Sitting of 22 November 1994

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

    Northern Ireland
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for British service men in Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in Belfast on 21 October:
    "it is our firm objective to return to exclusively civilian policing"
    in Northern Ireland. In the meantime, the armed forces will continue to provide support to the Royal Ulster Constabulary for as long as the security situation makes it necessary.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Will he reassure the House that there are no plans to remove troops while the terrorists still possess weapons and that, indeed, the troops will remain in Northern Ireland until a permanent peace is established? Will he confirm—indeed, give a commitment—that when, finally, peace is genuinely established and it is time to consider bringing home some troops, there will be no plans to reduce the overall size of the British Army?
    Mr. Rifkind: The precise level of British troops in the Province at any one time must be considered in the light of advice from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland. I agree with my hon. Friend that the possession of military hardware by the terrorist organisations must be a major factor in determining the proper level of military presence.
    I happily confirm the final part of my hon. Friend's question. Even if we are able, as we all hope, to make a significant reduction at some stage in the military presence in Northern Ireland, that will not result in any further reduction in the overall size of the Army. Instead, it will enable us to deal with particular problems of overstretch and to provide increased opportunities for training, and other opportunities, for our armed forces.

    Indonesia
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met representatives of the Indonesian Government to discuss co-operation between British and Indonesian armed forces; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Roger Freeman): My right hon. and learned Friend last
    452
    visited Indonesia in May 1993 for discussions on security and defence matters of mutual interest. He met the Indonesian Minister of State for Research and Technology for similar discussions when he visited the United Kingdom in June 1993.
    Mr. Mullin: It is common knowledge that a huge arms deal is being negotiated with Indonesia. Is the Minister aware that the regime in Indonesia is one of the most odious tyrannies in the world and that it came to power on the back of a bloodbath that has been matched only by Pol Pot in Asia in recent years? Has not much of the hardware that we previously sold to Indonesia been used for internal repression and will not some of the hard ware that we are about to sell also be used for internal repression? What assurances can the right hon. Gentleman give the House that that will not happen?
    Mr. Freeman: A good deal of what the hon. Gentleman said comprised assertions and I would not agree with him. I shall deal with the three key issues. First, I am not aware of any so-called huge arms deal, other than the already announced 1993 contract for the supply of further Hawk aircraft. Secondly, the Government do not share the hon. Gentleman's judgment that the Government of Indonesia are an odious tyranny. Thirdly, on the use of aircraft against the civilian population— [Interruption.] I have studied the assertions made by the hon. Gentleman in the House recently, but I can find no evidence to support what he or the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) have said.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has sought and obtained assurances from the Indonesian Government that weapons bought from this country will not be used against civilians in East Timor?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who exactly states the position as it is now and, indeed, as it has been for the past 20 years under previous Governments. Assurances have been received—
    Mr. Mullin indicated dissent.
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Why does he not listen to the answer? Assurances have been received that the aircraft in question will not be used against the civilian population.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that, since the illegal occupation of East Timor, more than 200,000 East Timorese people have been killed by Indonesian Government forces? Is he further aware that information has now been published by the Timorese people showing that Hawk aircraft are used to bomb them and their positions? Is that not evidence enough to stop any further arms sales to an appalling regime which has perpetrated such a bloodbath against the Timorese people?
    Mr. Freeman: I think that the House would share with the hon. Gentleman the view that any repression of the civil population in East Timor is to be regretted. Representations have been made to the Indonesian Government by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. If the hon. Gentleman will forward any allegations to me for my personal attention, I shall investigate them again.

    Compensation Payments
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on compensation payments made to women dismissed from the armed forces on the grounds of pregnancy.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): The Ministry of Defence has now dealt with about two thirds of the claims for pregnancy dismissal. Following successful appeals by my Department in July, most awards by industrial tribunals have since been at a more reasonable level. The overall average payment is currently about £10,000.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. How many women are involved? How much compensation is expected to be paid? What about those service women who have not had babies, for their own or other reasons? How does all this contribute to the defence of the realm and where will it all end?
    Mr. Soames: I do not think it would be proper for me to speculate about where it is all likely to end. My hon. Friend raises an important point. Clearly, the judgment that led to the claims was very disturbing for us. Some 4,500 people have claimed and 3,127 of those claims have been settled—more than two thirds. The average payment has been about £10,000. So far, my Department has paid out £32 million. The outcome is likely to be less than £50 million. This has come at a bad time for the defence budget. We have done everything possible to keep the payments at a reasonable level in the interests not only of the defence budget but of the taxpayer.
    Mr. Martlew: Surely the Minister must accept that the reality is that, for more than a decade, the Ministry of Defence pursued an unfair and illegal policy of discriminating against pregnant service women. The result of such a sexist policy is that the United Kingdom taxpayer will have to pick up a bill of £50 million for the incompetence of the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Soames: That is pretty rich coming from a party that never complained about it. As the hon. Gentleman would know, had he bothered to do the work, anyone who was discharged on pregnancy between 1978 and 1988, before the services introduced maternity leave, can make a claim under a court judgment in 1991. Clearly, the Government did not know that the policy of discharging service women on pregnancy was unlawful; nor did anyone else—otherwise, the lawyers for the pregnancy claimants would have brought the claims at another time. No such claim was pursued until the end of the 1980s. It is a regrettable episode and a waste of an amount of money that we could well do without spending.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is absurd for the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) to describe the outrageous claims as unfair? The women knew when they signed up precisely what the terms were. They signed to that effect. May I congratulate the Ministry on appealing and having some of the more ludicrous payments reduced? They are still too much, but the situation is better than it was.
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing some sanity to the matter. My hon. Friend is right; in July, the appeal tribunal agreed that some awards were manifestly grossly excessive and issued fresh
    454
    guidance. That has proved helpful and has reduced the level of awards and settlements from about £25,000 to £10,000. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support. She brings some clarity to this otherwise absurd issue.

    Royal Navy
    Mr. Byers: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the size of the Royal Navy's surface fleet by the year 2000, under the current plans.
    Mr. Rifkind: The Royal Navy's surface fleet currently consists of 98 commissioned vessels, supported by 21 ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
    Mr. Byers: Does the Secretary of State accept that, if that programme is to be achieved within the available budget, value for money will need to be obtained? Does he share my concern that, with the demise of Swan Hunter, if the takeover bids by GEC and British Aerospace for VSEL in Barrow are successful, a monopoly will be created? In those circumstances, and in the public interest, should not both bids be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot comment on the reference, which is before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Although we all regret the sad closure of the Swan Hunter yard, Yarrow, Barrow-in-Furness and Vosper are still all building naval ships. We also have civil yards that are capable, in certain circumstances, of building Royal Navy ships. So the Ministry of Defence still has quite a significant amount of choice to meet its needs.
    Mr. Viggers: As the question mentions the year 2000, can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, by that year, the replacements for Fearless and Intrepid, the assault ships, will be at or near completion? Together with the helicopter carrier, will they not give us the best amphibious capacity we have had for decades?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes. Eleven Royal Navy ships are being built at various yards throughout the United Kingdom. In addition, as my hon. Friend says, we have issued tenders for the design and build of replacements for the two assault ships, Fearless and Intrepid, and for an oceanographic survey vessel—not to mention the batch 2 Trafalgar class submarines. There is thus a heavy programme of building to meet the large needs of the Royal Navy in the years to come.
    Mr. Fatchett: Although the House understands why the Secretary of State for Defence cannot comment on the reference to the MMC of the bids for VSEL, can he tell us his own thinking on the matter in the context of future procurement policy? Does not the Department claim that its key criterion for procurement policy is competition? Without such competition to supply the Navy, there is a real danger that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's departmental policy will be put at risk. Should he not tell us his views now, instead of hiding behind those of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?
    Mr. Rifkind: Despite the hon. Gentleman's latter comments, may I say that we welcome him to the Dispatch Box as a shadow spokesman on defence?

