has made no provision for the future when he comes to the end of the tenancy. I suspect that intelligent landlords and tenants will sit down together. The landlord may say, "I want you to undertake to take out a pension plan, and perhaps I will give a modest rent remission in consideration of your doing so"; or the landlord may contribute a small part to the cost of such a plan. Alternatively, he may pay the outgoings on a mortgage for another house to which the tenant can move, as very often happens in the case of a farm manager today.
The implication of my amendment is that the notice condition will become mandatory for all farm business tenancies that involve the tenant living in a house, the tenancy of which he will have to give up at the end of that tenancy. I recognise that the objection to this is: what happens if the landlord and tenant do not reach such an agreement? The danger is perceived to be that the tenancy will then fall back as a tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act. I am not absolutely clear why that will be so awful, but if it is awful perhaps we can word it in another way so that there is some other sanction. However, what I seek to achieve is that landlord and tenant should specifically be encouraged to sit down to think about the problem right at the beginning, before it arises.
Lord Carter: This amendment is very helpful in introducing the important subject of a tenant's home as part of a tenancy. We feel that our Amendment No. 13, which defines a residential farm business tenancy, is perhaps a better way to deal with it. Certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in introducing this matter has for the first time in our discussion of the Bill raised the central issue of the tenant's home.
As I and others have said at Second Reading, a tenanted farm is not just a means of earning a living; it is often the home of a family. If, as I am sure the Government intend, there are a number of what I call decent long-term arrangements under farm business tenancies, there may be a situation where people obtain
1114
tenancies in their early 30s which perhaps go on for 10 or 15 years. In their late 40s, having established themselves in the area, the farmer may be chairman of the parish council, his wife a school governor and the children educated in the village. Their home is there. For some reason or other they find that the tenancy is coming to an end and they are out of a house. There is also a problem as to what happens in amalgamations.
Where there is an oral but not written tenancy agreement, unless there is a provision of this kind in the Bill to look after the home I believe that the tenant will be even more exposed than he already is, because this relies upon an agreement in writing which will have to be implemented. We shall return to the arguments for and against having an oral or written tenancy. If there is an oral agreement, how is the tenant protected when there is no statement anywhere about what should happen to the family home?
The noble Lord's amendment relies on well-meaning attitudes of landlords. Those of us who have been, sadly, involved professionally in tenancy succession cases over the years know just how tough some landlords can be when it comes to obtaining occupancy of a farm to get it back. I have a fear that some landlords would not be too keen on having to provide alternative accommodation.
It is important to remember that we are not dealing with office blocks but with people's homes as well as their livings. Although it is well meant, encouragement is not enough. At a later stage of the Bill, with our Amendment No. 13 we will perhaps want to obtain the support of the Chamber for an amendment which will mean that a tenant who moves in and whose home is a part of the tenancy will be protected when that tenancy comes to an end.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for raising this subject. I did so at Second Reading. I entirely agree with him that, if there are some hard cases of eviction after, say, some 15 years of being in a house, we shall return to the dramas that occurred in 1970 and 1976.
I do not know that the noble Lord's amendment is correct—he himself is not sure either—but it is a matter that we should follow up. I speak now off the top of my head but, if the landlord at the initial stage cannot provide, or hope to provide, alternative accommodation, could not low cost housing be provided, or the local authority enter into some form of covenant, or whatever, to provide for it? I am glad that the issue has been aired.
Lord Carter: There will be occasions when the landlord does not have alternative accommodation to offer and one can understand that. In moving the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made the point that if that were the case and the parties sit down and discuss the matter, there could perhaps be a financial arrangement whereby the tenant farmer would have a sum of money when the tenancy ends or in one form or another is helped to buy another house. That is the other way to do it.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. This is not a perfect

1115
amendment, as I am sure he will agree. The amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is about the move—I am not sure whether we are discussing it at the same time—comes back to what the industry agreed. It breaks the flexibility, the achievement of which was so heavily fought for. It took four years for the industry to agree on this matter.
One recognises the problem, but the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is simply lifting out of the 1986 Act, the 1976 Act and the 1948 Act, what are called the deadly sins. If the tenant had not committed one of those deadly sins, he was there for life. That must destroy the whole industrial agreement. I hope that some agreement on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, can be sought, to show that both parties, landlord and tenant, have in fact addressed the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is acknowledged as a great expert outside the Chamber—he was on the Northfield Committee—and is one of the leading experts in the Chamber. If he were advising the landlord, he would simply say to him, "Well, apply for a shorthold tenancy for the house and therefore escape this problem." I do not say that that is the way to solve the problem and I am not sure whether my noble friend can offer any support at all in the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for his reference to my expertise. Of course, I defer to him in his superior knowledge of the seven deadly sins. The point of my intervention was not to say that there should be lifetime tenancies. That is an entirely different point. I am sure that we all want to ensure that where the home is central to the tenancy, there must be some means—perhaps in the way suggested by the noble Lord—to require the landlord and tenant to consider the matter. I should like to make the requirement a little stronger, but that is the nub of the argument.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for introducing the amendments so clearly. I recognise that he and other noble Lords who have spoken in support of them want to ensure that tenants are fully aware from the start that they will have to vacate the house at the end of the tenancy. That is the point of the amendments. It may also be sensible in some cases for the parties to make advance arrangements for rehousing the tenant, if the landlord has a house available and wants to commit himself at that stage. If the tenancy was for a long term—say, 15 or 20 years—such a commitment might not be appropriate.
However, I am not convinced that it is necessary to make that proposal part of the notice condition. I should certainly not want it to be a mandatory requirement to exchange notices where the tenancy includes a residence. Where would that place people who, by oversight, failed to exchange notices—a problem that was identified by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, himself. If the tenancy was not a farm business tenancy the tenant might, for example, lose his rights to compensation for any improvements.
1116
It is essential to keep the notice as simple as possible. If the notice is to be effective in ensuring that a farm business tenancy which complies with the necessary criteria at the beginning of the tenancy is to remain a farm business tenancy, the parties must exchange valid notices. We do not want the notice provisions to contain traps for people. That is why we have made them as simple as possible. The notices must identify the holding and make it clear that the person giving the notice—both parties have to give one—intends the tenancy to be and to remain a farm business tenancy. Surely no one will give such a notice without finding out what a farm business tenancy is and what are the implications of it.
A tenant will, therefore, be aware that he or she will have to quit the whole holding, including the house, at the end of the term. In my view there is no need for any additional provisions. I am sure that it is not in the best interests of either party, either the tenant or the landlord, to complicate the notice by adding extra provisions, even with the best of motives, as I accept the noble Lord has. Therefore, I hope that he will feel able to reflect on what I have said and withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull: Would my noble friend consider a printed notice where—as there is with shorthold tenancies—the back of the notice has an explanatory point stating the rights of the tenant and the obligations of the agreement? Would he consider that such information should perhaps be printed on the back of any notice that may be served?
Earl Howe: My noble friend may be right that on shorthold tenancy agreements that is generally the case. One could argue that a mechanism or a form of words along the lines that he suggested would represent good practice. But, as I said, I am inherently suspicious of the idea that we should complicate the Bill any further at the moment. I shall reflect on all the points that have been made.
Lord Northbourne: Before the noble Earl sits down, I am not entirely sure that he has dealt with my second amendment, which relates to the fact that the residential tenancy would have to be a tenancy where the notice condition applied. My argument is that the letting of a residential tenancy is so important that it should not just be done by Bill and Charlie over the gate and not be recorded in writing.
Earl Howe: I believe I said that I would not want it to be a mandatory requirement for the parties to exchange notices where the tenancy included a residence. What happens if they fail to exchange notices, either by inadvertence or for another reason? That would place both parties in a terrible trap through no fault of their own.
From what the noble Lord said, I think he will agree that his idea merits further thought. However, I do not wish him to take any comfort from that in coming back at a later stage. I feel quite strongly that, while the intentions behind the amendment are perfectly valid, it would be a mistake to build this kind of provision into the Bill.
Lord Northbourne: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I shall not press the amendment but I feel that this issue

1117
needs considerably more thought. I do not feel happy about the idea of it being possible to create a long tenancy with residential implications merely by word of mouth. With the proviso that I shall probably come back and perhaps would like to discuss the issue with the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 16, at end insert:
("() Once notice has been served under subsection (4) above, the tenancy shall be a farm business tenancy for the term of the tenancy, whether or not the character of the tenancy continues to be wholly or primarily agricultural.").
The noble Lord said: We can deal with this amendment reasonably briefly because we have already covered the ground to some extent. The amendment concerns the character of the agricultural tenancy. We now have it on record that once a farm business tenancy, always a farm business tenancy, and that as long as the changes are within the terms of the notices which are changed the nature of the tenancy can change fairly drastically without altering its status as a farm business tenancy. This is a probing amendment because it uses the words "wholly or primarily". We want to get it quite clear on the record that, whether the character of the tenancy continues to be wholly or primarily agricultural, it will be a farm business tenancy more or less whatever happens.
The character of the tenancy may change substantially. There may be a golf course or a nature trail and the farm may become a mere adjunct to a boarding house or a bed and breakfast establishment. We are not here dealing with office blocks. As I said on the previous amendment, 80 per cent. of our land mass is rural. I am sure the Government hope that a good deal more of that 80 per cent. will become tenancies under the Bill. If there is an increase in tenancies, there could be a dramatic change in the nature of our countryside directly as a result of the Bill. We want to have it on the record that whether it is wholly or primarily agricultural, does not matter. Whether the character changes, once a farm business tenancy, always a farm business tenancy. Groups outside the House which are interested in conservation and in our rural structure will be very interested to hear the noble Earl's reply on this point. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I recognise that this is intended as a probing amendment. I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Lord that the Bill as drafted already achieves precisely the result that he appears to be seeking. Under Clause 1(1) the tenancy continues to be a farm business tenancy if it meets the notice conditions and the business conditions. It does not have to comply with the agriculture condition as well. Therefore, once the notice conditions are met—that the notice has been validly served and the tenancy is primarily or wholly agricultural at the beginning of the tenancy—it does not matter whether the character of the tenancy continues to be primarily agricultural thereafter. This is precisely the point of exchanging the notices before the tenancy
1118
begins. It is true that the tenancy must continue to meet the business conditions, but those do not impose an onerous requirement. They require only that some part of the land comprised in the tenancy is farmed for the purposes of a trade or business. That is very far from saying that the character of the tenancy must be primarily agricultural. I hope that the noble Lord will be sufficiently reassured by my reply to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: We now have it very firmly on the record that the Government have succeeded in bringing forward an Agricultural—I emphasise the word "Agricultural"—Tenancies Bill in which a farm tenancy, to use the words of the Minister, does not have to comply with the agricultural conditions. The case rests. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carter: I certainly do not wish to repeat the arguments used in the Second Reading debate; but as Clause 1 is central to the operation of the Bill, we now have a chance before we move into more detailed consideration to reflect on where we are and where we are likely to go. The point which primarily concerns this side of the Committee—indeed, almost solely as far as I can make out—is the danger that the Bill and its move towards simplification, deregulation, and so on, will tend to throw out the tenant with the bath water. That is our feeling.
I wish to introduce a brief quotation which was sent to me by the Farm Tenancies Action Group, whose motto is "Fighting to give tenant farmers a fair deal for the future". The quotation is as follows:
"It takes years (sometimes generations) of patient and self-abnegating toil and investment to put heart into soil, to develop and gain the advantage of suitable rotations of crops, and to provide proper drains, hedges and ditches. Even to build up a herd of dairy cattle, between whose conception and first lactation at least three years must elapse, takes time and planning, whilst to disperse the work of a lifetime of careful breeding is but the task of an afternoon by a qualified auctioneer. Even within the space of a single year the interval between seed time and harvest, between expenditure and return, with all the divers dangers and changes of weather, pest or benignity of climate is sufficient to put an impecunious but honest cultivator at risk without adding to his problems any uncertainty as to his next year's tenure".
Those are the words in 1978 of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, who was speaking in his judicial capacity, I suspect upstairs, in a legal case. But the quotation puts the case extremely well.
Our detailed consideration of the Bill between Second Reading and today has confirmed our doubts. Perhaps I may deal immediately with the industry agreement which is continually referred to. I would suggest to the Minister in the friendliest way possible that it is not always the case that the leaders of an organisation or even a political party necessarily represent the views of all its members. Indeed, it is the case that even at the top of an organisation there are differences of view which are sometimes expressed on the television screen. Therefore, I hope the noble Earl will not make too much

1119
of the fact that, because there is an industry agreement, everyone in the industry necessarily agrees with the point.
I have already said that the tenant farmer action groups, the Farmers' Union of Wales and individual farmers have all expressed their anxieties about the possible results of the Bill if it becomes law. It is interesting to consider what might be described as almost the change of stance within the industry over a very short period of time. Only two or three years ago influential people in the industry were looking for a minimum fixed-term tenancy—we do not have that; they were looking for adequate compensation provisions to be part of the statutory framework—that has been achieved; they were looking for compensation for disturbance—which perhaps is in the Bill or perhaps not; they were looking for the 1986 Act rent formula and not the open market that we have. This has all changed within only two or three years.
They wanted clear statutory obligations for maintenance and repairs—it is unclear whether those are in the Bill; they wanted a statutory first option for the sitting tenant to accept the revised terms of rent at the end of his tenancy—they do not have that; and they also wanted a special provision to give some security for the tenant of a farmhouse. As we have just heard, they do not have that, either. We shall have to deal with this whole question at later stages of the Bill; but we are now discussing, as it were, the heart of the Bill and the definition of the tenancy—the whole business of the written and the unwritten agreement.
I know from discussions with the Minister that this is intended to be helpful and that the department would see the unwritten agreement, if it were not covered by the Bill, as a way around the Bill. The department believes that people would enter into unwritten agreements just to get around the Bill. That is unlikely. But if the unwritten agreement were excluded, presumably the tenant or the landlord would have to rely on the common law. They might be in a farm business tenancy; they might be under the Landlord and Tenant Act. Indeed, this point is made in paragraph 8 of the detailed proposals put by MAFF on the consultation.
I am interested to know why the Government rejected proposals by the Agricultural Law Association, which recommended that all agreements should be in writing. It is a small point but this is a good chance to raise it. Can a fixed-term tenancy of five years or more be underwritten under Section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925?
The other argument for the Bill is that it will increase the number of new entrants into farming and a tenancy. We all know that young people have the quality of supreme self-confidence. They are sure that they will succeed and often the age of 40 seems so far away as not to be worth bothering about. In my professional experience I have seen too many examples of youngsters who have taken on a share or a partnership agreement on penal terms. They are taking a frightful risk with their health, to say nothing of their finances, just because they must farm. There is a real danger that we
1120
might see imprudent bidding for further term tenancies from that class of would-be farmer under the Act. I do not believe that there is any protection against that.
The central question is this: would most landlords let to these young tenants anyway? I believe that most agents and landlords would let to the devil they know. It would be the established farmer, eager to expand, who would bid for and get the neighbouring farm on some sort of term.
I referred to industrial organisations. For some time there were those who were promoting the idea of retirement tenancies. Those tenancies are certainly not in the Bill. They are a form of a term tenancy without a lot of disadvantage. They recognise the landowner's need to have a definite date for the end of the tenancy. A start was made with that in the industry only a year or two ago and it has changed quite dramatically.
If the slate is to be wiped clean—and this Bill certainly does that—the question to be asked is this. Why do the Government need, in the national interest, to have any involvement in the details of the legal relations between landlord and tenant? I am not saying they do not. But it is interesting briefly to explore why over a long period of years there has been intervention by government in the legal relationship between the landlord and the tenant of agricultural land. We can argue that it is for the protection of the supply of food; to ensure that natural resources are being used to the best advantage; in order to maintain the economic well-being of rural communities; and to remedy social injustice. I believe that the matter of the food supply can be left to the common agricultural policy and GATT, not the landlord and tenant legislation.
We shall have amendments later to deal with the resources. This Bill might militate against the best use of national resources in terms of conservation, and we shall deal with that. Concern for the environment is a compulsory element in the policy considerations of any western government and will remain so for many years to come. But, as I said, the landlord and tenant system is not the vehicle to enforce environmental policies. We do not want a Bill which makes that any harder, and this one may well do that. If short-term tenancies seem to result in farmers taking less care of the countryside or overfarming the land, there is certainly justification for government intervention in the relationship between landlord and tenant.
We all know that the rural community is not structured as it was when the first agricultural tenancy protection laws were passed at the end of the last century or as the situation was in 1947. Your Lordships will remember that it was a Labour Government who introduced for the first time security of tenure for tenants and the subsequent Acts of Parliament. I do not believe that we should surrender to the notion that the way should be cleared for the easy and swift growth of the mega-farm. I know that a great number of noble Lords opposite will agree with that. Despite the steady decline in the numbers of those engaged in the industry, agriculture is still a source of income for a substantial proportion of our rural population. That income is best

1121
protected by supporting the existence of a middle range of farms, which have been so heavily under threat in recent years and which will remain so.
I have dealt with the point about, the flow of new entrants. There will be some well-intentioned landowners who will set part of their estates aside for letting to young new entrants. That will be an act of philanthropy. Higher rents, more capital input and better farming practice will result from a let to a neighbouring established enterprise or to a mature farmer who brings equipment and know-how from a previous farm. Furthermore, the whole concept of the farming ladder is seriously flawed for all but a minority, as several reports on council smallholdings have shown. We believe that the landlord and tenant relationship does have a relevance to the economic and social well-being of rural areas. The fact that this Bill leaves unmolested the existing arrangements under the 1986 Act is welcome.
I now return to the point of social injustice. I have said throughout, at Second Reading and in all the amendments which we are dealing with, that we are out to increase the security of the tenant. In many other areas of law such as consumer protection, the sale of goods, company law, housing and in business tenancies the state intervenes to ensure that the party in the weaker bargaining position is not commercially abused. I ask: why should farm business tenancies be an exception?
We are in agreement on all sides over the importance of providing incentives for landowners to let farms. The tenant must have sufficient security to enable him to earn a decent living. The right balance has to be struck between the power of the landlord and the tenant. All of us engaged in the industry know that the playing field is not level at the moment and that the scales are not even. The landlord has an advantage because there is a substantial number of farmers who would like to get into tenanted farming if at all possible. We have to make sure that the tenant farmer is protected under statute.
I have already said that farming is a long-term enterprise, particularly in the case of a traditional livestock farm. One has to plan ahead and make considerable investment in stock, machinery and quota rights. With short-term lets tenants will face constant uncertainty and they will be unable to plan ahead.
I remind the Committee of a point I raised at Second Reading. The RICS survey showed that 50 per cent. of both the occupied and the bare land units were expected to be let within the first two years of the five-year term or less. As I said then, that is short-termism with a vengeance. I believe that the established farmer will gain. The result will be fewer farmers, larger holdings and not much hope for the young farmer or new entrant to gain access to the industry.
If it proves possible to let farms and land on a short-term basis, we fear that land may be exploited for short-term gain which would result in long-term detriment to the land. I refer the Committee to the quotation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, with which I started.
In conclusion, I believe that the industry group which I have referred to, and which I am sure will be referred to again, is well intentioned but misguided. If this Bill
1122
becomes law I believe that there may be a re-ordering of the existing arrangements as regards the share farming and the contract farming, the Gladstone v. Bower arrangements and the rest of it. These are not the new lettings that we all want to see. I do not believe that they will come about. I believe that there will be a tendency to have fewer and larger farms. Our concern about the rural structure persuades us that Clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Middleton: I try not to make Second Reading speeches in Committee, but the noble Lord has referred to what is known as "the industry agreement". Perhaps I may say this very briefly at this point. I shall not weary the Committee again when the same argument applies in amendments which are to follow.
This Bill aims to save the landlord and tenant system from terminal decline. One of the main causes of this decline was very well put by my noble friend the Minister at Second Reading. It is the tangle of legislation which has grown up around farm letting. The whole point of this Bill is to cut away that tangle. Subject to certain safeguards, it allows landlord and tenant to negotiate their own terms. This is not a measure which has been put together in haste. For several years the main components of the farming industry have worked together and have finally agreed the best way to reform the system. This Bill embodies its conclusions very precisely.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has put his case so well that I am sorry to have to say this. I am surprised that the Opposition feel that they are in a better position to find a solution than the Tenant Farmers' Association, the National Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs, the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers.
Members of the Committee opposite have produced some useful proposals for amending this Bill which I shall support in due course, but they have tabled amendments, including the next one, where the criticisms which I have just voiced apply. I have promised not to repeat them. I think that I understand why the noble Lord is opposing Clause 1 standing part of the Bill. It must, however, be part of the Bill. It is the foundation of the Bill and without it the Bill is nonsense.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I am confused and concerned about the second Second Reading speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. The noble Lord's first Second Reading speech was much better because at that point he supported the principle of the Bill and recognised the importance of freeing the agricultural industry and allowing more tenancies. I think that he said that the number of tenancies had dropped by 25 per cent. since he served on the Northfield Committee. The noble Lord must have been very young when he served on that committee because it sat 15 years ago.
When replying to the previous amendment, the noble Lord said that he rested his case on that amendment on the fact that the Government were introducing a form of