    455
    The Ministry of Defence has made it clear that competition is, of course, an important factor which has benefited the Royal Navy and, indeed, all three services, when procurement needs have been able to be met by competition. We are conscious of the fact that, for all western Governments, procurement is now significantly less than in previous years. Nevertheless, we believe that it is important to ensure value for money to meet the needs of our armed forces. That influences our judgment of these difficult matters.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the future size of the Royal Navy demonstrates that there is enough warship procurement in the pipeline to sustain two competing warship yards in the United Kingdom beyond the turn of the century? Will he further confirm that such competition will ensure that British taxpayers will be the winners, because they will get the best value for their money?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the thinking behind my hon. Friend's question. We very much hope that VSEL in Barrow, Yarrow and Vosper will all continue to meet the needs of the Royal Navy. All three yards are viable assets, and we very much hope that they will continue to build ships for the Navy for many years to come.

    Plutonium
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to counteract the risks from the increased volume of plutonium on world markets.
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government are naturally concerned to ensure that plutonium is not misused. My Department is involved as'appropriate in Her Majesty's Government's stringent policies in this area.
    Mrs. Campbell: Is not the Secretary of State being extraordinarily complacent about this matter? Is he aware that British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. has opened an office in South Korea and is prepared to offer plutonium to its Government? Does he consider that satisfactory, or is he taking measures to prevent it?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady should direct questions of that kind to the relevant Minister. I am happy to answer questions relating to the MOD's responsibilities, but I am not clear about why she chose to put that question to me.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his recent speech about the strengthening of the NATO alliance. As for the threat of the illegal transportation of plutonium, does he agree that it supports his view that what is required is to keep the United States heavily linked with us, not least to combat the illegal transfer of plutonium and the nuclear threat?
    Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree. NATO recently identified the fact that work to combat the proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials must have increased priority. The combined forces of the United States and the European members of the Atlantic alliance are needed to ensure the maximum impact to achieve that particular objective.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that, if the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield is allowed to operate fully, following its accident in March, it will add 90,000 kg of plutonium to that already stored
    456
    at Sellafield? That seems to me to be an open invitation to terrorists. When will the Government see sense and ban all trade in nuclear explosives such as plutonium?
    Mr. Rifkind: I must give the hon. Gentleman the same answer that I gave the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who asked a comparable question, addressed to the wrong Department.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, although it is most important that we take every possible step to prevent the proliferation of plutonium and other fissile materials, the only way to protect our own population from those potential threats is to maintain our nuclear shield? It comes very ill from the Labour party to lecture us about proliferation when it wants to wind up our own nuclear defences.
    Mr. Rifkind: It is, indeed, appropriate for my hon. Friend to remind the House and the country that a large number in the parliamentary Labour party, from the Leader of the Opposition down, either are or have been members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—[Interruption.]—and it seems that most of them present today, if not the Leader of the Opposition, are still proud of that fact.

    Land Mines
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the export of anti-personnel land mines.
    Mr. Freeman: The United Kingdom has not produced or exported anti-personnel land mines for some years.
    Mrs. Roche: I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he confirm that that also includes anti-personnel land mines that contain a self-destruct mechanism? Is it not correct that the United Kingdom is still exporting them?
    Mr. Freeman: No. The United Kingdom has never possessed such anti-personnel land mines, never had them manufactured and never owned them; therefore, the question is hypothetical. We do not have them and therefore cannot export them. We have in place a unilateral moratorium on the export of land mines that we do possess, which are those that do not have a self-destruct mechanism.
    Mr. Robathan: Is my hon. Friend aware of the work of an organisation called the HALO trust, which clears mines in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Angola and, I believe, Mozambique and which has done work for the United Nations? Is he aware that, during its work, it has never found one anti-personnel mine of British origin? Does he not think it rather sad, therefore, that Opposition Members should try to make political capital out of anti-personnel mines and the frightful work that they do in some countries, and blame their own Government, when the blame should be laid at the feet of, for instance, the former Soviet Union?
    Mr. Freeman: The Opposition totally ignore the need to have our own armed forces properly equipped to defend our country. I agree with both my hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), who asked the original question, in the sense that I have seen with my own eyes the problem in the Falkland

    457
    Islands, where mines were strewn indiscriminately by the Argentine armed forces. Those mines will be on the beaches for many years to come.
    Dr. Reid: The Minister must know that it is not a question of Opposition Members in any way undermining the capacity of the British armed forces to have the resources that they wish to have. [Interruption.] Some of his hon. Friends at the back are jeering, but they may not have seen the consequences. There are some 800 deaths a month and thousands more are injured because of the estimated 120 million bombs and land mines that are strewn throughout the world. Most of those people are civilians, most of them innocent and many of them children.
    If there is no economic interest in the export of mines from this country, why will the Minister not express a Government policy and join President Clinton in calling for a total moratorium on the export of all land mines, including the so-called "self-destruct" land mines? He must know that more than 10 per cent. of them do not self-destruct, and contribute towards the horror and the maiming of innocent civilians throughout the world.
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who appears to accept the rationale for Great Britain to possess land mines and, by definition, self-destruct anti-personnel land mines.
    Dr. Reid: What about the export of mines?
    Mr. Freeman: I am about to deal with that. No Defence Minister can rule out future possession of that weapon by the United Kingdom's armed forces, which do not possess it at present. As for the United States, I share the hon. Gentleman's view; the United Kingdom Government will work very closely with the United States to establish whether we can negotiate for the world community a ban on trade in, and export of, mines.

    Senior Officers (Housing)
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of his policy on expenditure on housing for senior officers.
    Mr. Soames: All service personnel are entitled to public accommodation appropriate to their circumstances and responsibilities, for which they pay charges. I have made it clear that I will report to the House in due course following the outcome of the reviews we have announced of expenditure on senior officers' residences and the requirement for official entertainment.
    Mr. Hall: The Ministry of Defence announced in February that it was conducting a review, but we are still awaiting a reply. Will the Minister acknowledge that, in parliamentary written answers, the MOD has already published the information that £5 million in taxpayers' money is being spent on subsidised housing for 77 of the MOD's top brass? The Air Chief Marshal has had £386,000 spent on his home; £205,000 has been spent on the Chief of Staff's home, £260,000 on the RAF Strike Commander's home and £205,000 on the Air Vice-Marshal's home. That is a large amount of taxpayers' money.
    458
    Who sanctioned that expenditure? How does the Minister justify the spending of such an amount of taxpayers' money, given that he and his colleagues want to cut £1.7 million from military expenditure? Is this not a case of being penny wise, pound foolish?
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is not an Adjournment debate; it is Question Time.
    Mr. Soames: The report to which the hon. Gentleman referred is making good progress. We have commissioned an independent external investigation of the circumstances surrounding expenditure on Haymes Garth, one of the properties that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, with a separate and wider audit of expenditure on other official service residences. The report by Sheila Masters is not yet with Ministers; once it has been received, we shall want to give its findings careful consideration, taking account of the work that Sir Peter Cazalet is undertaking in relation to representational entertainment in the armed forces.
    It is wrong to trivialise the importance of official service residences. Senior commanders in all three services have important representational roles to play and must undertake a significant amount of official hospitality. It is right for such matters to be dealt with properly, and we intend to ensure that that happens.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to their important command responsibilities, commanders-in-chief fulfil a vital representational role for their armed forces, particularly in their local communities? Would it not be wholly inappropriate if they could not, for example, entertain local mayors, council leaders, heads of industry, Members of Parliament, civil servants, diplomats and even Ministers of the Crown?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, as a former service man, understands the need for requirements of this nature. He is quite right. The armed services are one of the jewels in Britain's crown; it is wrong to trivialise such important matters, which need to be put on a proper basis so that the House and everyone else concerned can have confidence in the arrangements. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend and assure him that that will remain the case.
    Dr. David Clark: Now that the Government have been forced to abort their plans to privatise the MOD's housing stock, how does the Minister plan to make up the shortfall of £500 million in next year's budget? Are we to expect further cuts, or will there be an increase in the MOD's budget?
    Mr. Soames: No further cuts are planned in the Ministry of Defence budget in this respect. We will be bringing forward clarification of the plans very shortly and the hon. Gentleman will be the first to hear about it.