1123
business tenancy which may not have any relationship to agriculture. I think that that is what the noble Lord said. I wish that agriculture were so simple.
What the Government have done—what the industry wanted—is to try to frame something that will last at least 10 years and look to the future. They have sought to answer the questions, "What is agriculture? Where is agriculture going?" The noble Lord did not address those questions. I hope that he will because in my view in many places arable and livestock farming depends entirely on CAP payments. We know perfectly well that in two or three years' time those payments will be renegotiated and may well decrease because of the increased number of states in the European Union. Therefore, the Government are rightly supporting efforts to find other uses for agricultural land. Therefore, it is appropriate for the Government to design a farm business tenancy that will include those other uses. If they did not do that, the Government would have to amend the Bill within a few years. Therefore, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was wrong on that point.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to my noble friends for restating so clearly why the Bill and this particular clause are so central to the Government's objectives for agriculture in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, told us a number of things that he does not like about the Bill and said how he would tackle the problems differently. We heard, for example, that he appears to be against any form of farm diversification, which is something for which the Bill explicitly allows.
Leaving aside the peripheral matters such as the lists of covenants which the noble Lord wants to introduce and to which we shall come in a moment, in my view there is no substance to his proposals. In most cases he is harking back to the prescriptive and, I would say, over-regulatory approach of the 1986 Act. The noble Lord seemed to be overlooking the simple fact that that approach has been tried and has been found singularly wanting. What we need is a fresh approach with more of the flexibility that other commercial sectors enjoy and from which they benefit.
In other areas the noble Lord's proposals are out of tune with what the industry wants. I reiterate what my noble friends have said—the noble Lord, Lord Carter, apparently keeps trying to avoid the fact—which is that the Bill has the wholehearted support of all the main industry organisations, with the notable exception of the Farmers' Union of Wales. A year or two ago the idea of achieving consensus among the industry organisations seemed a tall order. Now, however, the noble Lord seems to criticise us for not having the unanimous support of every farmer in the country as well as of the main organisations. Achieving unanimity in a large and diverse industry such as agriculture is an unrealistic prospect. Nevertheless we have a remarkable degree of agreement. That is why we regard our proposals as soundly based and believe that they will stand the test of time.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, still clearly favours some statutory minimum term or even some form of retirement tenancy. I shall not repeat all the arguments
1124
which we heard on Second Reading, but I must try once more to persuade the noble Lord of the error of his ways. There is no point in putting bars on the windows when the landlord does not need to walk in the front door. Letting land is a voluntary activity. If the minimum term was longer than the landlord wished to offer, there would be absolutely no reason for him to take on that obligation unwillingly. That is the central difficulty that we are now facing in agriculture.
The commercial sector manages perfectly well without a minimum term. To the extent that agriculture may require a longer-term perspective—I accept that it often does—it will be in the landlord's interest as much as in the tenant's. That is no doubt why the RICS survey found that over half of the equipped farms surveyed would be let for 10 years or more. It is much better that the agreement should be based on mutual trust rather than on legal compulsion. It is worth reminding ourselves that about 75 per cent. of all new lettings, such as there are, are for very short periods. The industry has come to see that the tenanted sector is gradually being suffocated by restrictive legislation and that it needs the oxygen of reform. That is why the industry supports the Bill and opposes a minimum term. That is why Clause 1 is central to the Bill and its aims. I very much hope that the Committee will support it.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: I did not expect to convince the Minister or Conservative Members of the Committee. I turn first to the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. He said that the industry agreement has been worked out and has not been made in haste. I made the point that there has been a substantial change of stance within at least three of the organisations representing the industry in less than three years. There has not been a long period for consultation since within a very short period of time there has been a substantial change of stance. I could make the slightly flippant point about this being an industry agreement and say that a good rule in politics is that the establishment is usually wrong.
However, we are anxious to let the industry know what it has been let in for. That is important for farmers outside this House. Even if they do not read Hansard, the debate will be reported in the farming press and elsewhere. Throughout the Bill's passage through this House, and I suspect in another place, we shall be trying hard to make sure that the industry knows just what the industry agreement will produce. I apologise if my speech moving that Clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill sounded like a Second Reading speech. Clearly, Clause 1 is the heart of the Bill. I accept that, which is why I thought it important to take a few moments to explain why we are so concerned about the operation of the Bill.
I must advise the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that all that I have done is to congratulate the Government on the fact that, in the Minister's words, "A farm tenancy under this Government does not have to meet the agriculture condition". That seems extraordinary. If a farm tenancy meets the notice of business conditions, it does not have to meet the agricultural condition. I hope

1125
that all noble Lords opposite who support the Bill are aware of the implications of that. It is an important point. As I have said, it is a matter of some congratulation that the Government may have achieved the agreement of the industry group to that situation, which seems extraordinary.
The Earl of Kinnoull: If one reads Clause 36, one sees what "agriculture" means. In my view, when one has widened the definition of "agriculture", that allows one to come back to the wider farm business tenancy.
Lord Carter: We have tabled an amendment, which the Government may or may not like, which seeks to improve the definition of "agriculture" which has been inherited from the 1947 Act in successive Acts of Parliament.
In fact, the noble Earl has conceded the point that I was seeking to make. The provisions do not have to meet the agriculture condition. I repeat that if a farm tenancy meets the business condition, it does not have to meet the agriculture condition in the Bill. That seems extraordinary. If I had to guess, I would say that much of the change of stance to which I have referred relates to genuine concern about tenants' compensation. Perhaps there was some trade-off. I do not know: I was not a party to the negotiations.
We are not against the diversification of farm activities. What I was anxious to point out was that a farmer can diversify his activities as much as he likes and can end up with just a few sheep and chickens, but he will still have a farm business tenancy under the terms of the Bill.
The Minister pointed out fairly that there has been a substantial reduction in the number of farms available to let. This is not the Bill to discuss taxation; but my view is that it has a great deal more to do with taxation than with agriculture and tenant law.
I was interested in the Minister's reflection that he thinks that in agriculture the landlord and tenant should have the same freedom as they have in other areas—that is, with commercial property the tenant has the right to renew. We have some amendments down to that effect. If the Minister feels like that, I shall look forward to having his support on the matter.
I realise that were the Committee to reject Clause 1 and accept our Motion that it should not stand part of the Bill, we could all go home earlier. Although that would be desirable, I have no intention of dividing the Committee on this point. We now have clearly on the record in all our discussions on Clause 1 where the Government stand. Farmers outside this place will be interested to read that.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Meaning and effect of "residential farm business tenancy"
(".—(1) A tenancy is a "residential farm business tenancy" for the purposes of this Act if it is a farm business tenancy under which the tenant is occupying living accommodation provided by the landlord within the terms of his agreement with the tenant.
(2) A residential farm business tenancy which is current immediately before the term date shall not come to an end on that date except by being terminated in accordance with this Act and if not so terminated shall be deemed to continue until so terminated.
(3) Where by virtue of subsection (2) above a tenancy is continued after the term date, the tenancy shall continue at the same rent and in other respects on the same terms as before the term date.
(4) The landlord may seek to terminate a tenancy to which this section applies by agreement in writing with the tenant following the service of notice in accordance with section 6 of this Act.
(5) If agreement between the landlord and tenant cannot be reached in accordance with subsection (4) above before the term date, the landlord may apply to the court for an order granting him possession of the tenancy.
(6) On an application by the landlord the court shall grant an order terminating a residential farm business tenancy and giving the landlord possession of the land and buildings only if they are satisfied that one or more of the following grounds applies:

(a) that the tenant has attained the age of 65 and suitable alternative accommodation is available for him, or will be available for him at the date on which the landlord is seeking to possess the holding;

(b) that the tenant of the holding was not fulfilling his responsibilities to the farm in accordance with the rules of good husbandry, including the conservation of flora or fauna, features of geological interest and the protection of buildings or other objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest located on the holding and that a certificate to this effect has been issued by the Minister;

(c) that the tenant has been given a reasonable opportunity to remedy a breach of a term or condition of the tenancy and has failed to do so;

(d) that the tenant has failed to comply with any term of the tenancy as to payment of rent or rates or as to insuring or keeping insured any premises;

(e) that the land and residential buildings comprising the holding are reasonably required by the landlord for his own accommodation and agricultural use or the accommodation and agricultural use of any son or daughter of his who is over eighteen years of age;

(f) that the tenant is a person who has become insolvent;

(g) that the person who was the tenant (or sole surviving tenant) has died;

(h) that planning permission has been obtained for the development of the land or for a change of use to a use other than as agricultural land.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to add a new clause to the Bill after Clause 1. It introduces and defines the concept of a residential farm business tenancy. We have, in a sense, already touched on the problem when considering Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. I noticed with interest that the Minister admitted that there was, if not a problem here, an issue that merited further consideration. He has promised to give that consideration, which we welcome.
The clause is set out in full detail on the Marshalled List. It begins, I hope, with an effective definition of a residential farm business tenancy, and the circumstances in which a tenant is occupying living accommodation provided the landlord can agree upon such a tenancy in conjunction with a tenant. Subsection (2) provides:
"A residential farm business tenancy which is current immediately before the term date shall not come to an end"
under the clause we seek to add—
"… except by being terminated in accordance with this Act and if not so terminated shall be deemed to continue until so terminated".

1127
Under subsection (3) we refer back to subsection (2), and make provision for the continuance of the tenancy after the term date at the same rent and in other respects on the same terms as before the term date.
Subsection (4) gives the landlord power:
"to terminate a tenancy to which this section applies by agreement in writing with the tenant following the service of notice in accordance with section 6 of this Act".
By subsection (5):
"If agreement between the landlord and tenant cannot be reached in accordance with subsection (4) above before the term date, the landlord may apply to court for an order granting him possession of the tenancy".
Finally, under subsection (6), we set out in some detail the conditions which the tenant will have to satisfy, or—putting it another way around—the conditions, the breach of which, will compel the court to grant an order terminating the residential farm tenancy, and giving possession of the land and buildings if one or more of the breaches of the tenancy agreement apply. I shall go through the breaches to which the clause refers. Under sub-paragraph (a):
"that the tenant has obtained the age of 65 and suitable alternative accommodation is available for him, or will be available for him at the date on which the landlord is seeking to possess the holding;"
Sub-paragraph (b) imposes a condition of good farming, something upon which my noble friend Lord Carter has placed great emphasis, and the absence of which from the Bill as a whole is disconcerting at least to us if not to farmers in general. Sub-paragraph (c) would give possession where the tenant:
"has been given a reasonable opportunity to remedy a breach of a term or condition of the tenancy and has failed to do so".
Sub-paragraph (d) would apply when the tenant has failed to pay his rent or rates, or keep the premises ensured in accordance with his agreement. Sub-paragraph (e) would be available to the landlord when he wished the holding (the land and residential buildings) for his own use or for the use of his son or daughter over the age of 18. Sub-paragraph (f) relates to that horrible but increasingly common situation where the tenant is a person who has become insolvent. Sub-paragraph (g) provides for the landlord to take possession where the tenant (or sole surviving tenant) has died; and sub-paragraph (h) takes care of the position where a planning application for change of use has been successful. In all those cases, the court would be obliged to grant an order terminating a residential farm business tenancy under the terms of this new clause.
We must address the problem of the farm tenancy. I recalled, as I listened to the debate on Clause 1 stand part, in an earlier translation trying to persuade small shopkeepers that it was no bad thing that the building societies and estate agents were beginning to dominate the high streets of this country. I told them that the alternative probably was that they would be unable to find a tenant when they wished to sell their freehold. We now have the position where a walk along some of our best high streets can be a disconcerting experience. All the indications are that the number of empty shops may increase rather than decrease.
1128
I blame no one in particular for that. It is the evolution of retailing and business in general which can never be forecast accurately no matter who is doing the forecasts. One would have expected the building societies to know their requirements; but they are rapidly reappraising them. Equally, one would have expected estate agents, sometimes supported by building societies, to know their requirements. They too are following a similar example.
I mention that by way of supporting the details of the clause, because, despite all that has been said about the flood of agricultural land for letting on business tenancy terms which is expected after the passage of the Bill on 1st September next year, I am not wholly convinced. Much of that is in the lap of the gods and unpredictable. What we must do in looking at the problem is to recognise that hardships could arise—severe hardships at that—and the amendment seeks to ameliorate, if not to eliminate, those hardships. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, we should take a close look at the effect of the amendment, which is that a tenant of a holding with a farmhouse can refuse to accept a notice to terminate a farm business tenancy at the term date. The landlord can apply for a court order; but the court cannot grant an order under the amendment for surrender of the land and buildings —not just the house—if the tenant is under 65, unless he has committed one of the tenants' sins which are listed under sub-paragraphs (b) to (h). If the tenant is over 65, then an order can be made only if he has alternative accommodation.
I am well aware of the sensitivity of the farmhouse issue. No one in farming is unsympathetic. I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, and I agreed with much of what he was saying. But life moves on. If we are to continue to have tenancies, under the new arrangements some of them will be for less than a lifetime. I am sure that the Tenant Farmers' Association, the young farmers clubs and the NFU saw clearly the implications of shorter tenancies on the housing of their families when they worked out the Bill's shape.
The Bill brings farming more into line with other rural businesses. No village pub keeper at the end of his tenancy would expect to remain living in the pub, denying the living quarters to his successor. One can also think of police and clergy houses in rural areas in similar situations. We must be hard-nosed about the issue. We should be wary about altering the Bill as is proposed so as to discourage farm letting with a farm house. No lettings, no houses in the first place.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has tabled a serious amendment or whether it is for discussion purposes only. If it is a serious amendment—and I am not trying to be offensive—it is the most terrible among the 95 that appear on the Marshalled List. It goes to the kernel of the agreement of the industry, which is security of tenure. It took three or flour years for the industry to

1129
reach that agreement and in my view it would be a backward step if the Committee were to accept the amendment.
Under subsection (6) of the amendment the noble Lord has listed eight deadly sins, not seven as in the 1986, 1976 and 1948 Acts. He has introduced a further deadly sin; that when one reaches the age of 65 one must retire. The landlord can serve a notice, go to court and at the age of 65 one must retire. That is a monstrous suggestion. It also adds to the point that landlords will be encouraged to take on tenants who are over the age of 60. They will not be encouraged to take on young farmers, which is what we want. The proposal is a backward step.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggested that perhaps taxation was behind the Bill. I do not believe that to be the case; I hope that inheritance tax will find its way as has been suggested. The Bill is about security of tenure. The noble Lord was right to say that it should be pointed out to the industry what it might be taking on, but I feel that the industry is already well aware of that. There has been enough discussion about the Bill outside this Chamber and it has been welcomed generally.
Lord Carter: The noble Lord mentioned my name in regard to taxation. I said that taxation is outside this Bill and that has as much to do with the reduction in lettings as does the 1986 Agricultural Holdings Act and the Act that preceded it. It is not a point that we can discuss under this Bill, and to blame the reduction in lettings entirely on the weaknesses of existing legislation, which needs to be improved by this legislation, is not the entire case. I believe that taxation plays a big part.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Following on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, perhaps I may say that if we were allowed to deal with taxation in the Bill we would not need to have the Bill. I entirely support what was said by my noble friend, and I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that this is a wrecking amendment. However, the noble Lord raised one good point and I hope that my noble friend Lord Howe will think seriously about it. It related to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on Amendment No. 10, which dealt with housing. I hope that my noble friend will give serious consideration to the matter, reminding the industry about the housing problem. However, I fear that Amendment No. 13 is a wrecking amendment.
Earl Howe: I have listened with great interest to the debate. I am sure that we all realise that the loss of a family home is a very sensitive and potentially emotive issue. The landlords who contemplate letting farms which include a farmhouse will be well aware of that. We have debated the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which gave rise to some interesting discussions. Views clearly differ on the best way of tackling the issue. Should it be a matter for the individuals concerned or should there be prescriptive legislation?
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, advocated a protectionist approach in the belief that it would be advantageous to the tenant. I agree that such an
1130
approach may benefit those few lucky tenants who manage to obtain a residential farm business tenancy. However, it would not benefit tenants in general or help us to revive the tenanted sector. Sadly, as I have already said, the Labour Party seems unable to learn from experience. Excessively protective legislation works to the disadvantage of the people whom it is designed to protect. That is so well illustrated by the agricultural holdings legislation that I must confess I find it surprising that the Labour Party wants to go down the same path.
The effect of the amendment would be that all land agents, advisers and landowners would look for ways of avoiding its restrictive provisions. Depending on circumstances, they might opt for share-farming arrangements or contract farming. Alternatively, they could split the house and the land, letting the land on a farm business tenancy but letting the house on an assured shorthold tenancy so that they could regain possession at the appropriate time. Some might simply sell their farmhouses and let the bare land to neighbouring farmers. That is just what we see happening at present. Given the fears that have been expressed about fragmentation of farms, I wonder whether Members of the Committee opposite really believe that to be desirable.
We and the main industry organisations representing tenants as well as landlords take the view that tenants are businessmen who are capable of making important decisions. The conditions under which they occupy their homes are clearly of prime importance to them. It is not something insignificant that they are likely to overlook. Farmers managing on Gladstone v. Bower tenancies and other such short-term, insecure arrangements are in that position at present—or in a worse position. In the Bill we have ensured that they will have at least 12 months' notice when a tenancy is to end. That will give them time to make alternative arrangements—much more time than the two months which assured shorthold tenants in the private residential rented sector are entitled to, and possibly more than they need.
As Members of the Committee are aware, one of the main objectives of the legislation is to encourage lettings so that it will be easier for people to move and to find a new farm to rent. I am convinced that this is the best approach, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will accede to the overwhelming balance of opinion within the Committee and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the discussion, even though the anticipated rejection of the new clause took me a little by surprise. I refer to the severity of the shots that were fired. We see this as in no sense a wrecking amendment. On Second Reading we said that to the best of our ability we would seek to improve the Bill. While an improvement of this kind may not be directly discernible, it has the merit of alerting the public in general, and would-be farmers in particular, to what could be the reality of a situation in which they move into a farm business tenancy under the terms of the Bill.

1131
In the light of the criticisms, and if none of the grounds for repossession outlined under subsection (6) is appropriate, one is tempted to ask what ground for repossession is left. Surely the answer must be that there is none. That appears to us to be a dangerous situation. To dream up grounds such as the landlord disliking the tenant does not strike one as being a serious attempt to improve a parliamentary Bill in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, suggested that we needed to be hard-nosed about the issue. He mentioned pub tenants and the police. There are categories of people who are in similar positions on retirement. However, the police, as a result of the structure of their salaries, are well able within reason to make provision. Where they are not, local authorities are often inclined to help. The police are county council servants and local authorities are inclined to view sympathetically the service that they have received from the police. At the end of a tenancy, the agricultural workers of a farm will have greater security in a service cottage—we know them as tied cottages—under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 than is to be offered to farmers under this Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, came at me with regard to the fact that I had postulated a retirement age of 65 in subsection (6) (a), but the subsection refers to 65 and "suitable alternative accommodation". I know that the noble Earl's experience of repossessions is probably now a lot more extensive than it was when he first took an interest in the building society movement; but it is a harsh process and nobody should be under any illusions about that. Whether it is a thrusting young farmer filing his petition in bankruptcy or an elderly farmer being turned out because his fixed term tenancy is at an end does not in any way diminish the harshness of that process.
We have tried to be constructive. The Minister made a jibe that it is a protectionist approach. Farming and agriculture in this country have been protected substantially. No one denies that. The 1947 Act was the work of a Labour Government. I admit that it implemented promises made to farmers for their magnificent efforts to feed the nation in wartime. But nevertheless, those promises were kept. On this side of the Committee, we do not apologise for protecting farmers. Neither do we apologise for tabling an amendment of this character.
We realise that there could be difficulties, and fragmentation is one of those difficulties. We realise also that agents may seek ways in which to seek to escape the implications of the clause, if it were added to the Bill, by diverting the farmhouse tenancy away from the farming land arrangements. Nevertheless, it is worth the Committee's consideration and if it is not to be considered seriously by this Committee in this House at this time, I should be a very disappointed man. Nevertheless, I seek the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Covenants deemed to be included in oral farm business tenancy
(". In any oral agreement between a landlord and a tenant for the letting of a farm business tenancy the covenants listed in Schedule (covenants deemed to be included in oral farm business tenancy) to this Act shall apply unless the parties agree to the contrary in writing.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 89, which is consequential.
With these two amendments we come to an interesting discussion on the question of oral agreements. I must admit that, when I first looked at the Bill, I was surprised that there was no requirement for a farm business tenancy to be in writing. I understand that the Government felt that they had a good reason for that on the grounds that if they did not include oral agreements within the scope of the Bill, attempts would be made to get round the Bill by having oral rather than written agreements. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will deal with this point. If, under the Bill, the landlord and potential tenant must exchange a notice in writing, is it then the Government's view that they will then attempt to circumvent the Act by having an oral agreement? I just cannot understand the logic of that.
We have tried to provide that if there is to be an oral agreement there should be a number of covenants listed in the schedule which will be,
"deemed to be included in oral farm business tenancy … [which] shall apply unless the parties agree to the contrary in writing".
It is rather odd to agree to the contrary in writing in an oral agreement but I am sure that the Minister understands the point that I am trying to make. I assure him that this is a probing amendment with regard to the whole question of oral agreements. It is extremely important that the Committee should understand what are the Government's intentions in that regard.
Obviously, one looks at the usual covenants and I am sure that Members of the Committee who are involved in those matters will recognise that the covenants on the part of the landlord and tenant are standard. We are trying to tease out the reasons why the Government decided not to require a farm business tenancy to be in writing; in other words, that an oral agreement will come within the ambit of the Bill.
The Minister replied to a question that I put to him on an earlier amendment. In its response to the Government's proposal document, I believe that the Agricultural Law Association stated specifically that it felt that it was wrong for those new tenancies not to be in writing and suggested that oral agreements were likely to be used only for short-term lettings on bare land, and that anybody going about the matter properly would have written agreements in any event.
As I say, we are probing the Government on their reasons for including oral agreements in the provisions of the Bill. Why have the Government promoted the view that after 1st September next all tenancies, whether written or oral, which fall within the definitions of Clause 1 will be farm business tenancies? We suggest for the sake of good order and good practice that if there were to be such oral agreements there should be a