    Military Music
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the total costs associated with military music training and performances in the current year.
    Mr. Soames: We expect to spend approximately £8,750,000 on such training across the three services

    459
    during the current financial year. The costs associated with military music performances are not recorded centrally.
    Mr. Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that if Ministers really want to save money in military music training the long-term proposal for civilianisation can be best implemented by basing it in the south barracks at Deal, and that it will be a complete waste of time, money and effort to close Deal in 1996 if civilianisation can be achieved by that time? Does he also agree that we should not be looking at civilianisation in 2000, but that we should bring the date forward?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who made a compelling and formidable speech last night in the Adjournment debate. I regret to have to tell him that there are clear and very compelling financial reasons why we have to remove the Royal Marines school of music from Deal, not least being the cost.
    As I have said, the total cost of music training is £8.7 million per year, of which £6.7 million accrues to Deal and £2 million to Kneller hall. That is not good value for money and I am afraid that, however my hon. Friend tinkers with the figures, we will not be able to come to a more satisfactory conclusion. I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend and others of his colleagues in the near future to go through the figures.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister agree that the Deal school of music would have had a greater chance of survival if the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) had spent more time in Deal and less time in Monklands?
    Mr. Soames: On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman—who is not an uncharitable man—should know that my hon. Friend has fought, quite rightly, with great vigour and determination for the interests of his constituents, as indeed the hon. Gentleman would have done. His is an outrageous suggestion.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit Bosnia to examine the military situation.
    Mr. Rifkind: I have made several visits to Bosnia. I plan to make a further visit in the near future.
    Mr. Clappison: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in paying tribute to the skill, professionalism and courage of British service men in Bosnia, both in providing aid and in deterring aggression? Does he agree that they are serving a very important purpose in responding firmly to appalling acts of aggression, which have included the use of napalm?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the courage required of British service men, and we had further evidence of it this morning. At 8.15 am two United Kingdom Sea Harrier aircraft, which were patrolling on offensive counter air combat operations over central Bosnia observed that two ground-to-air missiles had been launched. The missiles passed two miles from the aircraft and were seen to explode at a height of about 35,000 ft. This serious incident is presently being investigated by UNPROFOR commanders.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: In light of that answer, will the Minister give the House an assessment of how many
    460
    such missiles are available in the former Yugoslavia, their capability, and the counter-measures available to Royal Air Force air crews in the event that they apprehend that such weapons have been fired at them?
    Mr. Rifkind: I can say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that, so far as we are aware, this is the first time that a missile airburst has been observed over Bosnia Herzegovina. Our aircraft have certain facilities which enable them to deal with threats of this kind, but the hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that I do not intend to go into detail about that.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. and learned Friend visits personnel in Bosnia, will he remember the sheer professionalism of the ground crews and air crews of the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the Army on the ground and the fact that these people are commanded by the officers who have been unjustifiably attacked for changes that have been made in their accommodation which they made no decision to make?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that it is the senior officers of our armed forces who have been responsible for some of the splendid achievements of those forces, whether in Bosnia, the Falklands, or the Gulf, in recent years. I believe that their record of service to this country has been outstanding.
    Dr. David Clark: Our relief that the Sea Harriers and their pilots escaped unscathed today is tempered by the increasing danger faced by our troops in Bosnia. Will the Secretary of State inform the Serbs that if they take shots at United Nations and United Kingdom planes which are trying to operate Deny Flight they will be bombed further?
    Mr. Rifkind: I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House a categorical assurance that the United Kingdom Government would support any measures that are required to ensure the safety of our armed forces and other United Nations forces serving in Bosnia. The United Nations commanders are currently considering the implications of this morning's incident and they will have the full support of the British Government if any action is required as a result of their investigations.

    Former Soviet Union (Weapons)
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the threat from bacteriological and chemical warfare weapons held in the former Soviet Union.
    Mr. Freeman: Her Majesty's Government see no current threat from Russia or other former Soviet Republics. However, Russia inherited offensive chemical and biological warfare capabilities from the former Soviet Union. Her Majesty's Government place a high priority on confirming the elimination of the former Soviet capabilities; we are pursuing this objective through discussions with Russia and in multilateral arms control negotiations.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his full reply and for alluding to the biopreparat programme which was in place during the days of the former Soviet Union. What action will he take in practical

    461
    terms to stop the proliferation of not only nuclear weapons, which was mentioned earlier, but germ warfare and biological weapons?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and for his minor tutorial. The United Kingdom is making a practical contribution on nuclear weapons. The distinguished British company, GKN, is manufacturing transport containers for moving warheads that are being removed from current Russian use. We have agreed to look at ways in which we can co-operate with Russia to end production facilities for biological weapons. On chemical weapons, I note that the United States is willing to discuss with Russia ways in which its chemical warfare munitions plants can be decommissioned.
    Mr. Gapes: In view of the danger of proliferation of chemical weapons, will the Minister announce today that the Government will immediately ratify the chemical weapons convention so as to encourage other countries to go down the same road?
    Mr. Freeman: We have signed the convention and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for bringing forward legislation. I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that he intends to do so as soon as possible.
    Mr. Key: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the threat would be infinitely greater and the assessment quite impossible without the outstanding work done at the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down in my constituency?
    Mr. Freeman: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to pay tribute to the excellent work done by Porton Down and long may it remain so.

    Ministerial Responsibilities
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Minister is responsible in his Department for the interests of veterans, war widows and dependants.
    Mr. Soames: On those issues upon which my Department has direct dealings with veterans, war widows and dependants, my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence is usually the Minister responsible.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister speak to the Prime Minister about the House's decision on 1 July 1994, which called for a dedicated Minister for the affairs of ex-service men and women? Will he reflect on the fact that it has all-party support and that the Royal British Legion has argued for it on behalf of war widows, the prisoners of war from the second world war and the countless people who bear the physical and emotional scars of past conflicts? Is not it time that we had a Minister for veterans' affairs as do the other allies?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman has a fine record of supporting the interests of veterans and their dependants. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend. The Government are certain that it is in the best interests of ex-service personnel that provision for them is integrated as far as possible with that of the wider community. It is our intention to ensure that they have a high quality of service, which they do. All experience shows that the sort of organisation suggested by the hon.
    462
    Gentleman would only add to bureaucracy. A meeting is taking place tomorrow with my hon. and noble Friend, Ministers from the Department of Social Security and officials from the Royal British Legion at which these representations will be discussed. I shall ensure that a report is sent to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Jessel: In upholding the interests of veterans, is it not necessary to uplift the spirits of veterans, like those of the Royal British Legion, who my hon. Friend saw marching in Belgium two months ago on the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Belgium? They marched behind the bands of the Welsh Guards and Grenadier Guards, which were trained at the Royal Military school of music at Kneller Hall, Twickenham, whose high standards and excellence are the envy of the world. Will he uphold that too?
    Mr. Soames: Veterans are not the only people who are upheld by the emotion and brilliance of our military music. My hon. Friend is right. He is a vigorous champion for the marvellous Royal Military school of music at Kneller hall. No occasion on which veterans gather would be complete without the sound of British military music.