1133
schedule in the Bill which sets down the minimum covenants that one would expect on the part of the landlord and tenant. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I welcome the amendment. I believe that it adds greatly to the Bill. In practical terms, I feel that the unwritten tenancy would be for very short periods. There are too many dangers involved in it for both parties and I hope that the written tenancy will be the one that goes forward on all occasions.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, mentioned building societies. Building societies have shown great sympathy in very unhappy circumstances, much more so than banks. I am glad to say also that they do not lend on farm land.
Lord Northbourne: I support the amendment, although perhaps not in its finer detail. It seems to me to be absolutely wrong that anything but a tenancy of bare land for relatively short periods should be an oral tenancy. We are talking about responsible landlords and tenants. We must expect them to put down clearly what is their intention. I do not know whether the particular headings are correct in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, but I support the principle.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining his amendment. It is somewhat odd. As the noble Lord explained, it refers to a schedule of landlord and tenant covenants, one of which purports to reflect the provisions of the Bill and the rest of which the noble Lord has presented as a set of uncontroversial ground rules which should be applicable to any farm business tenancy agreement, in particular an oral agreement.
I differ with this approach. First, in so far as the suggested covenants reflect the provisions already contained in the Bill, they must be unnecessary. But more importantly, it is no part of a deliberately simple and streamlined Bill to write in provisions about deemed covenants for oral agreements. It is for the parties to decide what conditions and arrangements should apply in respect of their agreements, whether written or oral in nature. It is not for the Government to do so. The whole point of the Bill is to allow the parties to an agreement maximum freedom to decide on the terms which suit them best.
Of course I accept that this is a probing amendment, but it would go further than even the over-prescriptive 1986 Act currently provides. Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 provides that a contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land must be in writing. Short leases are excluded from that provision. A short lease is a lease for a term not exceeding three years at the best rent that can reasonably be obtained without taking a premium.
That is the general law in relation to the requirement that leases must be in writing. There can be no special features of farm business tenancies which would justify them receiving special treatment. We cannot require that farm business tenancies have to be in writing because some, whether accidentally or deliberately, will not be.
1134
The Agricultural Law Association's ideas relate, I venture to say, to the ideal world from which agriculture, as we all know, unfortunately differs.
Therefore, I hope that that explanation helps the noble Lord and with those thoughts in mind, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: Before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may ask for further clarification. I did not jot down the particular reference but I believe he said that the general law provides that any tenancy of three years or longer must be recorded in writing. Does that include farm business tenancies?
Secondly, reference was made to what happens if someone forgets to record a farm business tenancy in writing. But what happens if someone forgets to record a tenancy in writing under some other provision?
Earl Howe: I made clear that there could be no special features of farm business tenancies which would exempt them from the requirements of the general law. Therefore, a farm business tenancy would be subject to that rule. As to what the situation would be if a lease was not in writing, I believe that would be a matter for the court to decide if it came to a challenge. Clearly, both parties would be taking a risk that the tenancy might not for some reason or other fall under the provisions of the Bill. However, I shall take advice on the precise legal position and, if I can clarify the matter, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Carter: We are certainly learning as we go along. The amendment was intended to be a helpful probe. But, again, I have been slapped down and reminded about simplicity. I have been told that we should leave it to the parties to sort out the matter. The Government are clearly washing their hands of all responsibility and leaving the matter to landlord and tenant. They are in full deregulation mode when they address the Bill.
I listened to the noble Earl saying that all was for the best and that all will be for the best in the best of all possible worlds when the Bill becomes law. He makes Dr. Pangloss look like a beginner. But, again, the Minister is very concerned about our approach which he described as "over-prescriptive". However, I should like to remind Members of the Committee that it was the Labour Party which introduced security of tenure for the first time in the 1947 and the 1948 Acts. It was the Labour Party which, rightly or wrongly, introduced a succession of tenancies in the 1976 Act: but it is a Conservative Party which abandoned those protections with the 1984 and 1986 Acts.
The Minister keeps saying—and I am grateful to him for putting it on the record again; indeed, from our point of view, it is most helpful—that they see no special features in farmland and that it is up to the parties themselves. In other words, the landlord and tenant can agree what they like. As long as they fulfil the notice and the business conditions, they do not even have to fulfil the agricultural conditions. Our probes are certainly bringing out a view of the Bill which I am sure will be very interesting to the agricultural industry. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Model clauses
(". —(1) The Minister shall, after consultation with such bodies as appear to him to represent the interests of landlords and tenants of agricultural holdings, make regulations prescribing terms as to the maintenance, repair and insurance of fixed equipment and the respective covenants to be observed by landlord and tenant (in this Act referred to as "the model clauses").
(2) Regulations under this section may make provision for any matter arising under them to be determined by arbitration under this Act.
(3) The model clauses shall be deemed to be incorporated in every farm business tenancy except in so far as they would impose on one of the parties to an agreement in writing a liability which under the agreement is imposed on the other.").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 87, which is consequential. I believe I know the answer that I am likely to receive from the Minister; but at least I can have another try.
We come now to our old friends the model clauses, though in fact I prefer to call them the model heads of agreement. I understand that discussions are taking place within the industry, with the RICS and others—I also hope that the other organisations in the industry group are involved—regarding the models under the tenancy agreements which we all hope we shall be able to take off the shelf and use when the Bill becomes law.
However, we feel that the matter cannot be left to the good will of organisations outside the House without the protection of statute. Therefore, we have drafted a proposed new clause, which states:
"The Minister shall, after consultation with such bodies as appear to him to represent the interests of landlords and tenants of agricultural holdings, make regulations prescribing terms"—
and the Minister will be absolutely right if he says that it is a prescriptive amendment; I say that to save him from so doing—
"as to the maintenance, repair and insurance of fixed equipment"—
the thing that we are all familiar with under the 1986 Act—
"and the respective covenants to be observed by landlord and tenant".
Amendment No. 87 has been tabled for clarification. It states that:
(""Minister" means—

(a) in relation to England, the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, and

(b) in relation to Wales, the Secretary of State.").

We now know that it is likely that a number of tenancies will be made without a written agreement. The comprehensive background structure of the 1986 Act is to be removed, as is the Government's intention. We believe that it is desirable that the parties to those agreements should have some precise understanding of the division of responsibilities between them for the maintenance, repair and insurance of fixed equipment.
Over the years, we have all agreed that the landlord and tenant system is an excellent example of the division of responsibility for the provision of capital. As regards the covenants between the landlord and the
1136
tenant under the 1986 Act and those that precede it, we know that the landlord and tenant system is a good example of the division of responsibility in practice. In that sense, it has worn well. However, we now know that the Government do not believe in that being prescribed in any way and that, so far as I understand it, they do not believe that the Bill should include any definition of the respective responsibilities of landlord and tenant. We are trying to put that right with the amendment.
From our professional experience, we know that the whole area within tenancy agreements can lead to frequent misunderstandings and disputes unless the position is made clear from the start. It is not a wish to prescribe; it is a wish to try to get the landlord and the tenant something to fall back on and to work from, and to bring the government into play by giving them the responsibility to make such regulations.
We know that parties are free to negotiate their own variations of rights and obligations independently from the statutory recommended clauses. But the effect of the model clauses is to prevent difficult disputes arising with the bad feeling that they can generate between the parties and the costs that they can incur in going to arbitration or to court. We are all familiar with the model clauses that have been developed under the Agriculture (Maintenance, Repair and Insurance of Fixed Equipment) Regulations 1973 which have been amended over the years. We believe that they could well form the basis of any order made by the Minister.
We suggest that the Government should consult with the industry group which has been continually referred to as well as the RICS and that they should then make the regulations which would help to prevent much litigation. That is an important point, not just in relation to this amendment but also in connection with many others. When the Minister says, "Leave it to the landlord and tenant", I believe he is really saying that we must leave the matter to the courts. That is what will happen in the new free-wheeling air that we shall have which will surround the whole of agriculture and the landlord and tenant system. A number of solicitors who specialise in this area of the law have been talking to me. They are licking their lips in anticipation of the kinds of cases that they will be able to bring. The purpose of the amendments is to try to avoid that situation. I suggest to the Government that they do have a responsibility to prescribe. I make no apology for saying so. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is quite right. There should be very precise terms in any new tenancy agreement as to who carries out the repairs and what repairs need to be done. However, I believe that the answer he will receive from the Government is that the proposal to introduce model clauses goes outside the industry's agreement and is not consistent with the object of the Bill; namely, to allow freedom of contract. If that is the reply, I shall support it.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I have not had the advantage of seeing the notes that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, supplied to some Members of the Committee when tabling the amendments. As regards the amendment, I

1137
have not quite understood whether the noble Lord is suggesting that the model clause should be mandatory and override the terms of a written agreement. If that is so, I could not support it. On the other hand, if the purpose is to fill a gap for, say, a tenancy of over two years, then I believe his proposal may have some merit on the grounds that it is a fall-back situation. In other words, rather than go to the courts to try to unravel the legal complications in a landlord and tenant dispute, one actually has a model clause to fall back on thus saving on costs.
6 p.m.
Earl Howe: Perhaps I may point out a small feature of detail regarding the amendment. Whether intentional or not, the amendment does not deal adequately with any holdings other than those which were wholly agricultural in nature. However, more fundamentally, I am not convinced—as, no doubt, the noble Lord suspected—that the right way to deal with matters such as parties' respective responsibilities in respect of a diversified holding is by regulations in the way that the noble Lord proposes.
The agreement signed by the CLA, the NFU, the TFA and the NFYFC last December, was perfectly clear. Those organisations will work with the professions to agree model clauses which are specifically adapted to the special needs of farm business tenancies. They will be recommended to members for use on a voluntary basis. I believe that that is a very practical way forward. There really is not a likelihood of a free-for-all or a bonanza for banisters, as the noble Lord seems to fear.
I would never seek to slap down the noble Lord. I am sorry if I appeared to do so a moment ago. However, I suggest to him that the best interests of those who enter the new world of farm business tenancies are not served by making regulations as to who is to oil the gate hinges, clear the ditches and insure the milking equipment. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said during our debate on Second Reading—a point I myself have made this afternoon—the Bill treats farmers and tenant farmers as grown-ups, able to negotiate with the help of professional advisers proper agreements for their tenancies. If it is any assistance to the noble Lord, I would say that there is no need for the wheel to be re-invented during the apportionment of responsibilities for agricultural matters because the regulations which apply to 1986 Act tenancies will continue to exist in respect of those tenancies. Parties will be able to incorporate into their tenancy agreements as much or as little of the content of those regulations as they choose. Even where they are keen to diversify, they will have a good basis on which to begin to negotiate. For all those reasons I hope that the noble Lord will feel that this has been a useful discussion but will nevertheless feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister for mentioning, as he said, a point of detail. The noble Earl will know that in these cases one has some help in drafting amendments but they are not perfect and they are intended to tease out the Government's arguments, in so far as they exist. I am beginning to think, every
1138
time I hear reference to the industry agreement, that I am almost hearing a mantra. The NFU, the TFA, the Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs and the CLA are referred to. I am slightly tempted to add, "And Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all", but I must not do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, also referred to the industry agreement. But who makes the law'—the industry agreement or the Government? We are saying here that this matter is the Government's responsibility. The Government cannot shuffle off and say there is an industry agreement. Perhaps I should not say this, but I would be surprised if in other cases where there has been agreement within an industry—not within agriculture—this Government have always accepted the view of that industry. Agriculture seems to be very much a special case. I could cite many examples where an industry has been united in dislike of a government's proposals and the government have still gone ahead with them. But in agriculture obviously we can see that it is the other way round.
If I understood the noble Earl aright, he said that under the 1986 Act tenancies the 1973 regulations which are in existence would still apply. Was he implying that those could then be picked up if the parties wished and used in the farm business tenancy? I would assume that they could be. This raises an interesting point to which we shall return. I hope the Committee will think this matter through. If this Bill is successful and there are many of these farm business tenancies, there will also be the 1986 tenancies in existence, particularly succession tenancies, which will still continue for a long time. We are probably only into the first generation of succession tenancies, if at all. Therefore there will be an interesting situation in the agricultural land market, or in the tenanted sector, when arbitrators are looking for comparable rents and all the rest of it. That is a point that I flag up in passing and that I believe we shall deal with on a later amendment, or perhaps at Report stage. I believe that the Government in their overwhelming rush to simplify this matter and not to overprescribe are to some extent avoiding their responsibilities.
The model clauses could be adjusted by the parties if necessary. They were intended to be a help. It seems that the Government do not wish to have any responsibility at all. It is implied throughout that there is a level playing field between the landlord and tenant. As I have said, this is an example of a deregulation mode in full swing—if a mode can be in full swing. However, that does not reflect reality. There is not a level playing field. Every one of us engaged in the industry knows that the scales are weighted against the tenants because there is a larger supply of farmers who wish to rent land than there are farms to let.
The Government will say that this Bill is intended to put that right. However, on this point I would remind the Committee that the tenanted sector is an odd market in many ways. We have to look back only a few years to the period when farm incomes had fallen to their lowest level in real terms, I believe, since the end of the war. There was a situation then when, for almost the first time in my experience as a professional, tenants were serving notice on landlords to review the rent in the hope of achieving either a rent freeze or a reduction

1139
in rent. At the same time there were landlords who were not serving notices to review the rent in the hope that, in the absence of a review, the rent would be frozen and there would not be an application for a reduction. But at the same time, if there was a farm to let, there was a long list of farmers who wished to rent that farm. We had a situation, therefore, where farm incomes were at their lowest level in real terms since 1945 and where existing tenants were looking to secure a reduction in their rent or a rent freeze, but they hoped a reduction. At the same time, if there was a vacant farm up for let, there was a big supply of farmers who were willing to pay some extremely high rents in the circumstances.
This is an odd market and we feel in that situation the Government have a responsibility. We shall return to that point on a number of occasions in the Bill. The Government in their wish to wash their hands of this matter, to leave it to the parties concerned and to rely on the industry agreement, are failing in their responsibilities. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Agreement in writing
(". —(1) Where in respect of a farm business tenancy—

(a) there is not in existence an agreement in writing embodying all the terms of the tenancy, or

(b) such an agreement in writing is in existence but the terms of the tenancy do not make provision for one or more of the matters specified in Schedule (Matters for which provision is to be made in written farm business tenancy agreements) to this Act—

the landlord or tenant of the holding may, if he has requested the other to enter into an agreement in writing embodying all the terms of the tenancy and containing provisions for all of the specified matters but no agreement has been reached, refer the terms of the tenancy to arbitration under this Act.
(2) On any such reference the arbitrator in his decision—

(a) shall specify the existing terms of the tenancy, subject to variations agreed between the landlord and the tenant;

(b) in so far as those terms as so varied neither make provision for nor make provision inconsistent with the matters specified in Schedule (Matters for which provision is to be made in written farm business tenancy agreements) to this Act, shall make provision for all of those matters in terms agreed between the landlord and the tenant or in default of such agreement as appears to the arbitrator to be just and reasonable between them; and

(c) may include any further provisions relating to the tenancy which may be agreed between the landlord and the tenant.

(3) The decision of an arbitrator under this section shall have effect as if the terms and provisions specified and made in the award were contained in an agreement in writing between the landlord and the tenant and having effect (by way of variation of the agreement previously in force in respect of the tenancy) as from the making of the award or, if the award so provides, from such later date as may be specified in it.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 16 is concerned—the Committee will be surprised to learn—with agreement in writing. With this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 90, with which Amendment No. 16 is grouped. Amendment No. 90, for the information of the Committee, contains the schedule to which Amendment No. 16 refers. That schedule is printed on page 14 of the Marshalled List.
Amendment No. 16 provides that:
"(". —(1) Where in respect of a farm business tenancy—

(a) there is not in existence an agreement in writing embodying all the terms of the tenancy, or

(b) such an agreement in writing is in existence but the terms of the tenancy do not make provision for one or more of the matters specified in Schedule …

the landlord or tenant of the holding may, if he has requested the other to enter into an agreement in writing embodying all the terms of the tenancy and containing provisions for all of the specified matters but no agreement has been reached, refer the terms of the tenancy to arbitration under this Act.
(2) On any such reference the arbitrator in his decision—

(a) shall specify the existing terms of the tenancy, subject to variations agreed between the landlord and the tenant;

(b) in so far as those terms as so varied neither make provision for nor make provision inconsistent with the matters specified in Schedule … to this Act, shall make provision for all of those matters in terms agreed between the landlord and the tenant or in default of such agreement as appears to the arbitrator to be just and reasonable between them; and

(c) may include any further provisions relating to the tenancy which may be agreed between the landlord and the tenant.

(3) The decision of an arbitrator under this section shall have effect as if the terms and provisions specified and made in the award were contained in an agreement in writing between the landlord and the tenant and having effect (by way of variation of the agreement previously in force in respect of the tenancy) as from the making of the award or, if the award so provides, from such later date as may be specified in it.")".
We believe that the combination of this new clause, plus the detail set out in the schedule—which is Amendment No. 90 —will rectify what we regard as a deficiency and indeed an omission in the Bill, and we recommend that it be given the serious consideration of the Committee and if possible the approval of the Minister. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: The advantages of a prescribed list of criteria to be included in farm business tenancies have been described most eloquently by the noble Lord. However, I am afraid that, despite his eloquence, he has not convinced me that the disadvantages of the proposed amendment are outweighed by the alleged benefits that he adduces. The 1986 Act attempted something similar.
Schedule 1 to the 1986 Act contains a relatively short and simple list of matters which are relevant to most agricultural tenancies. As noble Lords may know, Section 6 of that Act gives either party the right to demand arbitration in the case of an oral tenancy or a written tenancy which does not embody all the terms of the tenancy or does not provide for all the matters listed in the schedule. Clearly, the 1986 Act was drafted in anticipation that some tenancy agreements would not be entered into with professional assistance and that some matters might be overlooked. That might on the face of it seem to be a reasonable idea, but the trouble is that some matters listed are now out of date. For example, the liability to rates has been replaced by a liability for council tax and business rates.
Even a simple list like that has given rise to problems. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord has not even the virtue of being a simple list, and yet it fails completely to address the needs of a diversified farm

1141
business tenancy. Goodness knows how quickly it would date if one attempted to make the list comprehensive.
There is, however, an alternative and much more attractive approach. The RICS is preparing guidance for the industry for matters to be included in a tenancy agreement. That guidance will be available for everyone to see. It can be updated as necessary and will provide much needed flexibility. I also suggest that that guidance will have more likelihood of reaching the intended beneficiaries than a schedule to an Act of Parliament. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to pursue the amendment.
With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may return to an issue relating to oral tenancies which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, raised a moment ago when he asked me what would be the standing in law of an oral agreement which purported to be for more than three years. I am advised that that lease would be of no effect, so that the courts—as I correctly surmised—would have to resolve the precise legal position. But if the tenant were in occupation, the likely position is that he would be found to have a periodic tenancy, namely an annual or quarterly tenancy, or a tenancy covering some other period, depending on the rent being paid. The important point is that the fixed term would be ineffective. I hope that that information is of some assistance.
Lord Gallacher: I thank the noble Earl for his reply. It consoles me a little. To that extent, although I do not intend to press the amendment, that information may be of use to us in considering whether to take further action on the thrust of the amendment at a later stage of the Bill.
The noble Earl said that the amendment fails to face the needs of a farm business tenancy. He then went on to say that the RICS guidance for tenants would be preferable to a schedule to the Bill. Defective as the schedule may be—and that depends on the eyes of the beholder—if it were in the Bill, at least the information would be available.
We have yet to see the important guidance for tenants to be produced by the RICS. We have been told that the Bill has had a gestation period, to include industry representations, of some four years. It would help this side—call us the wreckers if you like—to give up our erring ways at some stage in the passage of the Bill if before Report stage we could see the guidance for tenants which the RICS is preparing. On the assumption that that is possible, we shall consider it sympathetically. It may deter us from hurling ourselves yet again at the barricades when we come to the Report stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 3 [Compliance with notice conditions in cases of surrender and regrant]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: We are not clear why the Government have provided in Clause 3(1) (b) that either the condition in subsection (2) or that in subsection (3) will apply. We do not understand why the party should not be required to satisfy both conditions rather than either one or the other. The purpose of the amendment is to ask the Government the reason for that provision. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I believe that I can assist the noble Lord. Under Clause 3(1) (b) it is provided that either the condition in subsection (2) or the condition in subsection (3) must be met. Subsection (2) covers the case in which some minor variation is made to the area of land comprised in a new tenancy but no change is made to the term date. Subsection (3) covers the case where the term date is earlier for the new tenancy than it was for the old one. To replace "or" with "and" as is proposed in the amendment would require both conditions to be met. I suggest that that is unnecessary. It would deprive the parties of the ability to agree on minor changes to the boundary of the holding, for example, unless they also agreed an earlier termination date for the tenancy. I am sure that that is not what is intended, but perhaps the noble Lord meant the amendment to be read with Amendment No. 20, which we shall come to in a moment. However, I hope that what I have said is of assistance for the time being.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister. I agree that it would have been easier if we had grouped the amendments. The amendment has been tabled in a genuine attempt to seek the reason for that provision. The Minister has given a satisfactory answer. It was extremely helpful, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 43, leave out from ("are") to ("the") and insert ("less than 10 per cent of').
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to make the Government explain what they mean by "small". The Minister will remember the exchange we had in 1993 on the Agriculture Bill when I tabled an amendment which referred to the "small farmer" and the noble Earl rebuked me and said that I should be politically correct and refer to the "vertically disadvantaged farmer".
In this amendment we refer to small changes in area. Solicitors and barristers outside the House foresee a great deal of litigation over that question. To be helpful, we have suggested instead:
"less than 10 per cent. of'.
I am sure that the Minister will not like that and will have an alternative. However, the amendment has been tabled in a genuine attempt to discover what the Government mean by "small" in connection with changes in area. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I listened with interest to what the noble Lord had to say on this somewhat technical point. Our intention in this clause is to enable a landlord to give a tenant the use of an extra piece of land, perhaps a field, without losing the protection which had been gained by