    Defence Contractors
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance his Department is providing to defence contractors as a result of reductions in the procurement budget.
    Mr. Freeman: We believe that defence contractors are better placed than Government to identify new products and uses for their facilities. We do share with industry as much information as we can about our long-term defence requirements to help it to adjust its industrial capacities.
    Mr. Dunnachie: That reply shows the Government's utter contempt for the workers and skills employed in defence-product manufacture in this country. Why do not the Government establish a defence diversification agency to enable and to aid firms to diversify into the public sector? Without such an agency, high-tech skills in the defence industry will be lost for ever.
    Mr. Freeman: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, but there is a different way of achieving the aim that he and I share. I do not believe that there is any evidence from the United States of America that using Government money, federal funds in the case of the United States, achieves a quicker or better solution than the private sector deciding what to produce. The right way, therefore, to deal with previous military facilities and with workshops, for example, that are no longer required is for the Government to ensure that all the agencies of central Government and local government, including local representatives from that community, work together for an alternative use. I will give the hon. Gentleman and the House an assurance that, where I am involved in such closures, I shall commit my time to ensuring that there is a sensible, alternative private use.
    Mr. Gallie: With acknowledged pressures on the defence budget, does not my right hon. Friend agree that competition in defence procurement will become even

    463
    more important? Does not he further agree that the GEC takeover of Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. will threaten that competitive element?
    Mr. Freeman: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has already said, it is a matter for the President of the Board of Trade, who will make a decision about the offer by British Aerospace and GEC for VSEL. Competition is important in the provision of defence equipment and we shall do everything possible to encourage and facilitate competitive tenders for defence equipment, which represent the best way of achieving value for money.

    Departmental Property
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) farms and (b) occupied houses owned by his Department in Northumberland are not connected to a mains electricity supply.
    Mr. Soames: My Department owns a number of farms in Northumberland, all of which lie in the operational training area. Fifteen of those farms, comprising 18 occupied houses and cottages, are not connected to the mains electricity supply.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Minister agree that hard-working farmers and shepherds in the Cheviot hills deserve to have mains electricity supplied? Does he not think that the time is opportune, after a decade of discussions, for the Ministry of Defence to put forward a scheme since European finance may be available under objective 5b? Furthermore, the Army may wish to emphasise that it has a long-term role in that region and that it wants to be a good landlord.
    Mr. Soames: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Army is not only a very good landlord but an extremely good employer, providing by far the greatest employment in that area. The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the time that these matters have taken. The options for electrification are being studied and assessed. Until the report is ready it is too early to say whether electrification is feasible but, in parallel, the Ministry of Defence and one of its farm tenants will jointly be conducting a trial of the feasibility of a stand-alone farm power system. If it proves successful, we shall consider extending its use to other farms. I note the right hon. Gentleman's point and can assure him that I shall keep a careful eye on this matter.

    County Regiments
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received calling for the restoration of county regiments.
    Mr. Soames: I am not aware of any such representations being received by my Department in the past year.
    Mr. Field: As my hon. Friend is newly appointed, he probably has not heard my representations. May I tell him how popular it would be if we were to reintroduce the county regiments as Territorial Army units, such as the Isle of Wight Rifles, the Hampshires and the Surrey and
    464
    Sussex Yeomanry, which would preserve not only the great regimental history of our nation but our regimental processions?
    Mr. Soames: There is no doubt that we have all heard my hon. Friend's views now, and he is quite right. The Isle of Wight Rifles, of which he has been a splendid champion and which are now members of C company, the sixth and seventh battalion of the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, are a very fine unit and will be glad to have my hon. Friend's support. Our many other county regiments are well supported and highly successful and they bring honour and credit to our armed forces, which are one of the greatest jewels in the crown of this country's life.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hutton: Does the Prime Minister agree with the deputy chairman of the Conservative party that huge salary rises for the directors of privatised companies cause real public offence? What action is he going to take to stop these abuses?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say on many occasions in the past, I do not agree with excessive and unjustifiable salary increases. I have made that perfectly clear, but for companies within the private sector that must be a matter for their shareholders and not for the Government.
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bellingham: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he will press ahead with extending choice in education? While welcoming the Opposition's recent conversion to league tables, does he agree that the Opposition's plans to abolish grant-maintained schools and assisted places means that they can never be trusted on education because they are still wedded to the failed policies of the 1970s?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the performance tables have been a huge success. Anyone who looked at any of the national newspapers today would see the enormous interest in them. They are printed in many cases in full and I think that parents are very glad to have the information. I very much welcome the belated recognition by the Opposition that they are now in favour of performance tables. I regret that they opposed them for so long. I also regret the fact that they continue to oppose

    465
    grant-maintained schools and the assisted places scheme and I look forward to yet a further U-turn in their education policy to adopt them in due course.
    Mr. Blair: Yesterday the President of the Board of Trade justified the grotesque increase of £200,000 to the chief of British Gas. Will the Prime Minister now join me in condemning it unequivocally?
    The Prime Minister: I indicated to the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend just a few moments ago that I did not approve of excessive increases. I also made the point that in the private sector that was a matter for the shareholders of the company, not a matter for the Government themselves but, since the right hon. Gentleman asks for my view, I have made it clear.
    Mr. Blair: As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman did not condemn the particular increase. Will he not understand that people want him to speak, not only for the shareholders but for the millions of British people who feel disgust and outrage at this excess and greed? Why will he not act to give the regulator the power to put a stop to this kind of abuse so that the privatised utilities, which are monopoly services that the public have no choice but to use, are managed as proper public services, run in the public interest?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the monopoly aspect, presumably he will support the Gas Bill, which will introduce competition, later this Session. In the light of what he has just said, I look forward to his support for that. As for condemning the increase, I suggest that he looks again at what I have said on many occasions over the past few years. I fear that the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the regulator's position. The prices charged by utilities are legitimately a matter for the regulators but, as in all companies, boardroom pay is a matter for the shareholders. The sooner Opposition Members understand that, the better.
    Mr. McLoughlin: During his busy day, will my right hon. Friend consider the pay increase of about 200 per cent. for a person who is about to join the Commission gravy train? When that appointment was made, was it because the former Leader of the Opposition was the only candidate that the Opposition could put forward, or was there a shortage of candidates for the post, making such a pay increase necessary?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman to whom my hon. Friend refers is to be a Commissioner, and as such he will represent the United Kingdom. I think that he will do that fairly and honestly in the future, and I do not therefore have any criticism of his appointment.
    Mr. Ashdown: Why does not the Prime Minister see the 75 per cent. pay increase for the head of British Gas for what it is—a metaphorical V-sign to all the customers whose prices he has increased, to the employees whose jobs he has cut and to the Prime Minister's begging and pleading for restraint? Is a weak whimper and a "Nothing to do with me, guy," the best that the Prime Minister can do?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman, as usual, exercises before the House his customary ignorance of the way in which the private sector works. I have made it absolutely clear what I think about that rise, but what the right hon. Gentleman—and, no doubt, the right hon.
    466
    Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—wants is a quasi-pay policy for some executives in the private sector. That, effectively, is what the right hon. Gentleman is asking for. The right way to deal with the matter is for the shareholders who own the company to take the action that they consider right.
    Mr. Budgen: In view of my right hon. Friend's statement that the successful passage of the European Communities (Finance) Bill is a matter of confidence, will he confirm that he has discussed the Dissolution with the monarch? Will he further confirm that the monarch has told him that in the event of his asking for a Dissolution, it will be granted?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend, who has been here for a long time, should know, neither I nor any other Prime Minister is likely to discuss any conversation that he or she may or may not have had with Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Has the Prime Minister anything to add to the Maples memorandum, which says that the Government have broken their promises and let down the electors, and that they are out of touch, stupid and blind?
    The Prime Minister: I am tempted to quote from the memorandum by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), who had some very crisp things to say about the Labour party—but no doubt the hon. Lady would find that unfortunate. [Interruption.] Yes, I have something to add. I add that, with growth at more than 4 per cent., inflation at 2 per cent., unemployment falling and exports growing at record levels, the hon. Lady would be most unwise to assume what may happen in future.
    Mr. Alexander: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Alexander: Will my right hon. Friend commend to the House the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary over the weekend that there would no longer be an automatic right of temporary release for prisoners serving sentences? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when a judge sentences someone to a term of imprisonment, the public do not expect to find that person taken out to dinner by prison officers and do not expect to find another person cycling through the community two years into a rape conviction, and that a sentence of imprisonment must mean just that?
    The Prime Minister: I very much welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said last week. It is the latest in a long list of measures, crowned by the introduction of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, to protect the public and to punish the criminal—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) seems unwilling to punish the criminal. That is not what I should have expected of him. We should certainly clamp down on any

    467
    examples of abuse of home leave or temporary release. That is precisely what my right hon. and learned Friend has said he proposes to do. In that he will, I believe, have the overwhelming support of people throughout the country.
    Mr. Dalyell: Are the Government's certainties hitherto about Libyan responsibility for the Lockerbie crime in any way dented by what President Mubarak said to the Prime Minister yesterday or, indeed, by the film of Mr. Alan Francovitch, a copy of which was delivered to Downing street on Sunday and which, I gather, the right hon. Gentleman has looked at?
    The Prime Minister: None of the evidence I have had and none of the conversations I have had dent in the slightest the position that I have set out before the House on many occasions.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winterton: Although I fervently hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget next week will give the necessary boost to manufacturing industry by introducing 100 per cent. capital allowances, will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that unemployment is down by half a million, that inflation is at an all-time 27-year low and that growth in this country is currently at 4 per cent.? Will he ensure that that information forms part of a highly confidential Conservative central office memorandum so that the press and the Conservative yobs can give it the attention it deserves?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point in his usual crisp manner. It is the case that the economy is doing extremely well, as my hon. Friend has set out. I hope that more people will begin to observe that as month succeeds month. There is no doubt that added to the list that my hon. Friend so accurately mentioned a moment ago are the facts that unemployment is falling and has been falling for around 20 months, that unemployment is lower here than in any other major country in western Europe and that unemployment is continuing to fall here while it is rising in many other countries. The economic opportunities that exist at the moment are extremely good and I have no doubt that they will get better.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Prime Minister when he last met the President of Cyprus; and what issues were discussed.
    The Prime Minister: I last met the President of Cyprus, Mr. Clerides, in October 1993 at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. We discussed Commonwealth matters and the state of the intercommunal discussions on Cyprus. I shall meet the President again in January on his next visit to London.
    Mr. Cox: I note that reply. Is the Prime Minister, aware, however, of the scathing criticisms that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has recently made about Mr. Denktash and his total unwillingness to enter any meaningful discussions on Cyprus? As this country is one of the guarantor powers, when will the Prime Minister himself become actively involved in Cyprus affairs in the hope of promoting a settlement that both Mr. Denktash and his friends and supporters in Ankara will be expected to honour?
    The Prime Minister: I am, of course, aware of the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I continue to believe that the main focus of our effort should be to support the United Nations Secretary-General's mission. He has made some progress. The Security Council called for further effort on confidence-building measures in June, as the hon. Gentleman will know, and for a process of consultation. That latter aspect has been given effect by means of face-to-face talks between the two community leaders. I hope that those will continue. We will do all that we can to persuade both sides to continue talking, but until and unless they are themselves prepared to reach an agreement, it is difficult to see how one can be imposed.

    Engagements
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend keep telling everyone about the low inflation, the falling unemployment and the strong growth? Will he also explain that we have achieved that by establishing an extremely successful economic framework and that, as night follows day, Labour would wreck it?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right, both in the scenario that he sets out and in the charge that he lays about such economic policy as the Labour party has yet divulged. There is no doubt that the present circumstance has come about because of a consistency of policy for some time designed to get inflation down. We made it clear in 1990 that getting inflation down to a low level had a very important, central part to play in economic management and we have achieved it. The Labour party achieved record high inflation. We are achieving record low inflation.

    Points of Order
    3.31 pm
    Mr. Kevin Barron: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask you for some advice? During the passage of the private Member's Bill that I promoted last Session, the Tobacco Advertising Bill, there were denials in the Chamber about the involvement of people who were against that Bill and denials about the involvement of lobbyists. On the front of The Guardian newspaper this morning, it has become quite clear that the lobbyists Ian Greer Associates have been approaching individual Members of Parliament, including Ministers and, I must say, even the Prime Minister's former Parliamentary Private Secretary, in relation to assisting them in cutting back on the Bill and on any tightening of a voluntary code on tobacco advertising, which was taking place at the same time.
    I have now received a copy of a letter, which clearly states that on one occasion that company was also approaching Members of Parliament on the basis that bus shelters in their constituencies would be provided free by the advertising industry. It is quite clear that the company was using that issue to get at Members of Parliament. Would you, Madam Speaker, advise me what redress there may be and whether such lobbying is a breach of the rules of the House?
    Madam Speaker: I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to raise his long point of order. I listened to it very carefully as I, too, saw the report and was very concerned about it. But, having listened, I am afraid that I conclude that what he has said does not raise a matter on which the Chair can rule and, as he knows, I do not offer advice across the Floor of the House. He will have to find other ways in which to raise the matter. Indeed, I would not rule him out of order if he wished to use the information in the debate today. If the hon. Gentleman would like to come and see me, I will advise him as best I can on the issue that he has raised.
    Mr. Nicholas Budgen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to the motion on the Order Paper concerning the business of the House, which, as you will see, has no second paragraph? You will recall, Madam Speaker, that in the motion on the business of the House tabled yesterday, there was a second paragraph—a sittings motion concerning the European Communities 1995 budget. That motion would have limited discussion of a very important matter to one and a half hours.
    You will know, Madam Speaker, that a number of us objected to the sittings motion last night, which meant that it had to be tabled for consideration again today. It has been tabled again, but in truncated form. Paragraph (ii) has been omitted, which means that those of us who believe that we should press the Government for lengthier and more detailed discussion of the European budget have lost the opportunity of raising the matter on the Floor of the House.
    I am sure that it will not be argued by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that paragraph (ii) was unnecessary yesterday. If it was necessary yesterday, it is necessary today. The grave suspicion is left in the House that the rights of many hon. Members are being denied as
    470
    a result of the threat of dissolution, and that we are even being deprived of the right to debate properly the European budget.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It is conceivable that the Government realised very quickly that they would be unable to allow a debate on the motion. May I suggest that they leave it on the agenda, which means that the matter will be open-ended. The advice that I should like to give, through the Chair, is for the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) to join those of us who will oppose the Government closing the motion. In that way we can put a stop to it all.
    Madam Speaker: As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has rightly observed, the motion on today's Order Paper is not the same as that which was objected to yesterday, and also last Friday. There is nothing wrong, however, with the Government tabling a different motion today. They are at liberty to do that.
    Mr. Budgen rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have not finished yet.
    The motion that the hon. Gentleman is discussing is not on the Order Paper. We have to discuss that which is on the Order Paper. If he had cared to consult the Clerks, I think that they would have been able to demonstrate to him that there may have been some purpose in the original text which he has failed to detect.
    Mr. Skinner: Yes, that's right.
    Madam Speaker: Exactly.
    If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is asking for further time, that is a matter not for me but for the Leader of the House.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you will share my concern about the matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). As you will be aware, the Select Committee on Health produced a report on tobacco advertising. If Chairs of Select Committees agree to one-to-one meetings that are arranged by lobbyists, are there any rules obliging them to report back to Select Committees after those meetings? I am a member of the Select Committee on Health and I have no recollection of being told of the meeting that took place, involving the Chair, which was arranged by a lobbyist. The members of the Select Committee have an interest because we produced a report.
    Madam Speaker: I must tell the hon. Lady clearly that there are no rules of the sort to which she is referring. I hope that that makes the matter clear.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to press the issue, but is it not true that when a Chairman of a Select Committee meets a person who otherwise might be in a position to give evidence to that Committee, there is an onus on the Chairman or Chairwoman to report the meeting to the members of the Committee? In this instance that clearly did not happen. Will you ask your Clerks, Madam Speaker, to ascertain specifically what happened in this case? On what date did the Chairwoman

    471
    meet representatives of the tobacco industry? On what occasion did she indicate to some members of the Committee—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Of course I shall make further inquiries. I was correct in saying that there are no rules. It is for Committees and Chairmen to regulate how they proceed. As I have said, I shall make some inquiries, as the hon. Member has asked me so to do.