1143
complying with the notice conditions. That is necessary because the addition of land to a holding results, in law, in the surrender of the existing tenancy and the regrant of a new one. Parties who had exchanged notices and whose initial tenancy fully met the notice conditions might not realise that it was necessary to exchange notices again. Furthermore, they might not be able to comply with the notice conditions if the tenant had diversified to a significant extent. Therefore, Clause 3(4) makes it unnecessary for that to be done as it states that the new tenancy shall be taken to meet the notice conditions.
As the noble Lord pointed out, the Bill refers to a "small" area of land. The noble Lord would prefer that to be more precise and to specify less than 10 per cent. of the size of the holding. I see that that approach has the merit of certainty, but it also has the disadvantage that if parties inadvertently added marginally more land to a holding, a court would have to conclude that Clause 3(2) did not apply. I see merit in the flexible approach that we deliberately adopted in the present draft of the Bill. It may be a matter on which we can reflect and debate further at a later stage. However, for the moment I hope that what I have said will be of assistance to the noble Lord in deciding whether to take the matter forward.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister. His reply was helpful. However, if there is to be uncertainty, that will lead to litigation. I believe that there is a chance that there could be considerable debates in court about what is meant by "small". It would be helpful if between now and Report and Third Reading the Government can think of a better way of addressing the problem which gives more certainty. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 44, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: Clause 3, to which the amendment refers, lays down the circumstances in which the exchange of notices provided in Clause 1 will carry forward to cover the surrender of an old tenancy in favour of the granting of a new one. Subsection (2) of the clause imposes a condition that the land must be the same land,
"apart from any changes in area which are small in relation to the size of holding and do not affect the character of the holding".
Clearly it is desirable to allow some limited flexibility in that situation. However, it is suggested that the present wording is too limiting, as any changes would have to be both small in terms of the holding size and not affect the character of the holding. It is in the interests of all parties that there should be rather more scope within the law to interpret "small" and "character" by making them alternative. That would be achieved if the amendment were to commend itself to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: The amendment allows a little more flexibility where the exchange of notices prior to an old farm business tenancy is to be carried forward so as to cover the grant of a similar new tenancy for
1144
virtually the same parcel of land. The noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Gallacher, may be surprised to hear that I support them.
Earl Howe: I have listened with interest to the points made in Committee. It may help if I explain briefly the intentions underlying Clause 3. It is to enable the parties to agree on small changes in the area of land comprised in the tenancy—for example, where a landlord wished to give the tenant the use of an additional field which is small in relation to the size of the holding and does not affect the character of the tenancy. The addition of land to a holding results, in law, in the surrender of the existing tenancy and the regrant of a new one. Parties who had exchanged notices and whose initial tenancy fully met the notice conditions might not realise that it was necessary to exchange notices again, since they might not even know that they had a new tenancy. Furthermore, even if they did realise this, they might not be able to comply with the notice conditions if the tenant had diversified to a significant extent by the time of the regrant. Clause 3(4) makes it unnecessary for them to do this as it states that the new tenancy shall be taken to meet the notice conditions. In other words, it rescues those parties from a trap into which they might accidentally fall simply as a result of a very minor change in the area of the tenancy.
The noble Lord's amendment would enable parties to add a significant amount of land to a holding, provided that it did not alter the character of the holding. That is one effect of the amendment. Alternatively, they could add a small area of land which might have on it a substantial non-agricultural enterprise which would totally alter the balance of the tenant's entire business. My view is that in either of those circumstances there would be a substantial and fundamental change to the agreement into which the parties had originally entered and they would not be falling accidentally into a trap from which they needed to be rescued by this clause. They would be making a deliberate and substantial change to the tenancy and the correct course, if they wished to be covered by the notice conditions, would be to sign a new tenancy agreement. I must emphasise that this clause is intended to deal only with minor changes which the parties may make to the tenancy, resulting either deliberately or accidentally in a new tenancy.
I believe that the principle underlying the clause should be allowed to stand unchanged. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that that explanation is helpful and will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the noble Earl for the explanation he has given. I was under the impression that the amendment was of minor consequence. However, the noble Earl said that the Bill as drafted provides for only minor changes whereas the proposed amendment might allow major changes to take place in a variety of ways which he outlined. In those circumstances, it would be sensible for me to withdraw the amendment and to take counsel of my advisers in the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 3, leave out ("earlier") and insert ("not later than").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment, we move into deep semantic waters. I am advised that "not later than" is more accurate than "earlier". There seems to be considerable concern throughout the agricultural industry. I shall be grateful if the Minister will explain why the Government have chosen "earlier" rather than "not later than". I beg to move.
The Earl of Courtown: The amendment goes part of the way to clarify the position relating to notices. However, there appears still to be some confusion in the clause.
Clause 3(3) states that the term date of the new tenancy will be earlier than the term date under the old tenancy. Clause 3(5) defines "the term date" as,
"the date fixed for the expiry of the term".
That seems to mean that the new tenancy must end before the old tenancy. I shall be most grateful if the Minister will clarify that point.
Earl Howe: I hope that I can clarify for the Committee what underlies this part of Clause 3. I believe that the amendment may be based on a misunderstanding. The point is that under Clause 3(1) (b) it is provided that either the condition in subsection (2) or the condition in subsection (3) must be met. As we have already discussed, subsection (2) allows for minor changes in the area of land comprised in a new tenancy but no change to the term date. Subsection (3) allows for the tenancy to be ended earlier—that is to say, when the new agreed term date is earlier than it was for the old tenancy. There may be circumstances in which the parties may wish to bring forward the termination date for the tenancy. The case where there is no change in the term date—that is the point of saying "not later than"—is already dealt with by subsection (2). That is the situation where the parties simply wish to make a minor change to the area. There is no need to make an amendment to subsection (3) in order to allow for that.
I realise that it is a complex area. However, I hope that I have explained the intention underlying the clause. It is purely and simply to enable the parties to bring forward the termination date for the farm business tenancy and to substitute an earlier date than the one upon which they had agreed earlier. That is why we believe it is better to say "earlier" rather than "not later than".
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister for the explanation. It is a tricky point. There was some interest—I will not say concern—as to why the phraseology in the Bill was as it is. However, I am sure that all those concerned will read the noble Earl's remarks in Hansard with interest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 4, at end insert ("and that at the beginning of the new tenancy the character of the tenancy remains primarily or wholly agricultural.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment will ensure that either there is a very long let, or that the use of the land must be reconverted to agriculture, or that the parties enter into a business tenancy. It may be that in such circumstances a business tenancy would be more appropriate. In order to ascertain the views of the noble Earl on the matter, I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I am a little surprised by the amendment. Its effect would largely be to defeat the purpose of the clause. We are dealing here with the situation in which the parties agree to substitute an earlier term date in their tenancy agreement for the one on which they originally decided. They might agree to do that, for example, if the tenant knew that he wished to move on in two years' time to another holding. Rather than wait and agree a surrender at that time, the parties may decide to vary the tenancy agreement so that they both know where they stand.
In such cases, it would be pointless to require them to satisfy new conditions when the new tenancy is, in effect, a continuation of the old one but simply terminating sooner. If the tenant had, in fact, significantly diversified his enterprise in the meantime the holding might not satisfy the condition envisaged by the amendment. That would mean that by simply altering the term date the parties had forfeited the protection that was provided by the notice conditions in the first place.
I do not believe that that can be what the noble Lord wishes to achieve by the amendment, although he may have worthy motives in putting the amendment down. I hope that in the light of that explanation he will reconsider and withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the noble Earl for pointing out an aspect of the effect of the clause which I must confess had escaped me when I first read it. In the circumstances, I think that I can best serve the wishes of the Committee by seeking leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall study carefully what the noble Earl said and, if necessary, bring it back in a revised and perhaps more limited form at the Report stage of the Bill; that is if we still deem it necessary to proceed along this line at all. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 4 [Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 not to apply in relation to new tenancies except in special cases]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 20, after ("granted") insert ("on an agreed succession").
The noble Lord said: I also wish to speak to my Amendment No. 27, which is grouped with Amendment No. 22. The amendment is technical in that all the parties, including the Government, agree that succession rights under the 1986 Act should remain. The amendment ensures just that.
However, it would be cumbersome and bureaucratic in future to have tenancies granted under the 1986 Act as well as those granted under this Bill. Amendment No. 22 ensures that after 1st September 1995 all new tenancies should be farm business tenancies under this Bill though, of course, tenancies existing under the 1986 Act would remain—as has already been brought out—until they become extinct. We hope that thereafter there will be only one system.
A landlord and tenant might wish to agree to a long tenancy allowing for succession. In that case, they may do so under this amendment by having a farm business tenancy. As we discussed, that has many advantages over the 1986 type of tenancy. It has diversification, environmental covenants and, most important of all, better compensation arrangements for the tenant. To keep the noble Lord, Lord Carter, happy, the amendment is supported by what I might call the "Gang of Six". I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I hope that the Gang of Six is a little more successful politically than the Gang of Four! My name and that of my noble friend Lord Gallacher are attached to Amendments Nos. 23 and 28. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, we are dealing here with the same technical point.
Amendment No. 23 proposes to marry with the "rollover" provisions in the 1986 Act. If there is a voluntary grant of a tenancy to a close relative of the retiring or deceased tenant, then even though express references to Part IV of the 1986 Act are not inserted in the new tenancy it would preserve the succession rights of the new tenant. There is a similar "rollover" position regarding the established succession rights under the 1986 Act and it would be illogical for them not to be the same under the new Bill.
Amendment No. 28 proposes to add the words "close relative" after "agricultural holding" and it refers to the same point. The preservation of security for an existing tenant on an express surrender and regrant is as important as where there is a surrender and regrant by operation of law inadvertently. If the Government's intention is that all tenants with existing protected tenancies should not inadvertently lose that security after the passing of the 1995 Act, then I am advised that the wording in the amendment is necessary.
On the general point, I was advised by Mr. Andrew Densham —who is well known for dealing with this area—that the intention is that all existing tenancies should be unaffected by the new Bill and that certainly no existing tenant with full security should inadvertently lose that security. Similarly, all accumulated succession rights are to be preserved, but the Bill as drafted does not achieve that end. It only addresses the situation where, inadvertently by operation of law, an existing tenant surrenders his tenancy on a regrant. There are numerous examples where existing tenants, on agreeing in co-operation with the landlord to a new tenancy on modern, up-to-date terms (often for the benefit of the landlord) may inadvertently find themselves thereafter without security. We all know that that is not the Government's intention. It is a technical point which, I am sure, is a matter for the lawyers. However, that is
1148
the advice which we have received and it is important that the Government make it clear. If these amendments are not perfect then perhaps the Government will agree to consider the matter before the Report stage.
Lord Middleton: It is essential that a tenant's succession rights under the 1986 Act should be protected, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Stanley. I support my noble friend that there is much to be said for drawing a line under the 1986 Act so that, except where the existing succession rights persist, we do not have a situation where, running side by side, two tenancy systems would remain: one under the 1986 Act rules and the other under the farm business tenancy rules.
My noble friend's amendment would effectively draw a line and prevent the perpetuation of all unsatisfactory elements of the 1986 Act. It would not, however, prevent the parties to a farm business tenancy agreeing to whatever terms they wished; for example, in regard to succession rights.
The Opposition amendments to Clause 4 have the same laudable object of preserving the rights of succession tenancies, but they go too far towards perpetuating the 1986 tenancies. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, will not like me saying this, but they go well outside the joint industry agreement. I greatly prefer my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Carter: I am surprised by that intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. I can understand the CLA thinking like that, but I would be amazed if the NFU, the TFA and the National Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs did not agree fully to protect all the succession rights that are in the 1986 Act. Indeed, the Government had the chance to remove those rights by acting retrospectively, but they chose not to do so. I should like it now to be confirmed that that is so.
I thought that this was a technical discussion, but as we proceed through Committee we learn more and more. I am sure that it would be for the reassurance of the industry if the Government would confirm that they have no intention of weakening the succession rights under the 1986 Act for those who have them.
I quoted the legal advice which I received from a leading practitioner in the field that the Bill does not do that, and we hope that that was inadvertent. I hope the Minister will now confirm that all those with succession rights under the 1986 Act will have them preserved and that their rights will not be weakened, as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, suggested. If there is an inadvertent weakness in the drafting, I hope that the Government will undertake to put it right.
Lord Middleton: I did not mean to infer that the succession rights would be weakened. As I understand it, the amendments would strengthen them.
Lord Carter: As we are in Committee, it is important to get it right. I shall have to read Hansard, but I thought that the noble Lord said that he wished to bring to an

1149
end the 1986 Act and only have the farm business tenancy, but the two will exist side by side for a long time yet.
Lord Middleton: All I was trying to say was that there was no wish to perpetuate the 1986 Act for ever. My noble friend's amendment would draw a line, but that would not mean to say that the parties could not have what might be called 1986 arrangements in future agreements if they wanted to.
Lord Carter: I shall be very surprised if there are that many landlords around who will be letting succession tenancies under farm business tenancies.
Lord Middleton: I shall be surprised, too, but there is nothing to prevent them from doing it.
Earl Howe: We have had a very interesting exchange. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stanley for introducing his amendment so clearly. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I was also interested by the observations of my noble friend Lord Middleton. I believe that we shall be coming to amendments that deal more specifically with the desirability of the continuation of the 1986 Act in various guises.
I hope that my noble friend will not mind my revealing that the amendment is derived from an earlier draft of the Bill prepared by the Government. Your Lordships will realise that it is a rather complex area. We are all exhorted to make legislation simple. Therefore, we decided to replace this complex provision with a much simpler one. In our view Clause 4(1) (c) of the Bill is adequate. We consider that it allows statutory succession by agreement, although we recognise that in theory it will also allow parties to opt in to the 1986 Act by offering a tenancy subject to the succession provisions. We considered it so unlikely that a landlord would offer a tenancy with explicit succession rights to a tenant who did not already possess such rights that it was unnecessary to include a complex provision to prevent that from happening.
However, in view of the doubts that have been expressed today as to whether Clause 4(1) (c) of the Bill will permit statutory succession by agreement, I am willing to give further thought to the provision and to my noble friend's amendment. For the record, I confirm that it is intended to protect succession rights that exist under the 1986 Act. We believe that the Bill does this, but clearly there is a difference of view. I hope that in the light of my undertaking my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will agree to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am more than happy to withdraw this amendment. We are all agreed on the principle of what is sought to be achieved. It may be that I do not agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench that the Bill is drafted in such a way that, first, it will preserve the rights of existing 1986 Act tenants and, secondly, allow any future tenancy to come only under what will become the 1995 Act. In passing, succession rights for tenants under the 1995 Act will be rare but I
1150
do not entirely disregard them. If we cannot tackle the overriding problem of tax, it is a way to devalue land which perhaps some landlords will wish to do for inheritance tax purposes. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: Is the noble Lord saying that the Bill provides a loophole for tax avoidance?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The noble Lord puts words into my mouth. I have no intention of replying to such a mischievous question.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 22, at end insert:
("() is granted by a written contract of tenancy indicating (in whatever terms) that the 1986 Act is to apply in relation to the tenancy; or").
The noble Lord said: This amendment runs on from the previous discussion. The present wording of Clause 4(1) (c) allows the parties to contract into a new succession tenancy but not a new life or retirement tenancy. It seems to us that, if the parties wish to do that and have the protection and prescription of the 1986 Act, they should be allowed to do so. I expect that the Minister will reply that if they wish to do so they can write the 1986 Act into their agreement under farm business tenancies. I would need advice as to whether that would be so. What we suggest is that, if it is logical to allow the parties to contract into a new succession tenancy, they should also be allowed to contract into a new life or retirement tenancy. If the Government reject that, I believe we can read into it that they cannot do anything about succession tenancies except by acting retrospectively but have determined not to allow the 1986 Act to be extended in other cases.
It also brings into question the important matter of smallholdings. Smallholdings are now caught by the Bill. They were deliberately excluded from the 1986 Act in the schedules etc. The provisions of the 1986 Act as they relate to tenants of smallholdings are close to the profile of tenancy protection which a lot of people believe meets the needs of the coming years. We argue that in the case of smallholdings a higher standard of social responsibility is expected from public authorities than from a private landowner.
We in the Labour Party do not believe that a tenant should have his security of tenure destroyed. Therefore, it is logical to do our best to protect any class of tenant which can be easily identified. Smallholders are a special class of tenant who do not need to be drawn into the proposed legislation. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister why the Government have not continued the special status of smallholdings which they were given under the 1986 Act. The industry did not want it, and for once we would like to hear the Government's opinion. It is a clearly defined class. The maximum size of a smallholding is 900 standard man-days, but most of them are well below that. By definition, the people who occupy them tend to be those who have little personal capital to back them. The chance to accumulate capital from the income of such

1151
holdings and to move on is limited, and there are statutory limits on the degree of expansion that the tenant can undertake.
The option for an efficient smallholding tenant at the end of a short let would often be to become a farm worker or to leave agriculture. To move on to farm another holding in his own right would be more difficult now than when the smallholdings scheme was first conceived at the beginning of the century or even in 1970 when the present statutory arrangements for smallholdings were introduced.
The control by smallholdings authorities of tenancies is already greater than that of normal agricultural landlords under the 1986 Act. An extremely helpful letter has been received from the property services department of Norfolk County Council. The county land agent deals with a number of matters related to smallholdings. He states:
"I should like the flexibility to be able to continue to relet statutory smallholdings [and] 'County Farms equipped holdings' under the 1986 Act and an amendment to this effect would be very helpful".
The object of this amendment is twofold: first, to ask the Government why they have not included a provision which decides the succession of tenancies, which they more or less have to agree to unless they intend to act retrospectively. Secondly, to ask why they have concentrated upon that and not written in an express provision that if the landlord and tenant wish to have the protection of the 1986 Act for a life or retirement tenancy they cannot do so but they can do so if they write the Act into their new farm business tenancy. We feel that it would be easier if they could just lift the 1986 Act directly into their farm business tenancy, particularly in the case of smallholdings. I understand that the smallholdings authorities would welcome an amendment which in effect reproduced what happened under the 1986 Act.
It would be helpful if the Minister could explain the reasons why the Government did not choose that route. I beg leave to move the amendment.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has explained that this amendment will enable parties to opt into the 1986 Act. I recognise the force of some of his arguments. But I have to say that it would be strange for us to introduce a new framework of law from 1st September 1995 and at the same time leave the old legislation open alongside it.
There is general recognition throughout the industry that the 1986 Act is far too rigid. Farmers and landowners need the flexibility to adapt to changes in policy and market conditions or, if they want to, to make their farms more attractive to wildlife. It is most unlikely that any landlord would choose to sign up for the 1986 Act even if he had that option.
But, as my noble friend Lord Middleton pointed out a few moments ago, it is much better to close it off in order to avoid having two different systems of tenancy law running on indefinitely in parallel. A point to bear in mind, as the noble Lord himself indicated, is that if the parties wish to enter into a tenancy with a similar
1152
degree of security, they are well able to do so within the new legislation by including the relevant provisions in their tenancy agreement.
The noble Lord spoke in particular about smallholdings. The 1986 Act does apply to tenants of smallholdings. The statutory succession provisions do not apply because it was not considered appropriate. As he well realises, smallholdings are intended to provide opportunities for young farmers on the first rung of the ladder.
Following from that, the noble Lord asked why, if it was logical to let people contract into a succession tenancy, they should not contract into the 1986 Act generally. To abolish succession rights will involve retrospection, which we, and I hope the party opposite, do not wish to happen. So we have to allow parties to grant such tenancies by agreement where succession rights exist—we think it unlikely that anyone will use that option where such rights do not exist.
However, the position on the 1986 Act is different. Existing tenancies are not affected but all new tenancies will be farm business tenancies. As I indicated, that is a cleaner and neater arrangement than having the two systems running in parallel.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister for giving a clear statement about what the Government think about the 1986 Act, which was passed only eight years ago. One talks about closing off the 1986 Act and not making it indefinite, but it will be around for a very long time. We are only just about into the first generation of successors and there is a second generation of successors to come. So the 1986 Act will be around for a very long time. At a later stage of the Bill we may wish to use the opportunity of this Bill to repair a number of omissions in the 1986 Act itself.
Certainly, when I was on the Northfield Committee from 1977 to 1979, just after the 1976 Act came in, there was concern about the effect of the Act on future lettings. I remind the Committee of a point that was put to that committee in evidence. I believe that it came from the ministry, in fact. The 1976 Act, with succession of tenancy, saved as many tenancies as were going to be lost by what was happening with the taxation system in effect. At that time certainly there was an argument in the department that the 1976 Act could be seen as a means of protecting tenancies. It is likely now that the let sector is larger than it otherwise would have been because of the effect of the 1976 Act. It is an interesting point. We have all discussed the reduction in the size of the let sector and whether it is down to 35 per cent. or, as I would suggest, even less. It is a matter of simple logic that without the 1976 Act it would have been even smaller. That was certainly the view of the department when the Northfield Committee took evidence between 1977 and 1979.
We shall wish to return at a later stage of the Bill to the virtues of the 1986 Act, which the Government themselves enacted only eight years ago. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 31, at end insert:
("(e) is granted to a person who immediately before the grant of the tenancy held a previous tenancy from the person granting the new tenancy in relation to which the 1986 Act applied and that previous tenancy has been surrendered or terminated.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 29 with which it is grouped. There is some anxiety that less than scrupulous landlords may place pressure on tenants to accept arrangements which deprive them of the right to succession and the full protection of the 1986 Act. One such method could be to move the tenant from one farm on the estate to another, which is possibly held out to be on better land.
It may be to the tenant's advantage to make such a move, but it must be clear that he does so with his eyes open. The need for him formally to state to the agricultural land tribunal that his preference is fully exercised should act as a deterrent to the landlord who is considering using his influence over the tenant to induce a course of action which could be to the tenant's detriment.
If this amendment is accepted, a consequential amendment to the 1986 Act will be needed to place an obligation on the agricultural land tribunal to issue such certificates. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I listened carefully to the argument presented by the noble Lord which, I take it, is based on the assumption that existing tenants will not want to accept farm business tenancies as a substitute for the tenancies that they already have.
I do not see the need for arrangements such as those proposed. A landlord can offer a tenant a long fixed term farm business tenancy, without break clauses, and can include, by agreement, many of the provisions from the 1986 Act. The tenant might well be better off legally than he is at the moment, and if the landlord agreed, the tenant would have much greater scope for diversification. If, on the other hand, a tenant did not like the terms that he was offered, he could refuse to surrender his 1986 Act tenancy. The parties would in fact be in a bargaining position. If the tenant found the landlord's initial offer unacceptable, he could say so, at the same time putting forward his own proposal. Eventually a compromise acceptable to both would no doubt be found.
I suggest that that is a much better approach than involving the agricultural land tribunals. They will not have a place under the new legislation. I hope that the noble Lord will find those remarks helpful and, as a result, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the noble Earl for the remarks which he has had to make in respect of this amendment. We were advised that the possibilities which were envisaged in the amendment could exist. It
1154
was to guard against that—if not their existence then the possibility of their becoming established —that the amendment was tabled.
The noble Earl said that the parties are in a bargaining situation. They certainly are. But in his opinion is it a bargaining situation in which both sides are absolutely equal? I am not a farmer and do not know what in general are the relationships between tenant farmers and their landlords. Nevertheless, the possibility of undue influence —which I think is at the heart of this amendment—does exist; and if it exists, the amendment would provide some defence against it.
The noble Earl also said that what is in the Bill is better than using the agricultural land tribunal and in fact no future is envisaged under this Bill for the tribunal. We are somewhat disappointed by that response, which will not surprise the noble Earl. Nevertheless, we shall look at what he said very carefully to see whether we are guarding against a contingency which is unlikely to arise or whether, in some revised form, an amendment of this character ought to be retabled for the Report stage of the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 27 to 29 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Lord Inglewood: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

CBDE Porton Down
6.59 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the departments responsible for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down have shown a proper degree of responsibility for the health and safety of volunteers engaged in medical research.
The noble Countess said: My Lords, may I say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to the Chief Whip and to the usual channels for enabling me to change my Question at such short notice? I have given the noble Lord the Minister notice of the ground I intend to cover. He has kindly written to say that he will not respond to any questions which fall outside the scope of the Question I have tabled on the Order Paper. In return I would ask him to note that my Question relates to "the departments responsible" and that questions are addressed to Her Majesty's Government and not to a particular Minister. I will understand if he does not have all the answers to my questions tonight, and that he will write to me.
Noble Lords can hardly fail to be aware that for the past two and a half years I have been trying to persuade the Government to take measures to prevent any further damage to human health from exposure to organophosphates. It is my understanding that the only

1155
tests on the effects of this group of chemicals on humans have been carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down. Inquiries to manufacturers of organophosphate pesticides have revealed that, while they have made tests on animals, they regard tests on humans as too dangerous.
From a series of Questions for Written Answer, I have established that the tests done on human volunteers at Porton Down are categorised as biomedical research and that they are ethically conducted. The principles upon which those ethics are based are enumerated in the 10 principles of the Nuremberg code. After the discovery of the horrific experiments conducted by German physicians and professors during the Nazi regime and the doctors' trial at Nuremberg, the judges, concerned that never again should humans endure such suffering in the name of science, wrote the code into their final judgment. The Nuremberg code has become the cornerstone of the Declarations of Helsinki in 1964, 1975, 1983 and 1989. On 6th February 1990 the Committee of Ministers to Member States concerning Medical Research on Human Beings adopted Recommendation No. R(19)3. This incorporated the principles of the Declarations of Helsinki. I have established that Her Majesty's Government accept all the principles of the recommendation, that they apply equally to civilian and service volunteers and that the scientists at Porton Down are bound by their principles; or are they?
My information would indicate that at least four of the principles are not adhered to. It may be helpful if I detail those principles. Principle 2.1 states:
"In medical research the interests and well-being of the person undergoing medical research must always prevail over the interests of science and society".
Principle 3.1 begins:
"No medical research may be carried out without the informed, free, express and specific consent of the person undergoing it".
Principle 3.2 states:
"The person who is to undergo medical research should be given information on the purpose of the research and the methodology of the experimentation. He should also be informed of the foreseeable risks and inconveniences to him of the proposed research".
Principle 13.1 states:
"Potential subjects of medical research should not be offered any inducement which compromises free consent. Persons undergoing medical research should not gain any financial benefit. However, expenses and any financial loss may be refunded and in appropriate cases a modest allowance may be given for any inconvenience inherent in medical research".
And principle 14 states:

"1. Persons undergoing medical research and/or their dependants should be compensated for injury or loss caused by medical research.

2. Where there is no existing system providing compensation for the persons concerned states should ensure that sufficient guarantees for such compensation are provided".

These principles leave no room for doubt or misinterpretation. Why then am I concerned? The organophosphates currently used in agriculture were developed from extremely toxic organophosphates developed first by the Germans prior to and during World War II and later by the British and other nations for chemical warfare purposes. These so-called nerve
1156
gases were tested on human volunteers at Porton Down. Some were exposed directly and others through protective clothing which was being tested. There is a group of 300 men, at least one of whom was not a volunteer, who underwent experiments with nerve gases between 1951 and 1977. Never were these men told what the chemical was or of its effects. Many were misled to the extent that they believed they were testing a cure for the common cold and that any effects would be minor and temporary. In retrospect, they all believed that these were the acute effects of exposure to organophosphate nerve gas, and in many cases they were severe and prolonged. Not one of these men has been followed up by Porton Down or the Ministry of Defence, and when they have asked for help the shutters have been pulled down. One remarked to me:
"It was as if we had never been near Porton Down".
They were offered inducements in the form of extra pay, very tempting to the poorly paid National Service conscript, or extra leave. This practice continues today. I have an advertisement headed:
"41/94 Volunteers for studies at Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment Porton Down (R)".
It states:
"Volunteers could earn pay up to £250 (less tax) or in special cases more for a 3 week study and proportionately less for shorter studies".
There is no mention of refund of expenses or an allowance for inconvenience.
There is no doubt that these men are chronically sick. As I have said, they believe their illnesses are due to exposure to nerve gas. They have no means of establishing the truth because neither Porton Down nor the Ministry of Defence will admit they exist. During the screening of a film entitled "The Secrets of Porton Down", broadcast on 11th October 1994 on Channel 4 Television, the Director General of CBDE Porton Down was asked about follow up tests on volunteers. He said:
"There is no evidence to suggest that there is a need to call back volunteers on a regular basis".
When pressed, he said:
"It's a question of what is the best and most appropriate use of resources and one endeavours to use resources to best effect to ensure that our armed forces have effective protective measures. There are a lot of things that you could carry out research on but it would be wasting the Government's money to put effort into things that have little prospect of any benefit to those concerned".
So much for principles 2 and 13!
May I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether the Government really believe that these men, who innocently volunteered to undertake tests which one was told,
"wouldn't harm a mouse",
have been treated in accordance with the principles of the Declarations of Helsinki and Recommendation No. R(90)3? If not, would he please take urgent action to enable them to be recompensed?
There is another group, possibly a very large group, of servicemen and women and members of the ancillary services who are receiving short shrift from the Ministry of Defence. These are the men and women who served in the Gulf in 1990 and 1991. They may not be classed as volunteers in the strictest sense, but some of the

1157
medication administered to them at the time of Operation Granby was developed and tested at Porton Down and in two instances was unlicensed in the United Kingdom. These people received vaccines of two types of anthrax, botulinus toxin, bubonic plague (which was unlicensed), cholera, hepatitis B, polio, typhoid, whooping cough and yellow fever, all within about four days. They were also ordered to take 30 mgs of pyridostigmine bromide, also unlicensed, every eight hours for all the time they were in the Gulf. This drug is a carbanate, closely related to organophosphates. It has been used successfully to treat patients with myasthenia gravis, a neurological disease when given in much higher doses. It enhances the release of acetylcholine, one of the chemical messengers in the blood. I understand that this drug, known as nerve agent pre-treatment set or NAPS, was only tested on volunteers for two to three days and was designed for use in acute situations. A former senior scientific officer at Porton Down has described the prospect of prolonged use as "terrifying". It is known that when too much pyridostigmine bromide is given to a healthy person a cholinergic crisis is precipitated. This is the acute effect of poisoning. Nobody knows what happens when the drug is administered at a low level over a long period of time, but it is suspected that the neuromuscular junctions become modified and do not return to normal when the drug is no longer taken.
Most of the troops took NAPS on a regular basis for two months, but some members of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service who arrived in the Gulf in September 1990 took them for much longer. Their officers were in almost daily contact with the MoD asking whether it was all right to take NAPS for so long. They received no advice. There has been no research conducted on the effects on the human neurological or immune systems of a combination of vaccines with NAPS in the contaminated stressful situation which prevailed in the Gulf. Many of the members of the armed services who left for the Gulf in complete fitness have since their return fallen ill with a wide spectrum of symptoms, many familiar to sufferers from exposure to OP sheep dips. I understand that fully informed consent was not obtained from the troops prior to the administration of the medication and that they were given no opportunity to refuse. They were simply marched into a room and ordered to roll up their sleeves. They were aware that refusal would result in disciplinary action.
Why is it that the American Department of Defense has acknowledged that its troops, who saw action in the same theatre of war and received a similar spectrum of vaccines and NAPS, are suffering an unusual amount of illness after their Gulf service? They have given their sick veterans ex gratia payments and have set up a full epidemiological study to investigate cause and effect. Our Ministry of Defence says that very few Gulf servicemen and women have come forward for medical examination and the few who have, although they are ill, are not displaying any unusual signs or symptoms—certainly nothing which could be called a Gulf syndrome.
I know that many of the men and women affected have not presented for examination because they are career personnel and are afraid that their future prospects will be blighted. They are, nevertheless, extremely worried about their health and, following reports from America and Canada of babies conceived by the wives of Gulf servicemen after the conflict who are showing a higher than normal incidence of deformity and congenital illness, they are worried for their families. There has been no teratogenetic research done on the medication given to the troops.
The chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Senator Jay Rockefeller, said last week:
"On far too many occasions the Pentagon has shown a reckless disregard for the health and wellbeing of service members. Soldiers who are exposed to dangerous substances without their knowledge or consent become veterans who do not receive the medical care and compensation to which they are entitled".
I believe that that statement applies equally to our troops.
I know that the conflict in the Gulf presented dangers never before encountered by any troops. I know too that the action taken at the time to protect them was taken in the belief that it was in their best interests. What I find unacceptable is the flat refusal of the Ministry of Defence to admit that there may be something wrong and their failure to conduct a proper study of those who are ill.
I ask the noble Lord the Minister to ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence to arrange for the publication of Regimental Part I Orders ordering personnel to submit for medical examination without fear of prejudice. If that is done the extent of the problem will be known and measures taken to treat and compensate those affected.
I now come to the point which caused me to alter the subject of my Unstarred Question. In a Question for written Answer I asked whether the results of the research into the chronic effects of long term, low level exposure to organophosphate sheep dips conducted by the Department of Occupational Medicine at Birmingham University on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive would be published. The reply from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was:
"The findings of the project are being analysed and the results will be submitted early next year to a scientific journal for publication".
It is my understanding that the research project was completed in June 1994.
Two hundred sheep farmers who had been exposed to organophosphate sheep dips were compared with a similar number of quarry workers matched for age, sex and region. The researchers looked at the neuro-psychological effects and the neurological effects, using standard tests. Three of the neuro-psychological tests have been analysed statistically. They show significant evidence of deterioration among the farmers. In one of the three tests there was a dose response relationship which is extremely significant because it eliminates other causes. Despite their lack of sophistication, the neurological tests demonstrate significant differences between the farmers and the controls.
It is inconceivable that such important evidence should be withheld pending publication in a scientific journal. Never before have the representatives of workers' organisations on the Chemicals in Agriculture Committee been denied access to this kind of information once it is held by the Health and Safety Executive. This research ties in with that done at Edinburgh University upon the effectiveness of the recommended protected clothing. Their conclusion was that the clothing was impractical, especially during the summer, and that dippers were exposed to significant amounts of chemicals.
This is an occasion when the scientists should put aside the privileges associated with publication in a scientific journal in the greater interest of humanity. The implications behind the results of these studies are enormous. There are over 430 organophosphate compounds in use in agriculture, horticulture, for pest control in commercial and domestic premises and in human and veterinary medicine. I have reports of illness from people concerned with all these. With a few notable exceptions, the medical profession has shown an abysmal lack of expertise, or even interest, in patients who have been exposed to organophosphates. In too many cases I have heard first-hand stories of doctors and consultants laughing at their patients if mention is made of OPs. They simply do not believe that such toxic chemicals would be let loose on the general population and prefer to send the patient to a psychiatrist or psychologist, often to the detriment of the patient's health.
I believe that the effects of chronic exposure to organophosphates have been suspected for a long time. The Department of Health adviser to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—an expert on organophosphates and a former Porton Down scientist—said in front of a room filled with farmers that he knows that there is long term damage and that he does not need persuading. Why will he not say so publicly?
We have three groups of people who would appear at first sight to have nothing in common. I hope that I have demonstrated that there is a thread which draws them all together. Each group is suffering ill health which is chronic and untreatable by orthodox medicine. Each group believes that they know the cause of their illness but no one will listen to them or do anything about it. Why should these sick people have to take recourse to the courts, with all that that involves, in order to gain compensation which is rightly theirs in the case of the Porton Down volunteers and the Gulf servicemen and women and, in the case of the others, should be recognised by the governments which have licensed the pesticides responsible?
The noble Lord the Minister has listened to me very patiently. I am grateful. I ask him to take the action necessary to ensure that all these victims are recognised and compensated. I also ask him to ensure that her Majesty's Government review the whole procedure for licensing chemical pesticides and medicines and that they consider introducing experienced lay people to the licensing committees.,
I realise that I have asked questions which may be beyond the wording of my Question. I am convinced that the questions I have asked tonight are vitally important. I shall be grateful to the noble Lord if he will provide the answers. Finally, perhaps I may remind him of Toyber's dictum:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
7.17 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Countess for introducing this important Question. Before starting I should declare my interest. As a serving officer in the TA, I use NBC protection equipment designed and tested at Porton Down. In war I may be expected to use the nerve agent pre-treatment sets (NAPS) to which the noble Countess referred. She is quite right to address these matters and to ask the most searching questions of the Minister.
My understanding is that NAPS have been used for short periods by Porton Down staff when handling nerve agents. This was to provide temporary increased protection when carrying out slightly hazardous procedures. The noble Countess is quite right to ask about the long-term use of NAPS. It is known that many soldiers in the Gulf conflict stopped using NAPS because of the side effects which were not very pleasant.
It is quite difficult to discover any information, even on the military net, about the problems which the noble Countess has raised. As I do not "need to know" there would be something wrong if I could find out. It is important that our hard won knowledge of NBC matters is kept to us and our allies only.
The MoD constantly trawls for volunteers at Porton Down. Frequently, approaches are made to candidates on NBC courses. The regular soldiers that I meet are rather reluctant to volunteer. Those that have volunteered may not be in a position to give the information for the reasons that I have already given.
I do not know much about Porton Down, but I would suggest that there are two broad areas of military interest. The first is the study of NBC agents and, in particular, methods of design, production, delivery and, most important, protection. It is important that we know how to produce NBC agents so that we can deter first use by an enemy and also detect a potential enemy's means of production.
The second broad area is that of NBC protective equipment. Our NBC protective equipment is some of the best available in the world. It is relatively easy to make individual protection equipment (IPE) that is impregnable or very lightweight and comfortable. The difficulty is to design IPE that provides full protection and is robust enough for the battlefield. Soldiers have to be able to continue to operate in a contaminated environment, so the equipment has to be breathable and not so heavy that the heat build-up is intolerable.
The equipment that is designed at Porton meets those requirements very well and the establishment continues to improve it, so much so that British IPE was very attractive to other allied soldiers in the gulf. Furthermore, I contend that Saddam Hussein was deterred from using chemicals to any great extent

1161
because his staff would have advised him that we had the means to protect ourselves and that we knew as much about chemical weapons as they did.
As I said, the noble Countess is right to ask such questions and the Minister should answer them as best he can. I should like to ask the Minister what extra pay and allowances (over and above normal rates of pay) ate available for servicemen who volunteer for the tests. If the Minister cannot answer that question now, perhaps he could write to me.
7.21 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Countess for tabling this extremely significant Unstarred Question. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee will forgive me if I do not follow him on the military details that he raised. My concern is with the broader health issues which the noble Countess mentioned. I am sorry to hear that her initial response from the Minister has been that some of the questions that she raised range so much more broadly than the terms of her original Question on the Order Paper that he may find it difficult to reply. I do not think that that should prevent us re-emphasising some of the issues to which the noble Countess has rightly drawn our attention with her usual comprehensive approach to these extraordinarily difficult subjects and the great authority that she has built up as a result of studying these matters over a long period.
The question which the noble Countess asked at the end of her remarks is perhaps the most important. I refer to the publication of the academic research that exists on organophosphates. Obviously, it is completely inappropriate, not to say scientifically unethical, for that material not to be publicly available if it has the impact on public policy which the noble Countess suggested. I feel strongly that the noble Countess is right in saying that in this instance the scientific concern about keeping something for the research journals should be overridden.
The noble Countess explained in some detail the ethics of human research guidelines which are familiar to all of us who have been involved in this area in one way or another. Of those ethical guidelines, four are probably of paramount importance in this connection. I refer first to the questions: Has the well-being of the person concerned in the research been considered paramount? Has consent really been freely given? Have there really been no inducements to take part in that research? Have those who have taken part in the research truly understood the purpose of that research? As the noble Countess explained, all of those aspects are enshrined in clear international guidelines, but common sense tells us that they must be susceptible to a little bending when one is dealing with research in a military situation.
The next question is whether those who have taken part in the various experiments that have been outlined are indeed chronically sick or have suffered only temporary side-effects. I am interested in the letter which the chief executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down, Dr.
1162
Pearson, wrote to my honourable friend Dr. David Clark when he asked a Question in another place on an issue which the noble Countess did not raise but which recently has gained a lot of publicity. I refer to the work and studies involving LSD at Porton Down. In his letter addressed to Dr. Clark on 21st November, just last month, the chief executive said, referring to the points which he was making about LSD:
"In addition, over the past 40 years there is no evidence that service volunteers have had any deterioration in their health as a result of their participating as a volunteer in a study at CBDE".
The examples that were given by the noble Countess show that that cannot be the entire truth. When the Minister replies, I should be grateful if he could expand on the statement that was made by Dr. Pearson only last month in reply to my honourable friend.
The noble Countess also referred to the so-called "Gulf War syndrome". She explained in some detail—this was re-emphasised by the noble Earl—the particular problems which arose for troops in that conflict. Again, we have to ask questions about whether those people are chronically sick, whether that sickness can be attributed to what was happening in the Gulf and whether there is, in a sense, an abrogation of responsibility because it is difficult to carry out epidemiology on people who are now dispersed in many walks of life in different parts of the world.
Surely we need a thorough "look-back" exercise by the Ministry of Defence. I hope that such an exercise would be in collaboration with the Department of Health. We need to know precisely what is happening. It has been suggested that an independent scientist should be appointed to look into the situation of the troops and veterans who report suffering from Gulf War syndrome. We need to try to sort it out between those two departments.
It is interesting that the United States Department of Defence has recognised the problem. It has given compensation and has erred on the side of generosity. Perhaps the Minister will explain why the British Ministry of Defence has taken such a different point of view.
As the noble Countess said in conclusion, in the absence of absolute proof about something that has been going on for over 40 years—that is what the chief executive said—it is difficult to be precise about exactly what causal effects follow one another. The sadness for those of us who are very much newcomers to this subject is to feel that there is a sense in which everybody in the department of defence at Porton Down is being extremely reticent about something which may have been regarded originally as a question of military security, but which has now become a question that is much more related to health.
7.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, I appreciate the noble Countess's anxieties following my letter to her today in response to her letter of last week that she was worried that I was trying to dodge the issues and was not going to respond to some of her points. I think that is the implication. I assure the noble