  BILL PRESENTED
    HEALTH AUTHORITIES
    Mrs. Secretary Bottomley, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Redwood and Mr. Gerald Malone, presented a Bill to abolish Regional Health Authorities, District Health Authorities and Family Health Services Authorities, require the establishment of Health Authorities and make provision in relation to Health Authorities and Special Health Authorities and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 2.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That—

(1) Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications, namely:
In paragraph (4) the word 'thirteen' shall be substituted for the word 'ten' in line 44; in paragraph (5) the word 'eighth' shall be substituted for the word 'seventh' in line 46;

(2) Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) shall have effect for this Session with the following modification, namely:
In paragraph (2) the word 'eighth' shall be substituted for the word 'seventh' in line 23;

(3) Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 20th and 27th January, 3rd, 10th, 17th and 24th February, 3rd, 17th, 24th and 31st March, 21st and 28th April and 14th July.—[Mr. Newton.]

Orders of the Day
  Debate on the Address

    FIFTH DAY
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:—
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Dunn.]
    Question again proposed.

Health and Social Security
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
3.39 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Address, at the end of the Question to add:
But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech omits measures which either address the fears or advance the hopes of the British people; calls instead for a commitment to provide a National Health Service which offers equal access to care for all, is run for the public good and has clear accountability to those it serves, and for a commitment to build a Social Security system designed to take people out of poverty, offer opportunity and enhance skills; and further calls for a legislative framework for occupational pensions fully implementing the Pension Law Review Committee's report, for regulations to control the mis-selling of private pensions, for the abandonment of Incapacity Benefit and the Jobseekers Allowance, which both target vulnerable people in society, for the early and urgent reform of the Child Support Agency, and for the introduction of comprehensive civil rights legislation outlawing discrimination against disabled people.
The Queen's Speech has left a dominant impression with everyone, from Members of the House, through the news media to the nation as a whole: it is of a Government not only dithering, divided and demoralised, but hopelessly out of touch with the reality as well as the challenges facing the people of Britain. It is a Queen's Speech which could have been computer-generated. Like three-dimensional computer graphics, it allows the Prime Minister and his colleagues at least to imagine that they are interacting with reality. However, like computer users with their mouses or space balls, the image and view of the world reflected back through the speech is a virtual world. It is an encounter with virtual reality, not with the real world.
The Prime Minister and all his colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Health, have retreated into a two-dimensional world of their own. It is a world in which the Maples memo so clearly and chillingly reveals the priorities set by the Government. We are told that it contains a long analysis of what the Tory party should do about health—not, please note, what it should do to redress the damage done to the national health service, but what the Government should do to conceal that damage from the public.

473
Mr. Maples recommends slowing down the process of change, to conceal its full effects, if possible, until safely after the election. Meanwhile, he says that the Secretary of State should silence the staff and keep flannelling away with so-called killer facts. However, the Secretary of State for Health has been doing that for years. That is how the Tories ended up 55 points behind in the polls.
What are those killer facts? They seem to me to be what Norman Mailer famously called factoids. According to the dictionary, they are statements that take on the reality of a fact simply by virtue of being uttered and repeated and repeated. They are factoids like, "The national health service is safe with us." They are factoids like the Prime Minister's, "The national health service will not be privatised while I live and breathe." They are factoids like, "The old NHS was a centralised bureaucracy," when, in 1986, there were only 500 general and senior managers in England in the NHS and by 1992, there were 16,700. They are factoids like, "The national health service now treats 3,000 extra patients a day," when the truth is that those figures refer not to patients, but to finished consultant episodes. Patients can be double counted if they see more than one consultant or if they are discharged too soon and have to be readmitted.
Those are factoids. The killer facts are those which the Government seek to suppress. They are killer facts like that pointed out by the chairman of the British Medical Association recently:
"there is no longer one National Health Service. There are 100 purchasing consortia and 400 provider units each with its own self-serving view of its best interests."
Another killer fact is that there are fewer nurses in the health service today than 10 years ago and more accountants. There are killer facts like the one in the press today that 18 county councils are close to running out of money for community care. There is the killer fact that thousands of families in every part of Britain are finding out that there are no longer any NHS dentistry facilities in their area.
In the real world, there is deep disquiet about the state of our national health service. In an Opposition day debate a few days ago, we referred to the Secretary of State for Health as the Madame Mao of the health service, embarked on a process of continual revolution. The structural proposals contained in legislation to abolish regional health authorities are the latest development in that process.
Those proposals, together with the others referred to in the Gracious Speech, demand and will receive careful scrutiny in the House. Both on Second Reading and in Committee, we shall want to explore in depth the worth of the Government's justification for their proposals; what else might be the effect—intended or otherwise—of them as they stand and thus what amendment might be required; and last, but by no means least, the background against which the legislative changes will operate.
The questions that we want to ask about the structural changes, which will be explored in depth when the Bill is introduced, have been thrown into sharp relief by other statements made during the past few days—statements far more revealing than the Secretary of State's factoids about what the Government's so-called reforms are doing to the
474
national health service. They are revealing, too, of what her public relations drive seeks to conceal and what the reforms are intended to achieve.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is in training to be one of Ryder's wreckers.
Mr. Duncan: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) gives the right hon. Lady some cream to cure her factoids, will she refer to the amendment, which demands clear accountability to those whom the NHS serves, and explain in detail what she means by structural reforms? Is she suggesting that, once again, local councillors should have a hand in deciding how the NHS is run? [Interruption.]
Mrs. Beckett: I hear from my hon. Friends behind me that that is precisely the idea being floated in Wandsworth, but I would not care to take responsibility for anything that the Conservative council there might propose.
I say to the hon. Gentleman what has been said repeatedly in the House, in the hope that neither he nor anyone else will feel the need to raise the matter again for a while—that we have produced a consultation document that is being considered across the country. I know that Conservative Members are unfamiliar with such a process. We have identified the key questions and problems raised by the Government's reforms and we have invited suggestions on what should be put in their place. We have given people months to complete that process. Conferences have been held by a variety of interested bodies, such as the British Medical Association, to discuss what should replace the Government's reforms. That process is under way and we expect responses within, we hope, another couple of months. We shall then consider what policy to put forward.
I fully understand that that process is completely foreign to Conservative Members. They think that consultation means that first they make up their mind, then they give everybody else three weeks to digest at least some sign of what they have in mind and then they rush through the legislation and we all pick up the pieces afterwards. That is not consultation as the Opposition understand it. It is because we want to preserve the NHS as the British people cherish it that we are undergoing a proper consultation process. I hope that I have made the matter quite clear to the hon. Gentleman.
The first of the observations to which I referred emanated from one of those people hand-picked by the Secretary of State to carry out Government policy—Mr. Roy Lilley, the chair of the Homewood trust. We have questioned the degree to which those appointed to trust boards have overwhelmingly, although not exclusively, been drawn from the ranks of members and supporters of or contributors to the Tory party. We recognise that within even those exclusive and fast-diminishing ranks there appears to have been a bias in selection towards those so in tune with the Government's health policy that they can be instinctively relied upon to understand what the Government are really about and so quietly help them to pursue their objectives, stated or unstated.
Mr. Lilley has always been seen as, in the Secretary of State's terms, the creme de la creme; one of her red guards. When he says that the first duty of a doctor is to

475
the organisation in which he works and that his duty to patients comes in only third place, we know that the British people are absolutely right to be deeply distrustful of the intentions of both the Government and the Secretary of State. Now, the truth is out. Roy Lilley has done for trusts what Gerald Ratner did for his jewellery business—he has told us what the consumers are really getting from the Secretary of State.
Again, Mr. Lilley said:
"The proposition that a doctor's first duty is to his patient, is without question, definitely, positively, wrong … The more I think about it the more I am convinced it is not only wrong. It is stupid and dangerous to entertain the thought that it might be, even partly, right. No it is out of the question. The doctor's fast duty is not to the patient."
Those words, coming as they do from one of the Secretary of State's hand-picked appointees and one of those closest to the pace and direction of her reforms, carry more significance than do 55 copies of the patients charter.
Astonishingly, despite what the Secretary of State said in our previous debate, the view that patients should not come first does not seem too unhinged to command her support. To be fair, at first she dithered a little. One member of the Department's army of press officers was instructed to issue a press release that seemed to distance her from Mr. Lilley's remarks. But when she was questioned at another press conference, she blurted out a ringing endorsement of Mr. Lilley and his bona fides. The Secretary of State endorses Roy Lilley's vision that a hospital should be run like a giant store, with the major imperatives being maximum throughput and commercial gain. That may be Mr. Lilley's vision of the national health service. It is not what the British people expect, or what they were told to expect, from the Government.
I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will argue that her vision is a little more upmarket. She prefers, after all, to shop not in such a giant store but in Marks and Spencers when there is no one else about. She took a lot of stick, I know, after her special treatment was made public. I could not set foot in Marks and Spencers for weeks afterwards without complete strangers stopping me to chortle, "I see they have not made any special arrangements for you, then."
It is much more worrying that, when it comes to health, the Secretary of State can tolerate a two-tier system which allows people like herself to sail through undisturbed while most of the community are expected to jostle and muscle their way through the crowds for a little service from their consultant and a little decent health care.
I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will tell us that the social attitudes survey published recently shows a smaller degree of dissatisfaction with the health service than has been the case on some occasions in the past 10 years. I certainly accept that, but lest the Secretary of State intends to dwell at length on what the social attitudes survey reveals, let me make sure that the House is clear that from 1983 to 1989 there was a continuous increase in dissatisfaction with the health service which reached major, unprecedented proportions. All that we have seen is that in the past 12 months or so there has been a slight decline in the degree of dissatisfaction.
Moreover, we are indebted even more recently than we are indebted to Mr. Lilley to Eric Caines, professor of health service management at Nottingham university, for
476
a further revealing insight into today's national health service. Professor Caines said in an article in The Times on 17 November this year:
"public service never had a very solid foundation, and is now commonly regarded as something either to be avoided or exploited."
Professor Caines is not any old professor of health service management, but a former senior civil servant in the Department of Health, a deputy secretary no less, and the former director of personnel for the NHS.—[Interruption.] I will say that again, especially as the Minister of State seems to find it amusing. The man who tells us that public service has never had a solid foundation was, until last year, the director of personnel for the NHS. What, for heaven's sake, was he doing in that job? He was the man responsible for the employment of doctors, nurses and ancillary staff.
What does he say in praise of the new system over which the Secretary of State presides? He says:
"Competition is the new form of motivation—based on the recognition that when all else fails, anxiety is the most effective motivator."
That is his vision of the health service in the hands of the right hon. Lady and her colleagues. He describes a climate of fear—fear in the absence of a public service ethos. That climate of fear ties in all too well with existing and expected developments in the NHS.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Everything that I have heard the right hon. Lady say so far supports the case for the reforms and shows how well they are working. While she is quoting professors, should she not also quote Professor Julian Le Grand, founder of the Socialist Health Group, who has said:
"Few in the NHS would want to go back to the old pre-reform system"?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman cannot conceivably have been listening if he thinks that that is what I have just said. I have been quoting supporters of the Government and of the reforms, to show that they believe that they are there to build a health service in which competition is king; a health service that is run as a business; a health service in which members of staff are to be set at each other's throats and put in fear of their jobs. That is not the health service that the hon. Gentleman promised the British people at the last—or any other—general election.
Professor Caines is describing a climate of fear, as I said, and it ties in all too well with what is happening in the NHS. There are, for instance, what I understand to be the Secretary of State's long-standing instructions that, nationally and locally, it is the job of press officers to keep bad news about the health service out of the media. Their task is to keep the Secretary of State in the limelight but out of the firing line. Suppression of information and/or promoting misinformation along the lines advocated by John Maples is already much too widespread a feature of the health service under the right hon. Lady.
Quite apart from the misuse of civil service press officers to serve political interests instead of the public interest, there are also the notorious gagging clauses which are now widely imposed in the new health service contracts that staff at all levels are being required to sign.
Just in case anyone is in any doubt as to where performance-related pay might lead us, Mr. Lilley gives us a helpful steer. Staff are expected to promote the trusts'

477
interests, not patient care, and it is presumably on that basis that the quality of their contribution, and presumably their pay, will chiefly be judged.
I am well aware that in recent days the Government have been claiming that there has never been any suggestion that pay should be related to the performance in service of individuals; rather it should be related to the overall performance of a trust. That still raises questions about the dangers of giving trusts a greater incentive to concentrate on more straightforward or more lucrative areas of treatment at the expense of those that are difficult or costly. Of more significance in this context, however, is the fact that it appears to be untrue that individual performance-related pay is not what the Government first proposed or intended.
As I recall, in November last year the Government referred to performance-related elements for doctors. On 19 October the Minister of State spoke of local pay being based on organisation-wide performance, but the fact is that trusts will still have complete freedom to organise whatever pay structures they want, and individual PRP is still on many of their agendas.
In any case, as I have said, organisation-wide PRP does not appear to be what the Government initially proposed. In 1993 they said:
"each scheme should have clear objectives linked directly to the organisation's business needs"—
yet another sign of how the Government see the health service. The Government maintained that
"systematic assessment should be the backbone of performance pay schemes",
and went on to refer to the
"positioning of staff on PRP scales".
That has to mean individual performance-related pay: the statement can be read in no other way. I recognise, of course, that it suits the Government now to pretend that they had something less direct in mind, but their own statements do not bear that out.
Lady Olga Maitland: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way, but I have to say that her script, which clearly is produced for her by her spin doctors, is serving only to alarm and to frighten patients. Is she aware that my constituents, who are patients of the St. Helier trust hospital, are delighted with the service that they are getting? They are grateful for the result of the health service reforms, which are giving them faster and speedier treatment.
Perhaps the right hon. Lady might care to comment on one factor. Does she regret the fact that, when she was a member of the Labour Government, she supported a programme that cut doctors' pay, cut nurses' pay and cut health spending?
Mrs. Beckett: I think that the hon. Lady does not need lessons from anybody on how to perform to a script. I am delighted, of course, if the patients in her part of Britain are receiving exactly the treatment that they want and deserve from their local trust. It is just a pity that that is not the case everywhere else. I will say quite bluntly to the hon. Lady that it is not Opposition Members who are raising fears that are unjustified. It is not we who are ignoring the reality of the health service. Why, I ask the hon. Lady, does the Secretary of State come lowest—even
478
among the Cabinet—in the public ratings for sincerity? Why, I ask the hon. Lady, does she think that the Conservatives are 50 percentage points behind in the opinion polls if it is not we who are describing the reality of the national health service? She is living in an unreal world.
The Minister tried to pretend that the Government did not originally intend to create a system of individual performance-related pay. I am afraid that that is not the only recent example of a Minister being parsimonious with the actualité. In the previous debate on the health service, the Minister for Health was good enough to quote a headline in a recent edition of the Derby Evening Telegraph, my local paper, which talked about the people whom we can trust. Because it referred to the people who manned the boards of the health trusts in our locality, he said that that showed that what we were saying—about how difficult it was to get information on why the matters were not in the public domain—was ill founded and untrue.
I have, especially for the Minister, a fresh copy of the Derby Evening Telegraph from the following day. As he will see, its headline is, "No Minister!" In a most interesting observation, the editor said:
"Mr. Malone has shot himself in the foot. It took us … weeks to prise those names out of the authorities.
No-one would tell us who was going to be in charge of running our hospital, how much they would be paid or how they came to be given the posts.
And when we did manage to find out who the chairman would be, and that he was to be paid £20,000 a year for a few hours work a week, the powers-that-be went into an immediate sulk and refused"—
Dame Jill Knight: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. After some years as a Member of the House, I thought that it was not usually the done thing to read verbatim at length from a newspaper report during the course of a debate, but merely to quote.
Madam Speaker: I thought that the right hon. Lady for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was quoting from a newspaper. It did not seem to me to be unduly long. Perhaps I was distracted from what was happening. Has the right hon. Lady finished her quote?
Mrs. Beckett: Only a very few more words, Madam Speaker.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) will realise, I am most anxious to be accurate, because I do not wish to be unfair to the Minister.
The editor went on to say that the spokespeople
"refused to tell us anything about the rest of the unelected board members."
He continued:
"When you consider that the old district health authority was required by law to hold public meetings every two months, while the new trusts are obliged to have one public meeting a year, it makes a mockery of the minister's assertion that there is no secrecy."
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to make clear the view of public commentators in our locality. I do him the justice of assuming that—at least on that occasion—he simply did not know any better. Somebody gave him a handy headline and he did not bother to make inquiries about the facts behind it. It is part of our charge