1163
Countess that I am in no way trying to dodge the issues, as I think she put it, on the basis that they went beyond my department. I appreciate the fact that I am responding on behalf of Her Majesty's Government; but I think that I also have a duty to respond to the question on the Order Paper. I know that the noble Countess sent me notice of questions that went way beyond that on the Order Paper; but it is my duty to respond to the Question that she has tabled. I might touch in passing on some of the other points that she raised, and no doubt other points that she made can be considered in due course. I want to make clear that I am certainly not trying in any way to dodge the issues.
It might help if I start by explaining a little about what the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment—the CBDE—is and does, and what its function is. As the noble Countess knows, it is an agency of my department, the Ministry of Defence. Its role is to ensure that our Armed Forces have effective protection against the threat which chemical or biological weapons may pose. That threat is very real, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made quite clear. Everyone should bear that in mind. It was very real in the Gulf and it is still a very real threat. It is therefore essential that we have effective protective measures against that threat. Without such protective measures, there is little point in going on. It is a threat of continuing anxiety. A significant number of states are thought to be seeking such weapons.
It is clear that the way ahead is for a web of deterrence which comprises effective protective measures, thereby reducing the utility of chemical or biological weapons, and broad arms and export controls, which Her Majesty's Government will continue to pursue.
Obviously, as part of this programme it is necessary to use service volunteers, first, to assess the ability of service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures; to develop medical countermeasures to protect service personnel; and to evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of chemical warfare agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.
The studies involving service volunteers began in the 1920s and now involve between 100 and 200 volunteers each year. The purpose of the volunteer studies programme is to ensure that any protective measure is acceptable from a military point of view and—this is important—is safe before it is recommended for introduction into service. Such measures need to be evaluated first in the safety of a laboratory or hospital environment, with full medical and scientific back-up at hand.
The principles of how volunteer studies are to be conducted are enshrined, as the noble Countess made clear, by international agreement in the Helsinki Declaration. Further detailed guidance and rules are provided by the Royal College of Physicians in London. I reject the noble Countess's allegations that we do not respect the principles of that declaration, and I shall deal with that point in due course.
1164
The programme is supervised by an independent panel of experts who form the CBDE ethics committee. The role of that committee is to ensure the safety of the subjects and to safeguard the scientific staff who carry out the human studies from criticism which may be informed or otherwise. They evaluate each protocol in advance and give their approval only where they are satisfied that there will be no harm to the health of the volunteers. All human studies at CBDE are conducted with volunteers drawn from the three armed services, who apply in response to requests officially promulgated months in advance. They are free to withdraw from a study at any time without having to give any reason. The procedures, the expected effects and all possible risks are discussed with them in lay terms by an officer in advance and at each stage of the tests. The noble Countess referred to that point, and if she has allegations that matters are otherwise, I should be more than happy to look at those allegations; I have none.
In studies involving the taking of a drug, half of the volunteers will take medication containing the active drug and the other half will take medication consisting of an inert substance. All medication will look alike, with its identity disguised from both subjects and the scientists until the study is finished. This is a placebo-controlled randomised double-blind study procedure which is widely accepted as best practice in this field.
Typically, volunteers come to CBDE for two week periods. That length of time may, for instance, be required for the intensive tests of sustained physical and mental work carried out in individual protective equipment under controlled climatic conditions representative of cold or hot areas of the world in which they may be sent to operate In the future. Effects caused by a drug under study are recorded carefully. Aspects of mental performance such as memory, the speed and accuracy of mental arithmetic, manual target tracking and dexterity, and the ability to remain alert and notice small change are measured repeatedly in performance tests. Where possible, the efficiency of the volunteer is also measured in carefully controlled military exercises. As the effectiveness of a drug to protect against agents of chemical warfare cannot be studied on man, the final choice between several possible drugs is made on the basis of their acceptability and freedom from side effects.
In response to a question from the noble Earl, I should say that volunteers are recompensed for the inconvenience at a rate of £1.66 per test, which amounts typically to a little over £200 for a two-week study. The payment is subject to tax. The noble Countess cannot allege that that is a denial of the principles of the Helsinki Declaration; and it is not an excessive inducement to take part in those tests.
On arrival at CBDE Porton Down, volunteers are given a full medical examination. They have the study explained to them in lay terms by an officer who is not involved in the study. They are advised that they may leave at any stage without any explanation, and at the end of the study they are given a further medical examination to ensure that they have suffered no harm. In addition, there is no history of service doctors in their

1165
units seeking advice from CBDE Porton Down on any subsequent illnesses that may have been reported by volunteers who have been exposed to any agent.
That is the principle of informed consent by which we abide and by which we shall continue to abide. We shall continue to say to veterans that if they wish to go to their GP, the CBDE and the Ministry will release their medical records to assist in the investigation of their cases, as appropriate. Information is provided to medical practitioners so that they can judge whether any of the experiences throughout the individual's service career has any relevance to their current medical conditions. That information will be released, if necessary.
Unless the noble Countess can provide me with individual cases, there is no evidence over the past 40 years to suggest that service volunteers who have participated in studies at the CBDE Porton Down have suffered any harm to their health, or that any of them were not volunteers, as the noble Countess alleged. If she can produce evidence to suggest that they were not volunteers, I shall be more than happy to look at it.
I should add that the MoD is grateful to all service personnel who have served as volunteers in studies at CBDE Porton Down, as their participation has been vital in ensuring that members of the Armed Forces are provided with the most effective protective measures possible against a threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. Such studies are vital to the defence of the realm, and we are grateful to those servicemen who have helped achieve the high standards of protection that are available for the members of the UK Armed Forces.
Perhaps I may say a word or two on the allegations about Gulf War illness. There is no medical or scientific evidence of any mystery illness linked to Gulf War service. All those who suffer have been found to suffer from recognised conditions. There is no known medical evidence of long-term reactions to vaccines when administered together or over a short period of time.
Further, we have received notification of 420 potential claims in respect of the alleged Gulf illness. They detail a wide variety of symptoms, the vast majority of which are common among the general population. What I can say—this has been repeated by me, and by my honourable and right honourable friends in the other place—is that all claimants have been encouraged through their solicitors to come for medical assessment by military medical specialists. Less than half have so far accepted that offer. I have to refute flatly the allegation made by the noble Countess that the MoD has refused to do anything.
I shall say a word or two about the report referred to by the noble Countess from the US Senate produced by Senator Rockefeller. It is a highly selective report in that it chooses to ignore the outcry—his was mentioned by the noble Earl—that would have resulted in the US and the UK if Iraq had used its nerve agent and our troops had not been given medical protection from NAPS. That drug—I am not sure that I can pronounce the name as well as the noble Countess—pyridostigmine bromide, was licensed to my department in August 1993 by the
1166
Medicines Control Agency under product licence No. 4537/003 for the use in the pre-treatment of service personnel at risk from poisoning from organophosphorus nerve agent. I believe that if we had not made use of that the problems might have been considerably more difficult.
As I said earlier, in the final analysis there has been no evidence during the past 40 years to suggest that service volunteers who participated in studies at Porton Down have suffered any harm to their health. If the noble Countess wishes to produce evidence, I shall be prepared to look at it. I believe that the safety of service volunteers is deemed to be of paramount importance and no study will take place without the express approval of the independent ethics committee. Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the Ministry of Defence and the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down have shown a high and proper degree of responsibility for the health and safety of volunteers who have participated in studies at Porton Down.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.41 to 8 p.m.]

Agricultural Tenancies Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Tenancies for less than two years: termination
. A written agreement for a farm business tenancy for less than two years shall terminate by the effluxion of time alone.").
The noble Earl said: I suggest that this is a cheerful amendment to which to return after the dinner break, following the technical morass in which we have been struggling.
This proposal was made to me last week by an experienced practitioner and I then tabled the amendment. Under Clause 5 the Bill proposes that notices of termination of leases for periods longer than two years should be at least 12 months. It is silent on leases of two years and under. The amendment seeks to spell out what I think is intended because, having looked at the helpful Notes on Clauses which my noble friend has given to me, they reaffirm the proposal by using almost the very words of the amendment. Therefore, the issue is whether the termination of short leases should be spelt out or whether it should be left for lawyers to tell us later that silence is golden. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: One is inclined to support an amendment on the grounds that it would be nice to have an Act of Parliament which refers to the "effluxion of time". I wonder whether it is the intention of the Conservative Party that this Parliament should terminate by the effluxion of time. That seems to be what it has in mind.

1167
The noble Earl has made an interesting point. I rather wondered about the amendment when I saw it on the Marshalled List, but I see the point which is being made. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's reply.
Earl Howe: I believe that I can help my noble friend and the Committee. It is already the case that farm business tenancy agreements for fixed terms of less than two years will indeed end by effluxion of time. Tenancies from year to year will be subject to a minimum of a year's notice, as is the case under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. Shorter periodic tenancies, however, such as quarterly or monthly tenancies, will be subject to common law and will require the appropriate period of notice to end them; for example, a month's notice to end a monthly tenancy. I hope that my noble friend will be sufficiently reassured to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I am grateful to my noble friend. I merely wonder whether something should be put into the Bill for those who perhaps do not understand what is either common law or previous law. However, I am happy to accept my noble friend's assurances. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Notice required for exercise of option to terminate tenancy or resume possession of part]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 4, line 21, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: The effect of Amendment No. 31 would be to deal with Clauses 5, 6 and 7, which are concerned with ensuring that tenants will have at least 12 months' notice before a tenancy ends. Given the nature of farming, that period is clearly very important in allowing a satisfactory arrangement of affairs.
However, Clause 7(3) disapplies that policy in relation to leases attached to a person's life, whether landlord or tenant. Under the subsection, the Law of Property Act 1925 would operate in relation to that type of lease by converting it into a lease for 90 years on the death of the person in question, but subject to a notice period of just one month.
It is contended that it is not desirable to permit a situation to arise where a tenant could be obliged to quit a holding with only one-twelth of the minimum period applying to other agricultural tenants and dependent on what may be a sudden and unforeseeable death. While in practice it does not seem likely that there will be many leases tied to the lifetime of a person in that way, the Bill should provide protection against that unfortunate set of circumstances occurring. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: I suppose that there may be farm tenancies which take the form of leases for a person's life. If that person dies, the lease would convert to a 90-year lease under the Law of Property Act 1925 unless one month's notice is given. That is far too short
1168
a period and quite out of line, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said, with the provision for 12 months' notice contained in the Bill. I support the amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may ask him what happens if the tenancy is not tied to the life but the tenant dies.
Earl Howe: This is a very technical amendment and, I have to say, relates to a hypothetical situation which may not in practice be encountered. Nevertheless, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for explaining the issues so clearly. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that in cases where a tenancy is subject to Section 149(6) of the Law of Property Act 1925, and the tenancy is terminated by either party following the death or marriage of the tenant, at least 12 months' notice must be given.
I am advised that at present it is very rare for agricultural tenancies to be granted under the provisions of Section 149(6) of the 1925 Act, but it is, I suppose, possible that it may be used in the future. In those circumstances, where the parties were entering into a tenancy which one at least would hope to be of fairly long duration, it must be assumed that they would take proper legal advice. A lawyer would be able to advise them that if they opt for a tenancy for life, it would be converted by Section 149(6) of the Act to a fixed term tenancy of 90 years, as my noble friend pointed out, determinable on death by a very short notice period, whereas if the landowner granted a long tenancy with a break clause which could be triggered by the tenant's death, the normal period of at least 12 months would have to be given. The parties would then be able to make an informed choice.
There seem to me to be two reasons for allowing those arrangements to apply, without overriding them. First, it may suit the parties to arrange for a tenancy to terminate as rapidly as possible following the death of the lessee, rather than requiring a further 12 months to elapse. Secondly, that section of the Law of Property Act 1925 applies to all types of tenancies when they are drafted in those terms, not just to agricultural ones, and there seems no particularly compelling reason to make an exception, given that such agreements are apparently very rare.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for raising this issue. In the light of my explanation perhaps he will reflect on the matter and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am equally grateful for the support expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and for the query raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. As has been suggested, I shall reflect on the matter. Proper legal advice from the country lawyer is, I suppose, obtainable at a price. Nevertheless, I believe that we have at least aired the question. I shall read carefully what the Minister said and also ask those who advise me whether, in the light of that advice, they wish to pursue the matter either in its present form or in another form at the Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Tenant's right to remove fixtures and buildings]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I inform those present that, if Amendment No. 32 be called and agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 33.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, line 33, leave out from ("time") to ("and") in line 34 and insert ("before the expiry of two months from its termination").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to have the right to remove exercisable only while the tenant is in possession and to have an exception relating to fixtures in respect of which he has, according to Clause 8(2)(c), "obtained compensation". The date of termination and his departure from the holding may predate the agreement with the landlord on the level of compensation or its payment. The situation would be made more critical if the matter had to be referred to arbitration.
Further, the building or fixture may be in use right up to the last day of his occupation of the farm, possibly in connection with the care of livestock. The tenant should be given a reasonable period after the date of his departure to another farm, to which he is able to transfer the building or fixture in one operation. That is the substance of what I wish to say in support of the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I should like to express my support for the amendment. I believe that a two-month period is perfectly reasonable. It follows on from the 1986 Act. Therefore, it would be most reasonable. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to give the amendment a warm response.
8.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: The common law provisions regarding tenant's fixtures are complex and of little assistance to tenants of agricultural holdings. That is why Section 10 of the 1986 Act provided specific rules to deal with their needs. However, even those rules have not proved entirely satisfactory where one tenancy ends and another one is granted between the same parties.
Clause 8(1) of the Bill, therefore, gives a right to a tenant in possession to remove any fixture affixed by him, as well as any building erected by him, on the holding irrespective of whether the affixing or erecting were done during a previous tenancy agreement between the parties. Although the idea of providing a time limit after the end of a tenancy during which a tenant may remove his fixtures has some superficial attraction, it would in fact considerably narrow down the rights given by Clause 8, which are not time limited, where the tenant remains in possession as tenant. Clause 8(1) reflects the position at common law that a tenant continues to have the right to remove non-agricultural trade fixtures and ornamental fixtures so long as he is in possession of the holding as tenant. At common law
1170
he retains that right either by remaining in occupation as a tenant, whether or not the landlord has specifically agreed—that is known as "hold over"—or as a tenant with a new lease. Accordingly, the clause reflects our understanding of that position.
The Committee should bear in mind the fact that the notice provisions of the Bill ensure that both parties know at least a year in advance that a tenancy is due to end. I believe that that period of time gives every opportunity to settle arrangements over fixtures and buildings which a departing tenant wishes to remove. Therefore, a further two months from the end of the tenancy is, I suggest, simply not necessary in those circumstances. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull: Before the noble Lord responds, can my noble friend say whether the landlord has the right to acquire a fixture which is under valuation, as I believe is the case under the 1986 Act?
Earl Howe: The Bill as drafted will ensure that, where a tenant has carried out an improvement at his own expense on the holding and has obtained the landlord's consent in doing so, the tenant will be entitled to compensation at the end of the tenancy at a value to be determined which will reflect the value of such improvement. However, that is slightly different from the question posed by my noble friend.
Where, for example, an improvement has been carried out and no consent was granted then in normal circumstances the tenant would be allowed to take that asset away with him at the end of the tenancy. I suggest that in most cases there will be an agreement between the landlord and the tenant as to what should happen to the asset; in other words, whether it should stay on the holding or whether the tenant takes it away. If it stays on the holding, the tenant will seek to ensure that he obtains consent from the landlord so that he is entitled to compensation at the end of the day. There are various permutations involved. I believe that the Bill ensures that there is fair redress for the tenant and, indeed, fairness also for the landlord.
Lord Carter: I believe that the noble Earl asked whether the landlord had the right to acquire. We are talking about tenants' fixtures and not tenants' improvements. I do not believe that the landlord has the right to acquire in the sense that the two parties would have to come to an agreement if the landlord wished the fixture—not the improvement—to be left behind. I do not think that the landlord has the right to ask for it. I believe that the tenant and the landlord would have to agree with each other. If the tenant does not agree, I suspect that he can take the fixture away.
Earl Howe: As I said, Clause 8(1) of the Bill gives a right to a tenant in possession to remove any fixture affixed by him, as well as any building erected by him, on the holding irrespective of whether the affixing or erecting were done during the tenancy just passed or during a previous tenancy. I believe that I have covered my noble friend's point, although I was seeking to

1171
elaborate slightly on the matter by referring to improvements. I am sorry if I confused the issue by so doing.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the noble Earl for the information that he has given the Committee on such an important matter. I am also grateful for the questions that have been asked arising from my moving of the amendment. I accept what the Minister said about the complexity of common law and also his criticism that the 1986 Act is not particularly satisfactory as regards the matter, so that any reliance upon it is unlikely to give the consolation that I was seeking.
I also noted what the noble Earl said about Clause 8(1) of the Bill which refers to the,
"Tenant's right to remove fixtures and buildings".
By some miracle that I cannot explain, even before the noble Earl drew my attention to them, I underlined the vital words in Clause 8(1),
"after the termination of the tenancy when he remains in possession as tenant (whether or not under a new tenancy)",
and so on. I believe that that is germane to what the noble Earl said. However, all I can do at this stage is to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall take it away and try to understand it in the context of what I now know. If I fail to do so, which is highly probable, I shall seek again the advice of my unpaid legal adviser. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 4, line 34, leave out ("(whether or not under a new tenancy)").
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with a phrase which appears in brackets in Clause 8(1)(b); namely,
"(whether or not under a new tenancy)".
We are advised that those words are unnecessary. To use a word that the Minister often uses when responding to my amendments, we believe that they are otiose. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain why they have been included. As I said, we have been told that they are not needed. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: This amendment would delete words which are intended to do no more than clarify the scope of a tenant's right to remove fixtures and buildings after the end of a farm business tenancy. In this respect, Clause 8(1) reflects the existing position at common law as regards the removal of non-agricultural trade fixtures and ornamental fixtures after the end of a tenancy.
The circumstances in which a tenant remains in possession as tenant may vary. He may remain in possession after the end of the tenancy for a short period on sufferance (that is, without the landlord's assent or dissent) without paying rent. This has been called an "excrescence on the term". He may remain with the landlord's agreement if there has been an unavoidable delay in moving to another holding. A new tenancy may be granted under other legislation—for example, if the holding was no longer primarily or wholly agricultural in character at the time the farm business tenancy ended, so that a new tenancy could not pass the essential tests prescribed by Clause 1 of the Bill. And, of course,
1172
parties may have agreed to a further farm business tenancy immediately after the previous tenancy ended. The omission of the words in brackets in Clause 8, page 4, line 34 would not alter the effect of the clause in any way, but would arguably make the provision less clear. That is why the words are there. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: I think the reply of the Minister means that the words are fairly otiose instead of actually otiose. I shall treasure the phrase "excresence on the term" and look forward to using it on a number of parts in the Bill which have been drafted by the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 4, line 39, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to clarify the situation where there has been a fixture fixed or a building erected instead of some fixture or building belonging to the landlord which the tenant does not have the right to take away but where that fixture or building—I believe this is a fairly rare case—would have a greater value to the tenant than the original. The only example I can think of quickly—it is not a very good one—is in Wiltshire, where a milking parlour is now being used as a "tele cottage", believe it or not. That is not a very good example because one can hardly take a "tele cottage" away. However, I believe the point that has been made to us is that there will be cases under this subsection where a tenant is not allowed to remove the fixture or building because it replaces a fixture which belonged to the landlord. Nevertheless the fixture or building that the tenant leaves behind will be of greater value to the landlord than the building or fixture it replaced, if the Minister can follow me.
This is not a major point but it has been suggested that paragraph (b) should be omitted. This is a probing measure to determine what the argument is. I do not think there is a right to compensation for fixtures or buildings, only for tenants' improvements. I am talking about a tenant's fixture. I know that the Government would like to see the back of the 1986 Act. Under that Act one can make a deal with the incoming tenant for the value of the fixture. This matter is a little unclear and I suspect it is fairly rare that a fixture or building will have a greater value to the landlord than the original, but the tenant may not receive the compensation he should receive for the greater value of his replacement fixture or building. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I suspect that these kinds of cases, particularly that of the "tele cottage" would be rare. However, I suspect my noble friend might say that the common law, dated 1830, comes into this. I believe it would be exceptional for a tenant not to reach agreement with a landlord on this matter. I thought the noble Lord was thinking of a case where an agreement had been made between a landlord and a tenant, for

1173
example, as regards altering the rent, if there were some benefit to the landlord. However, I am not happy about that.
Lord Carter: Perhaps this matter I am discussing is not so rare. Perhaps a tenant might replace an old cart shed with a modern tractor shed and the landlord knows that he could turn that building into a building for use by rural industries and it could be used for light industry after the tenant has left. That would not be a rare situation. I am concerned about whether the tenant gets a fair return in that situation. He cannot take the building away and as it is not a tenancy improvement I do not believe it will be caught by the compensation rules in the Bill. In those circumstances the landlord will obtain some value from the fixture or building that is left behind and it will increase the value of his holding. However, the tenant may not receive the compensation that he should receive.
Earl Howe: There is a common law rule in property law that, where a tenant substitutes a non-agricultural trade fixture for one belonging to a landlord, that fixture cannot be removed by the tenant as of right. I am advised that this point of law was decided in 1830 and still holds good today, as my noble friend was kind enough to point out.
Clause 8(2)(b) follows the same common law rule. The central point is that the replaced asset belongs to the landlord and not the tenant. Parties might well provide in their tenancy agreement a clear division of responsibilities for these matters. The simpler rules on a tenant's fixtures and buildings set out in the Bill in effect give a tenant the choice of removal of a fixture which is his, or receiving compensation for it at the end of the tenancy, assuming that written consent to a tenant's improvements has been given. It is clearly equitable to limit that choice only to the tenant's own assets. Nor would it be desirable to enable a tenant to, let us say, demolish a landlord's fixtures or buildings—perhaps as many as he liked—replace them and then have a right to remove those replacements at the end of the tenancy. I do not think that that would be equitable. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Lord as to why this provision is in the Bill.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister for his response but I believe we may have to return to this matter. He said that it is the non-agricultural fixtures which are picked up by the common law. I gave an example, which I do not believe is unusual, of a tenant who replaces a fairly elderly building —we all have them on our farms—and he erects a pretty good new building as a replacement for that landlord's building. There has been no written consent for this and therefore it is not an improvement. The tenant has just replaced the building. The landlord knows that he can then obtain the planning permission to convert the building for use for light industry, for example. It seems a little unfair that the tenant—if I understand the Bill correctly —will have to leave the building behind and not receive any compensation. I am not talking about an improvement but a tenant's fixture. It seems a little hard that the
1174
tenant cannot receive any compensation for replacing a landlord's building. We may have to return to this matter.
Earl Howe: There could well be an improvement where, let us say, a dilapidated building is replaced by a new building. It need not necessarily be regarded as a repair, although I dare say that, if it were, that would be covered in the tenancy agreement as regards how it should be treated. If the tenant obtained the landlord's consent, he would be entitled to compensation, assuming that there were a difference in value between one asset and the other. The trap that he should not fall into—if I understand the clause correctly —is replacing the landlord's asset with a new one and failing to get the landlord's consent, because then he renders himself liable to be out of pocket if he is not careful enough with the expenditure that he incurs.
Lord Carter: I am not sure that he needs the landlord's consent for a tenant's fixture. However, I believe we have explored the point enough. I should like to read what the noble Earl has said, and perhaps take some advice on this. Perhaps this is a slightly wider point than I suspected when I first raised it. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 35:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
Assignment of a farm business tenancy
(". Where a farm business tenancy is assigned by the tenant in accordance with the terms of his lease the assignee shall assume all of the rights and obligations of the tenant under the lease in relation to the landlord and no claim may be made by the landlord against the tenant for any cause of action arising in respect of the tenancy after the date of the assignment.").
The noble Lord said: The noble Earl will recall that, in speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, I raised with him the question of privity of contract, pointing out at that time that, although this was a matter much talked about by government, there was no promise in the gracious Speech as regards a Bill dealing with privity of contract, although the pressures for such a Bill are building all the while. The Government have stated that they are sympathetic towards such a Bill, but so far they have not been able to find time to introduce one.
My noble friend Lady Nicol recently received a Written Answer to a Question on the subject which referred only to what we already know: the Government agree that a Bill is desirable and would like to introduce one, but do not know when they will be in a position to do so.
In the light of that situation I decided to table the proposed new clause which appears before the Committee this evening and which I suggest should be inserted after Clause 8 of the Bill. Although I do not anticipate that the Minister will tell me that a Bill is under way, it may be of value in the exploratory examination of this Bill if we expose for the benefit of the Committee and the readers of Hansard the state of play as regards privity of contract.
Under the law as it stands, a lease is a contract dealing with property. A landlord enters into a contract with a tenant at the beginning of a lease, granting him certain benefits over the land and requiring the tenant to give certain undertakings in respect of the property (called covenants). The contract between the landlord and the tenant is not terminated by the tenant assigning his benefits to an assignee, subject to similar undertakings to those he has made to the landlord. The contractual relationship between himself and the landlord continues and he remains potentially liable for any breach of the covenants, including a failure on the part of the assignee to pay rent.
In legal terms, privity of contract is a relationship which exists between the immediate parties to a contract which is necessary to enable one person to sue the other for a breach or non-performance.
Privity of estate exists between lessor and lessee, lessor and assignee (but not lessor and sub-lessee), tenant for life and a remainderman or reversioner.
An original lessee is always liable under privity of contract to the lessor on the convenants of a lease, but under the privity of estate an assignee is only liable and entitled to the benefit of the covenants so long as he holds and until he further assigns the lease, because at the moment of assignment there ceases to be any privity of estate between him and the lessor.
The present law leads to injustice in so far as the tenant is responsible for the actions of the assignee and subsequent assignees with whom he has no legal relationship and of whom he possibly has no knowledge. From the point of view of the landlord wanting to claim his right against the original tenant, there are all the practical problems of tracing and notification to him of the death of the tenant.
This is a live issue for retailers, as I know. The Government have taken soundings, and a Private Member's Bill was introduced in another place but failed because it ran into stiff opposition from what I would describe as property interests. In placing this particular Bill on the statute book I believe that it is important that privity of contract should be given an airing in this Chamber in order that those who may be affected by it are aware of it and that in practice it raises new complications which are perhaps less well known in the world of agriculture. For that reason, I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, always raises interesting points. Privity of contract is a live issue. Certainly in my experience in commercial property it is a live issue. It would be difficult to judge where one could possibly start in order to be fair to both sides when so much has been lost in times of recession.
I believe that its application to farm business tenancies is slender. I should like the assurance of my noble friend that if an agreement is couched in terms
1176
providing that there should be non-assignment of a lease the tenant could in no circumstances apply to an arbitrator or court to have that changed.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I should like to follow those remarks with a simple point that I hope my noble friend will be able to answer.
As I understand it, one could enter into a 10 year tenancy, for example. Perhaps for health reasons one might wish to surrender that tenancy after, say five years. I want to know what happens then. Would I, as the tenant, be obliged to continue paying rent and fulfilling the terms of the contract I had entered into until the end of the 10 years? I hope that that ties in with the idea of privity. Could I get out of that agreement with my landlord if he did not want me to? It might well be that he would be only too glad to see the back of me, but if he wanted to keep me as tenant could he make me continue to pay the rent and, what is more, continue to farm when I might not be capable of doing so?
Lord Carter: Another point arises, which occurred to me as my noble friend moved the amendment. I believe I am right in saying that unwritten agreements have the power of assignment under the 1986 Act, and when they are reduced to writing that power of assignment is usually removed. I believe that that is the case. I have known situations where an unwritten agreement under the existing law assumed the power of assignment which was removed when the tenancy was reduced to writing.
That may not be a correct point in law. However, I believe that the Government have said that they accept unwritten agreements as coming within the farm business tenancy. Would the same rules concerning assignment apply to unwritten agreements under the farm business tenancy as I believe apply under the existing law? If that is the case then privity of contract with assignment could be important.
Earl Howe: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for introducing this complex subject so clearly. It is an underlying principle of the law of landlord and tenant generally that, unless the parties to a lease agree otherwise, when they enter into covenants under a lease such as the covenant to pay rent they are undertaking to perform those covenants for the whole term of the lease and may therefore be called upon to do so in the event of default by an assignee. That principle applies to all tenants who assign their tenancies, whether those are agricultural, commercial or residential.
We have all heard of unfortunate cases where elderly people find themselves responsible for the rent which the current tenant, some way down the chain of assignment, has failed to pay. However, while I sympathise with the motives behind the amendment, and I believe that it is good that we should air the subject, I do not consider it appropriate to try to tackle a highly technical subject in legislation dealing with just one type of tenancy. The Government intend to introduce reforms in relation to privity of contract and estate but in doing so would wish to cover all tenancies.

1177
There are also some difficulties with the noble Lord's amendment in respect of policy and technical detail. As it stands, the amendment does not reflect the policy of the Law Commission accepted by the Government; namely, that the parties to a lease should, in general, cease to have any rights of liabilities under the lease once they have parted with their respective interests except where it is objectively reasonable for some degree of liability to continue.
In particular, the Law Commission recommended that it should be possible for a condition of assignment that the assigning tenant should guarantee performance of the lease covenants by his assignee. With all due respect to the noble Lord, the amendment does not address that issue. Nor does it recognise that landlords also may be bound by privity of contract in the event of assignment of the reversion.
On a technical point, the amendment makes no provision for the consequential effects of abolishing the privity doctrine on the wider law of property; for example, the far from simple issue of its interface with the Law of Property Act 1925.
I should also stress that continuing liability under the privity doctrine is not inevitable. Tenancies under this Bill will, of course, be new tenancies whose terms will be open to negotiation. It will be open to any prospective tenant to seek to exclude the effect of the privity doctrine by express provision in the lease, or to include provisions such as break clauses to allow flexibility to terminate the tenancy early and with it any continuing liability, although that will require at least 12 months notice. It will also be open to tenants to sublet rather than assign, and thereby retain control should the subtenant run into difficulties, or to negotiate surrender of the lease rather than assignment when the time comes to part company with the landlord. A number of those ideas might be helpful to my noble friend in the context of the question that he put to me. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
To be absolutely clear, as drafted, the Bill leaves the question of assignment to the tenancy agreement. The tenant has the right to assign unless the tenancy agreement forbids that. Therefore an arbitrator would not be expected to override such a prohibition unless there were a provision that consent should not be unreasonably withheld, as is proposed in Amendment No. 91.
If that is not too complex an explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be content.
Lord Carter: I should be grateful if the noble Earl will write to me on the point that I raised, as it were on the hoof, about the unwritten agreement with an implied right to assign; and how that will be caught.
Earl Howe: Yes, I shall gladly do so.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply. It offers some consolation to the wary and a warning to the unwary. That was one of the considerations that I had in mind when I tabled the amendment.
1178
With a Law Commission Bill available for legislation, it is a great pity that the Government cannot find time to take that Bill on to the statute book in what is a relatively uncrowded parliamentary Session. Quite apart from the immediate farming interests, as the noble Earl said, there is a strong property interest. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, confirmed that with regard to retailing in a recessionary situation. While we are not over the moon, as the noble Earl has observed, as to what the Bill will do for agriculture, we have no wish to see it producing casualties on a grand scale, with even more serious situations developing because tenants had not been wary enough when first agreeing to a lease to make appropriate provision in the event of difficult times being encountered.
As the noble Earl would expect me to say, I shall study carefully what he said. I shall bring it to the attention of the parties which have been in touch with us on the point. Although we may not return to it, I am not without hope, given the undoubted influence of the four industry organisations which are behind the Bill, that additional pressures may be placed on Her Majesty's Government to take in hand the Law Commission Bill on the subject. The sooner that legislation is on the statute book, the better it will be for traders everywhere. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Application of Part II]:
8.45 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 5, line 24, after ("which") insert ("does not preclude a reduction and which").
The noble Lord said: The amendment provides unequivocally that agreed variations of rent in a farm business tenancy may not incorporate formulae which produce upward only changes in rent. It was agreed in the joint industry agreement that it should not be possible to insert upward only rent reviews into farm business tenancies under the legislation. The amendment ensures that downward variations in rent could not be precluded from farm business tenancies. For example, a formula which linked rent to an objective index of costs would be admissible, since costs and prices may fall as well as rise. However, a formula which determined that any variation of rent will be based on the existing rent plus a charge upwards would not be permissible.
The amendment helps to achieve the industry's objective of market realities and that those market realities should be more faithfully reflected in future tenancy arrangements. I am sure that that step towards market realities will commend itself without reserve to the noble Earl. I hasten to sit down in order to hear what he says in response. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: As the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, reminded us, the industry is agreed that under a farm business tenancy rents should be able to be lowered as well as raised at a rent review. That can occur under current legislation and by Clause 13(1) of the Bill, which gives the right of an appeal to an arbitrator who can decrease as well as increase a proposed rent review.

1179
If I have worked the matter out correctly, the amendment works like this. As the Bill stands, arbitration can be sought under Clause 10 unless the provisions of Clause 9 apply. Clause 9(b) (ii) provides for agreement where rent can be varied by a specific formula. That would preclude reference to an arbitrator because Clause 10 could not apply. The noble Lord's amendment seeks to ensure that such a formula can provide for a reduction and that there must not be an upwards only review. If such a review provides for increase only, then Clause 10 would apply and arbitration could be sought.
I agree with what the noble Lord seeks to do. If the amendment achieves that objective, as I believe it does, I support it, even though to some extent it limits the freedom of choice enshrined in the Bill.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Since we are referring to rents, perhaps I may raise a parallel problem. It is a matter that I warned my noble friend I would raise.
I am concerned that, under the 1986 Act and the provisions of the Bill, rentals could be artificially inflated. With regard to the debate on Clause 1 stand part and Amendment No. 15, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, stated that the playing field is not level. It is not level; God knows why. More people wish to farm than there is land for them to farm. Perhaps when they reach my age they will realise the folly of their ways. But that is the situation: it is not a level playing field. The reasons why rentals could be inflated relate to the scarcity of land compared with the number of applicants, existing farmers being able to tender high rents for nearby land, and existing farmers being able to tender high rents in order to make economies of scale. Indeed, I have done so.
Those factors have shown themselves in particular in agistment rents and must influence the landlord in asking for, and the tenant in having to accept, higher rents when negotiating rentals under the 1986 Act. With regard to the 1986 Act, I accept that a tenant may take his landlord to arbitration. However, most tenants prefer not to do so and are inclined to accept a higher rent than they can economically justify over the whole holding. Even if the case goes to arbitration, the arbitrator must be guided by Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act. I do not think that I need spell out all the provisions, although my noble friend may do so when replying. However, I do not believe that those provisions have the effect of keeping those artificial rents down to a common economic rent over the whole holding. I hope that I have explained the position clearly.
I hope my noble friend will assure me that my fears are unfounded. I believe that we shall have high rents. I can see my son and myself, being existing farmers, tendering very high rents if it is an area that we specifically want and for all the other reasons that I have outlined. I hope that those high rents that we might be able to afford on a limited piece of land will not have an artificial knock-on effect on further rents under 1995 legislation. But, more important, I hope that they will not encourage even higher pre-1995 rents—that is, 1986 rents—which might have a knock-on effect on the 1986 rents in an arbitration. I do not for one minute grudge
1180
the landlord the high rents for extra people. Good luck to him if he can get them. But I do not wish to see them reflected across the whole industry because it would not be possible to withstand that.
Lord Carter: A second point arises on this, but before I deal with it I wish to reflect on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. It would be interesting if arbitration were applied to farm business tenancies. We know that there has to be the open market rent which the arbitrator looks at, and we shall come to amendments on it. Will the open market rent which the arbitrator considers include the market in reviews under the 1986 Act? That is a different class of tenant. It is an interesting point to which we may return when we come to rent reviews.
There is another point. We moved the amendment to Clause 9(b) (ii) which concerns the specified formula, but Clause 9(b) (i) refers to,
"by or to a specified amount",
and if it is greater than the rent for the ingoing tenant, then it is an upwards only review. That is not what people want, and for once we can call in aid the industry agreement.
Earl Howe: Clause 9 provides an option for the parties to agree on a fixed rent, with no reviews during the tenancy, or to agree to adjust the rent by or to a specified amount, or by applying an objective formula to adjust the rent. So the clause in effect implements the provisions of the industry agreement of last year.
The idea behind the provision is that the parties should be free to agree on the level of rent and a method of adjustment, provided it is clear to both sides what they are signing up to. Some people may prefer a fixed rent, just as some house purchasers opt for a fixed mortgage interest rate. Others may favour a stepped rent, for example, with certainty as to what the level of rent will be in any given year. Others may wish to fix the rent by reference to a percentage of turnover of the farm business. These are adjustments which give an unambiguous result by applying the terms of the tenancy agreement.
As I said, the clause effectively implements the industry agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, explained, the industry organisations now wish to clarify the provision in order to ensure that downward variations in rent could not be precluded by whatever formula was used to adjust the rent. They argue that this would help to achieve the underlying objective: namely, that market realities should be better reflected in rents paid under farm business tenancies.
I am sympathetic to the arguments and the Government are willing in principle to give effect to the industry's wishes on the point. However, we should like to consider whether we can improve on the wording proposed in order to achieve that result and, if we can, to table an amendment at Report stage. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be happy with that and will agree to withdraw his amendment in a moment.
My noble friend Lord Stanley raised a general question about rent. I am grateful to him for giving me notice of the points he wished to make. It is, I suppose,

1181
inevitable that the laws of supply and demand will always be of some significance in agriculture, as elsewhere in the commercial business world. Agriculture continues to be an attractive way of life for many people, despite my noble friend's doubts. The capital costs of buying a farm make that means of entry impractical for all but a few people. Those who get the rare chance of a tenancy under the 1986 Act will bid high to secure the opening, with the knowledge that at worst they will have three years before a rent review pegs back the rent to a realistic level.
When the Bill is enacted, scarcity value will not be a factor with tenancies under the 1986 Act because, save for the few exceptions dealt with in Clause 4, no new tenancies can be granted under it. An arbitrator proceeding under Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act is required to disregard any element of rent which is due to scarcity. Further, he may only consider evidence as to comparable rents from 1986 tenancies alone. To that extent, I do not think that there will be knock-on effects arising from the Bill for rent reviews determined at arbitration.
My noble friend's anxiety lies, I think, with the related earnings capacity aspects of rent where a tenant wishes to acquire nearby land which will be run with his own farm. Paragraph 2(b) of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act defines the term "related earnings capacity" in respect of paragraph 1 of the schedule. What is being decided is the actual farming potential of the holding and the amount of income that can then be gained from it. Where a tenant acquires land nearby to his holding, paragraph 3(b) of the schedule requires the arbitrator to disregard any element of rent attributable to that factor. So I do not believe that paragraph 2 of the rent schedule has the meaning which my noble friend may fear that it has. The thrust of the second schedule to the Act is to narrow down, so far as possible, the rent which is fair for the actual land comprising the holding itself, setting to one side associated but not directly relevant factors. I hope that those remarks will be helpful to my noble friend.
Lord Gallacher: First, I thank those Members of the Committee who have spoken in favour of the amendment and most of all the noble Earl for what he said about it. In the light of his statement and his willingness to look at the principle underlying the amendment and perhaps bring forward an amendment of his own which may implement that principle in accordance with the representations made to him by the industry organisations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 5, line 28, after ("is") insert ("stated").
The noble Lord said: We can deal with this amendment extremely briefly. I am advised that for the avoidance of doubt and for clarity the word "stated" should be introduced into the last line of Clause 9 so that it would read,
"but otherwise is stated to remain fixed",
1182
rather than the words in the Bill. Having moved a previous amendment on the ground that something was otiose, I now wish to introduce this amendment for the avoidance of doubt and for clarity. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I can deal with this briefly. The amendment is unnecessary. Clause 9(b) begins with the words "provides that". If one follows the grammar through, that achieves the result which the amendment seeks. What the amendment would do is to create an ungrammatical sentence because it would effectively state:
"provides that the rent is … but otherwise is stated to remain fixed".
The sense of the clause is that it provides that the rent is to remain fixed, not that it is stated to remain fixed. I hope that when the noble Lord comes to read Hansard he will see that the grammar is correct as the Bill stands and does not need to be elaborated.
Lord Carter: It makes a change, instead of being accused of being otiose, to be accused of being ungrammatical. I shall have to refer this to those who thought the point was important and shall repeat to them clearly what the Minister said. Now that I read the wording, I believe he is correct, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Appointment of arbitrator]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 7, line 2, at end insert:
("(2) The list of arbitrators from which the President of the RICS makes his selection under subsection (I) above shall not include land agents in the full time employment of land-owning persons, corporations and trusts.").
The noble Lord said: I hasten to say that the amendment is not intended to reflect on the impartiality of the professionals. It is meant to ensure that no suggestion of professional experience or interest could cloud or cast doubt on the fairness of any award. We see that as something which is worthy of consideration in such a Bill and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about a limitation of the kind which is included in Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, is always so charming in the way that he puts amendments. When I first read it, I thought that it was possibly a serious slur on the fairness of arbitrators. As a surveyor, I spring immediately to the defence of the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The system under which arbitrators are chosen is very careful. The president produces his list, which is approved by the Lord Chancellor. Each year the arbitrators go through training courses. There is no question but that they are very well qualified. I have never known a case that has been referred either to the Lands Tribunal or the courts for judicial review on the basis that an arbitrator has been incompetent. I believe that arbitrators do a tremendous job, which is very technical, for farming and agriculture and for landlord and tenant. I for one am proud of what they have been

1183
able to do. I believe that to put in this provision, even with the gentle wording of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, is bound to cause an awful upset within the profession. It is a slur on those who act for one side of farming and who apparently will not be able to detach themselves in the appropriate manner as they do.
The Earl of Courtown: I agree with what my noble friend has just said. One could just as easily say that agents who acted only for tenants should not be included.
Earl Howe: I should like to associate myself with the remarks of both my noble friends. I too am tempted to be beguiled by the way that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, moved this amendment. But the way it reads suggests that there are those who are under the misconception that land agents, particularly those employed by landowners, corporations and similar bodies, are bound to be landlords' men in some sense. That is not the case. No doubt many of them are experienced members of their profession, and that is likely to be a very good qualification for an arbitrator. Anyone who accepts an appointment as arbitrator is well aware that he must act impartially. If he fails to do so not only will he be guilty of professional misconduct but his award can be set aside by order of the court.
If this amendment were to be pursued, it would bar from acting as arbitrators a number of experienced and well qualified people who might be members of the Lord Chancellor's panel. I do not believe that that is in the interests of landlords or tenants, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I note what has been said about the amendment. I accept that it is a somewhat difficult amendment to table, and perhaps an even more difficult amendment to move. At times I have been an arbitrator, and I hope that in spite of a professional qualification I have always discharged my duties in the interests of both parties. I cannot say that they have always felt that, but nevertheless I have tried to do it. In the light of what has been said, I accept the assurances that have been given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Amount of rent]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 7, line 10, leave out from ("let") to ("taking") in line 11 and insert ("by a prudent and willing landlord to a prudent and willing tenant").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 39, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41. On reading the amendments, your Lordships will appreciate that they deal with the fixing of rent. I do not think that the noble Earl will be enthusiastic about them, and I expect the industry agreement to be quoted at me. The wording has been adapted from Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act. We have omitted the more precise definitions. It seems that the Government and industry organisations in agreeing the package are firmly committed to the open market principle. I believe that we should take a
1184
little time to see why they have reached that conclusion, what they mean by the open market and what is likely to happen.
We feel that neither the Government nor the industry group should be able to push this through without having to justify their position to Parliament and to the many farmers outside Parliament who will be interested in our deliberations. The wording of Clause 13 of the Bill has been taken from Section 2 of the Agriculture Act 1958. The main purpose of that section was to place a sitting tenant in exactly the same bargaining position vis-à-vis the level of rent determined in arbitration as a new tenant of the holding, with account being taken of the sitting tenant's improvements. We know that after only a few years of operation the open market approach was totally discredited and rejected by both landowners and tenants. We understand that the industry group argue that the circumstances are now different from those that applied after the 1958 Act. For the life of me, I cannot see why. I wonder whether this is another of the trade-offs that we have already seen. We shall be coming to the trade-offs on tenant compensation. Perhaps this is the other trade-off, which is a return to the open market concept.
For many years landowners have complained that they are not getting a fair return on capital and that rents have not risen in line with increases in farm profits. It is not entirely clear how they arrive at that conclusion or how a fair return may be estimated. In the past the shortcomings of the notion of a fair return have been analysed by, for example, the NFU, who have used the following arguments. Owners of farmland here and in Europe expect to receive a lower return on their capital than for an equivalent amount of money invested elsewhere in the economy. That is partly because history has shown that agricultural land is a useful hedge against inflation, and the analogy often used is that of gilt-edged securities. The dividend paid is low but the investor has the security and the prospect of future gains on sale. Another argument advanced in the past by the NFU and others is that the ownership of rural land is seen to carry a social prestige. Rural landowning is a bundle of human attributes, including the amenity value of a house in the country and a role and recognition in the rural community.
It is also well known that substantial capital gains are to be made if a development value can be realised. Often hope value is built into the investment. This is particularly strong in the purchase of farmland on the urban fringe. Another argument advanced by the NFU for the low return on agricultural land is that valuable sporting, timber and mineral rights are attached to many purchases of farmland. Therefore, income is not purely a matter of what can be extracted from agricultural letting.
These factors account for the difference between the capitalisation value of farmland and the higher value that that land will achieve on the open market. I suppose that, when the rental return is described as unfair, the question to ask is: unfair in relation to what? Other investments do not seem to bring with them the same range of benefits.
During the passage through Parliament of the 1958 Act, the CLA was far from happy about the use of the "open market" test without the discounting of "scarcity value", as referred to in earlier amendments. This practice was first advocated by the CLA in a booklet on agricultural rents published in 1957. The effect of the 1958 Act was to give rise to a steep increase in rents demanded.
The farming organizations—not the CLA, but the others—were then united behind the principle that rents should relate to the amount that a reasonably efficient farmer, making full use of the land and fixed equipment, could be expected to pay—that is, that the rent should be an economic one. It is interesting to know why there has been a change, and what are the trade-offs which have been achieved to make it worthwhile. It is important that those outside this Chamber who, if they do not read Hansard, will read reports in the agricultural press, should be clear exactly why the industry group reached its conclusion and accepted the "open market" yardstick which in the past it deplored.
We know that there is not an open market in tenanted farms. We know about the level playing field or its absence between landlord and tenant and we do not need to repeat it. We know the way in which the scales are weighted. As I said before, there is a curiosity in the market in farmland: if a commercial property is let on a good covenant to a substantial tenant over a long period of years, it has a higher value than a vacant property. Exactly the reverse happens with agricultural land: land which is let on the long term will have a lower value. The famous vacant possession premium has a lower value than the vacant land. That is partly a factor of legislation and taxation.
As I said at Second Reading, I understand why the landowning interests in the group are interested in the Bill. It will mean an increase in the value of the land which they let. I can understand why the Government are interested in the open market. It is a part of their ideology and it is understandable that they want to apply it. In fact, I do not believe that there is an open market. The tenants who apply for farms will quickly find that out. The demand will exceed the supply and rents will go up. We are not talking about shirts and socks or office buildings; we are talking about our rural landmass and the way in which it is handled; we are talking about people's homes and livings which are attached to farm tenancies.
For all those reasons, we feel that it is important that when the rent is considered by the arbitrator—we have put together a number of amendments and if the Government were minded to accept them I should be happy for them to redraft them, although I do not believe that they will accept them —there should be emphasis on the prudent and willing landlord and the prudent and willing tenant, as opposed to the willing landlord and the willing tenant. I do not believe that anyone could object to the insertion of the word "prudent", unless the Minister will tell me that it is otiose. We have emphasised the character and the situation of the holding, including the locality in which it is situated; the productive capacity and all the things
1186
which one would expect to be taken into account, such as its related earning capacity; and the current level of rents for comparable lettings, excluding any consideration of scarcity; also, the earning capacity of the holding—this is the crucial point—to ensure that the rent payable is one which can be generated from the farming of the holding in question.
We are coming to the end of today's proceedings, and I do not wish to detain the Committee. But this is a crucial debate, which goes to the heart of the system that the Government propose. I entirely understand why the Government take the line that they are pursuing. They have persuaded the industry group that the open market is the way to deal with the matter. I am surprised that the three members of the group have fallen for that approach. I wonder whether those members realise what they have agreed to, just to have an Agricultural Tenancies Bill in front of Parliament with the provisions that it contains. We shall have to think about this matter very hard.
To save the Minister time, let me say that I expect him to reject these amendments. I should be surprised if he did not do so. We shall certainly wish to return to the matter and make it absolutely clear outside this Chamber what "open market" means. It means higher rents—I am quite certain of that, because of the situation; the landlords will not mind that. It means under this Bill that let land will start to claw back on the vacant possession premium; the landlords will not mind that, either. I want to be absolutely sure that everyone understands the meaning of those simple words "a willing landlord to a willing tenant" in the "open market" (which I do not believe exists) and what the effect will be on farm rents. Everyone must understand the cost to farmers who are facing the policies that we all support in relation to the reform of the CAP and who wish to bring the farm gate prices down to more realistic levels related to world prices. If that happens, we are told that there will be a knock-on effect, with pressure on farm costs. Working against that will be the results of this Bill, which will drive up that most crucial cost for the farmer; namely, the rent of the land that he hires from the landlord.
For all those reasons, this is an important subject. We shall wish to return to it both inside and outside this Chamber. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: This is an important debate and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is very experienced in this field. However, I am not sure that he recognises one point. He seems automatically to assume that the open market system will increase rents dramatically, irrespective of the returns in farming. I am not sure whether that is realistic. I am sure we all hope that the Bill will work because it has many very good points. Fundamentally, it is good for farming. If the Bill works, then under the arbitration system there will be open market rents. There will be plenty of examples which the arbitrator can use. It will not be artificial; it will be real. Whatever one might say, farmers are not fools. Young farmers, particularly, are not fools. They will not bid for something in the open market in order to start

1187
on the ladder knowing that they are buying real trouble. I do not share the noble Lord's automatic fear. I respect it, but I do not share it.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: It may be helpful if I respond to that point immediately. Let us look at what happens when one is preparing a budget to help someone to tender for a farm. I have prepared many such budgets as I am sure have other Members of the Committee. One works out what the applicant can afford to pay and then one asks him how much more he is prepared to pay in order to get the farm. Often the figure will be perhaps one-third above what one has shown on the budget is the economic rent for the farm. I can see noble Lords opposite nodding. They know what goes on. That is exactly what happens. Under the 1986 Act at least there are these other factors to be taken into account. But that will not happen under the Bill. The open market will be the open market. I ask the noble Earl whether he knows of a market where demand exceeds supply and the price goes down.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I wonder whether my noble friend can answer one question on this amendment. It is a simple point. Perhaps I should know the answer. Will the open market take into account variation in land? I can see a situation whereby land is let in an area for X rent and then another piece of lower quality land becomes available. Will the fact that it is not of the same quality be taken into account? I am not sure whether that point is taken into account.
Earl Howe: I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on all three of the amendments. Amendment No. 39 would in its main effect require an arbitrator to determine rent on a basis very little different from that set out in the 1986 Act. At the risk of boring the noble Lord, I would remind him that the industry agreement on tenancy law reform is quite clear that the arbitrator must assess the rent on the basis of the open market value which would be agreed between willing parties. That is what we have given effect to in the Bill.
Clause 13 requires the arbitrator to assume a willing landlord and a willing tenant. It is true that the word "prudent" is omitted. However, the vital test in determining the rent at which a holding might reasonably be expected to be let is that all relevant factors must be taken into account. The Bill quite rightly leaves it to professional judgment as to which factors are relevant to a particular rent review and to what extent a holding can generate sufficient income to enable the rent to be met. Prudence is a great virtue; virtue is a grace; and I am confident that arbitrators are fully seized of the need for prudence in running a sustainable business. Equally—I think this answers the noble Lord's anxiety on the amendment —Clause 13(2) already implicitly provides the means for prudence to be a relevant factor, among many others, in the arbitrator's task.
Many of the same arguments apply to Amendment No. 40 with all the various factors that it lists. It is professional judgment which should determine what factors are relevant to a particular rent review, not a
1188
predetermined list such as this one. The Government have sought to put the prescriptive approach of the 1986 Act into the past and to provide leaner, fitter legislation which will best serve the long-term interests of the agricultural industry. Noble Lords opposite sometimes appear determined to change only a few words in the 1986 Act and call that the Agricultural Tenancies Bill. Such an over-prescriptive approach will simply not do. How can any professional arbitrator fail to take account of the character and situation of a holding or its productive capacity if required by Clause 13(2) to take into account all relevant factors? The simpler, deregulatory provisions of Clause 13 provide what the industry itself has told us that it wants to have as regards rent. The professional interests clearly support the Bill's approach to rent and see no particular difficulty in carrying out their responsibilities under it.
Finally, turning to Amendment No. 41, Members of the Committee will not be surprised to hear me say once again that rent arbitration should not be subject to prescription. Again, there is nothing in this amendment which is not covered by the requirement in Clause 13(2) that all relevant factors must be taken into account, including in every case the terms of the tenancy agreement. The clause as drafted reinforces the point that in every rent review the arbitrator must take into account the terms of the tenancy, with the exception of any terms about the manner in which the rent is determined as these are over-ridden by Part II of the Bill.
Amendment No. 41, tabled by the noble Lord, in fact has the effect of restricting rather than extending the list of factors to be taken into account because the amendment requires rent to be generated by the farming of the holding and omits any reference to non-farming activities. To take an obvious example, the noble Lord's amendment would not allow the arbitrator to take into account any revenue generated by a caravan site, by a pony trekking enterprise, or by something of that sort. Clause 13 as drafted does do that. One of the advantages of the clause, as drafted, is that it gives an arbitrator the flexibility to take into account both the earning potential of farming and also of any non-agricultural activities which the tenant is permitted to carry out and on which he is engaged at the time of the rent review.
With that, I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that Amendment No. 41 is inherently unsatisfactory, quite apart from its broader demerits, and that these amendments will not find favour on this side of the Committee.
The Earl of Kinnoull: Before the noble Lord responds, perhaps I may refer to his question about advising a young farmer to go into a farm, work out all the calculations and then add another third in order to get the farm. That may be so for someone coming into the industry, but here we are dealing with an arbitrator with a landlord and tenant in an existing place. With all his experience, I do not believe that the noble Lord can point to an example where a farm had gone for an extraordinary price in order for that young farmer to get into the farm and that an arbitrator would be swayed by

1189
that. That would not really be the open market price, but an exceptional one. Arbitrators are very experienced people.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister and other Members of the Committee. I am reminded of a remark which was made, when I was on the Northfield Committee, by the senior partner in a well-known firm of land agents. He pointed out that the arbitrator is extremely sophisticated, expensive, and has the ability to divide by two.
I expected the response which I received and I was grateful for it. The Minister has a point about all the relevant factors. It will be interesting to read Hansard because we know from the Minister what all departments say in the course of the Bill, which can be looked at. I believe that arbitrators and those who advise, will be looking to see what the Government believe are relevant factors such as earning capacity and the local situation.
I still remain of the view that there will be plenty of willing landlords because there usually are if Christmas comes early. I am still concerned that arbitrators will be looking at what is described as the "open market rent". What they regard as a relevant factor would be a matter of argument between the two sides, between the landlord and the tenant and the arbitrator.
I believe that there will be upward pressure on rents, as there is already, in regard to farming in certain sectors. That may well change. I still believe that the scarcity of farms will be such that it will mean that the need for some form of prescription will be necessary if the tenant is to be protected.
I am not surprised that the Government do not like this approach. All their concern is for simplification and I am a little anxious that the tenant is being thrown out with the bath water. We shall read with care what the Minister has said and we may wish to return to this in a different way at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved. ]
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 7, line 18, at end insert ("and did not amount to a premium or equivalent,").
The noble Lord said: One of the intentions of the industry agreement in relation to rent-setting is to ensure that any premium that may have been paid by the tenant, whether as a straightforward payment or by some other means of investment and improvement, should not lead to an increase in the rent. In other words, the tenant should not be subject to double taxation, which means paying a premium for an improvement to the holding and subsequently having to pay a higher rent which reflects the increased rental value which the improved holding commands.
It is essential for tenants' confidence in the new law that they should be safeguarded on this point. It is in order to give tenants that confidence that we have tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: I understand and sympathise with the concern that the tenant should not have to pay a premium or provide a fixed equivalent for a tenancy and then pay a higher rent because of its effect on the value of the holding. I should have thought that this is another case where the point is covered in Clause 13(2) which states that "all relevant factors" are to be taken into account.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this amendment and to my noble friend for his remarks.
I agree that, where a tenant has been obliged to make improvements to the holding under the tenancy agreement and has received no benefit in return, this amounts to the equivalent of a premium. As many noble Lords will know, the industry agreement stated that any premium or equivalent would be taken into account when an arbitrator determined the open market rent at a rent review. I take this to mean that where a tenant had paid a premium or equivalent to obtain a tenancy, he would not then be penalised throughout the tenancy by having to pay a higher rent.
The desired result is achieved by the requirement in subsection (2) of the clause that the arbitrator should take into account all relevant factors, as my noble friend pointed out. Where the tenant has paid an actual premium—in money terms—the arbitrator will have to inquire into what benefit the tenant received on account of the premium. It may be that the tenant received benefits such as grazing rights on other land which account for the premium; or it may be that some, or possibly all, of the premium was reflected in a reduced rent. So where the tenant does not receive a benefit, the arbitrator applying the rent provisions as drafted here will have to determine such a rent as might be expected to be paid at the review date by a tenant paying a premium. He would need to assume that that premium was the equivalent at the review date of whatever premium was in fact paid by the tenant at the outset of the tenancy.
Where, instead of paying a premium in money terms, the tenant undertakes to make an improvement—say, the building of a barn—the same principles will apply. The tenant will in effect be let the land and the barn, but he will be out-of-pocket for the cost of the barn just as if he had paid a premium. At the review date the arbitrator will have to determine what benefits, other than the use of the barn, the tenant received for his outlay. If he can find none, he must assume that the burden of the cost of the barn was reflected in a reduced rent. In such a case the arbitrator will determine a new rent for the land, including the barn, likely to be paid by a tenant taking a lease on terms which include an obligation by him to make these improvements. Again, the arbitrator would take equivalent cost at the review date of whatever the cost of the barn was when it was

1191
erected. So by looking at all relevant factors the arbitrator will have arrived at the result that is sought by this amendment.
I trust that that somewhat complicated explanation will satisfy the noble Lord that this amendment is not needed in order to achieve the desired result in accordance with the industry agreement.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: The Minister said that the matter was somewhat complicated. That is the truest statement he has made this evening. I shall study carefully in the sober cold of morning what he has had to tell me. I shall take what he has had to tell me to those who asked me to put down the amendment. I shall ask them whether they are satisfied, in view of the unstinted testimonial paid to arbitrators by other speakers this evening. If they are, the Minister will hear no more from me. If, on the other hand, they are not, I shall be back to speak to him on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 7. line 31, at end insert:
("() On any reference made in pursuance of a statutory review notice, the costs payable by the tenant to the arbitrator shall not exceed 20 per cent of the annual rent due under the tenancy.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with the vexed question of the costs of arbitration. We all know that as professionals we often have to advise tenants, although they might appear to have a good case, not to go to arbitration because the costs of arbitration will swallow up any benefit they might achieve from the results of the arbitration. There has been a case recently in the North West where the costs of the arbitration were £150,000. That may be exceptional, but I have been involved in arbitrations and it is an expensive business. In some cases it tends to be a bit of a threat in the landlord's hand to imply, "Of course you can go to arbitration, if you like. I can stand the cost, can you?".
That is not fair. The amendment is not perfect by any means. It is an attempt to flush out the point about the cost of arbitration and to ask the Government whether they are happy with the situation. I suppose that the Minister will tell me that there is an open market in arbitration as there is with anything else. That is not the case. Arbitrators are appointed. They work to a fixed scale fee. The arbitration often drags on and the tenant may find himself in for a pretty big bill. Most tenants are poorer than most landlords. That does not apply in every case, but in most.
We suggest that one way around the difficulty—it is not the only one—would be to say that, if the reference is made in pursuance of a statutory review notice, the cost to the tenant should be limited to 20 per cent. of the annual rent. One could perhaps find other ways of doing it. I should like to get on record the Government's view about the costs of arbitration and whether they agree that on the whole the tenant, in terms of costs, is
1192
at a disadvantage, and whether they are prepared to take any steps to see whether the cost to the tenant could be limited. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I find what the noble Lord said very interesting. I was rather surprised when I saw the amendment. It seems to stem from the assumption that, where there is a dispute about rent, the tenant is always right and the landlord always wrong. I have to say that I find that implausible.
Everyone knows that arbitration is relatively expensive. It is bound to be, because arbitrators are experienced members of their profession and they have to be paid for the time they spend on a case. Parties, knowing that, should go to arbitration only if it is absolutely necessary. They should always try to reach agreement first. They should also take steps to limit the costs so far as they can. I understand that the RICS has produced guidance on that point.
In an arbitration, the usual practice is for the costs to follow the award. The amendment would not change that. But it may be that the noble Lord intends such a change, so there is a likelihood that whatever the outcome the landlord would have to pay the greater share of the arbitrator's costs. I consider that to be unacceptable. I do not find any attraction in that idea. It would be inherently unfair. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment without further ado.
Lord Carter: I am not surprised that a member of the Conservative Party has to defend the rights of impecunious landlords. It is an important point. As I said, there are weaknesses in the amendment but it was tabled in order to draw attention to the problem. We will look again at the matter to see whether there is another way. Of course, I do not accept that the tenant is always right and I agree with the Minister in that respect. We are anxious to find a way to restrict the costs of arbitration, but perhaps we cannot do that in this Bill. I argue that as regards arbitration the landlord is in a stronger position than the tenant. Normally, his pockets are deeper but perhaps we can think of another way to resolve the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Lord Inglewood: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before ten o'clock.

  OVERSEAS AID
  OVERSEAS AID
  PERGAU DAM FUNDING
  PERGAU DAM FUNDING
  ST. DUNSTAN'S
  ST. DUNSTAN'S
  REFUGEES: NOTIFICATION TO UNHCR OF DETENTION IN CUSTODY
  REFUGEES: NOTIFICATION TO UNHCR OF DETENTION IN CUSTODY
  OVERSEAS DOMESTIC WORKERS
  OVERSEAS DOMESTIC WORKERS
  >BRITISH AEROSPACE: UNDERTAKINGS
  >BRITISH AEROSPACE: UNDERTAKINGS
  TRIDENT
  TRIDENT
  LEGAL AID ABROAD
  LEGAL AID ABROAD
  UNREGISTERED PHYSIOTHERAPISTS
  UNREGISTERED PHYSIOTHERAPISTS
  COT DEATHS
  COT DEATHS