479
against the Government, as it is our charge against the Gracious Speech, that, on so many occasions, they are simply and completely out of touch with real life in Britain today.
In fact, the Secretary of State is not only out of touch with the people; she is out of touch with her party—whose activists attacked her at its conference on just that basis—and with the experts, the City of London, the chattering classes and even some of her ministerial colleagues. The City of London clashed with her over Bart's. Hardly a journalist in the land will write copy in defence of her new health service.
Indeed, things have become so bad that the Secretary of State is not even in touch with the Daily Mail any longer. Let me quote—briefly, of course—what Lynda Lee-Potter wrote in that paper:
"Maybe Margaret Thatcher will finally concede that she made the greatest error of judgment of her political life when she instigated the so-called health reforms without any consultation with the medical profession."
The Secretary of State is out of touch even with her own colleagues. Only two weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Wales—who does not seem to be with us now—complained to a conference on health managers that there was too much jargon, and that it was about time that they got out from behind their desks. He said:
"When I visit a hospital I would like to be greeted with news of medical triumphs … not with more views on hospital reorganisation."
I never thought to see the day when I would agree with the Secretary of State for Wales, but it has clearly dawned.
It already seems clear that, whatever the merits of the legislative proposals for reorganisation contained in the Queen's Speech, they will need careful examination so that their potential drawbacks can be explored. We are prepared in principle, for example, to give a fair wind to proposals to allow the General Medical Council to address the question of the service and care provided by general practitioners; and we have no great quarrel with the strategy to bring together the work of family and district health authorities.
We view with a degree of mild cynicism the trumpeting of claims that abolishing regional health authorities will be a triumph for the reduction of bureaucracy, coming as they do from a Government who have presided over an unprecedented explosion of bureaucracy and costs in recent years, most of which will be left completely untouched by their proposals. We shall, however, want to explore the practical effects of those proposals.
As the Secretary of State must know, there is concern about the consequences for medical education and training. We shall be seeking assurances that some of the specialised patient services that are provided at regional level will not be disbanded if they cannot be provided at district level: there is real anxiety about services such as cancer registries, NHS screening programmes, surveillance and control of communicable diseases, health promotion and environmental health.
There is also anxiety about the implications for the wider community of the alternative means of consultation and representation that will be created. Medical, nursing and other staff wonder if and when their voice and experience will find an outlet.
All who noticed the Secretary of State's first stab at a replacement for existing sources of advice about such matters as appointments—the idea that a respected local
480
figure should be the main and perhaps even the sole source—will have been strongly reminded of the Home Secretary's attempt to draft Lord Lieutenants into service to nominate the chairs of police authorities, one of the more ludicrous examples of the Government's striving to escape from the consequences of the richly deserved electoral hammering that they took at local level when the lies that they had told to win the general election had been exposed.
In the light of that great deceit, and of the lesser, almost daily examples of the Government's economy with the truth, we shall look in the legislation not only for clear, categorical assurances but for practical measures to ensure that there is no loss of hard information enabling the public to test their own experience and the wealth of anecdotal information available against published evidence.
Let us take waiting lists, for example. In common with most health service staff and the general public, we regard them today as fiddled figures; but at least some figures used to be centrally collected and readily available. In Wales, I understand, that has not been the case to anything like the same degree, the reason being the different structure of the service there. NHS administrators in Wales are civil servants, responsible to, and with a duty of official secrecy to, the Welsh Office. Consequently, what information is supplied is supplied when it suits the Secretary of State rather than when it is first available and might be most useful to those judging the worth of Ministers' statements.
Under the legislation proposed, English regional staff, too, will be civil servants, owing a duty of official secrecy to that fine exemplar of open government, the Secretary of State, whose press office was charged with keeping news away from the public even before she had the benefit of Mr. Maples' wise advice.
We shall want to look very carefully at the legislation, as will my Welsh and Scottish colleagues. In view of the existing organisational differences, they have asked me to seek guidance from the Secretary of State about whether there will be, as we assume, separate legislation for them.
We shall also want to give much thought and scrutiny to the Government's proposals for supervision orders for the small number of patients whose violent behaviour makes them a danger to the public. That is a proposal about which, as the Secretary of State will know, those in the field are expressing considerable anxiety.
Our concern will be not just for the specific proposals in the legislation, but for the background against which they will be implemented. For example, the Opposition are very conscious that the Ritchie report, which was issued following the tragic death of Jonathan Zito, contained 21 pages of recommendations, of which supervision orders was only one. His widow, Jayne, is on record as describing such orders as "a cosmetic response to a critical situation"—inadequate without more far-reaching change.
Recently, both the Audit Commission and the Mental Health Foundation published serious and weighty studies which suggest greater difficulties with implementing care in the community than the Government seem ready to acknowledge.
I give the Secretary of State fair warning: while we will look constructively at whatever proposals the Government make, we shall expect and demand evidence that, outside

481
the legislation itself, the Government are taking action to address the issues. We will not be party to any process which seems destined primarily to create scapegoats to take the rap for the Secretary of State.
The fear that that may be the outcome of the legislation is fuelled by the record and approach of the Tory party in the past 15 years. One of the Government's first acts on obtaining office was to bury the Black report, which highlighted the consequences of poverty and deprivation. Ever since, they have sought to ignore and deny not only the steady increase in poverty and deprivation to which their economic failure has led, but its inexorable consequences for mental and physical health: the knock-on effects and the costs, especially to the health service itself.
A few days ago the Government signalled that nothing has changed when, having commissioned from York university research to assist in finding a better measure of health need to guide the distribution of health money, they decided to avoid taking too much notice of it until after the next election because, inconveniently, it suggested that less money may be needed in the kinds of leafy suburbs represented by the Secretary of State.
We want to see the greatest measure of public money going to where there is the greatest need. We want to see it used sensibly for investment and not wasted as it was on Health Care International, the Wessex health authority and in the west midlands. We want the available resources to be used in the front line for patient care. I again quote Lynda Lee-Potter:
"When we're sick, frightened and in pain … We want to believe that the most important thing in any hospital is not its bank account, but its commitment."
The Government and the Secretary of State believe that patients, like the unemployed and pensioners, have to learn to stand on their own. For 15 years, the Government have been telling people to stand alone when, increasingly, it means that people live in insecurity and fear. For example, the Government have encouraged people to take out costly health insurance which is needed only because the Government have put in jeopardy the quality and security of the national health service.
We in the Labour party believe that everyone's self-interest is inextricably intertwined with the common interest, and that the national health service is the greatest expression of that common interest and of the spirit of community that this country has ever known—community not just as an aspiration, but as a living and breathing daily experience.
That is why the NHS is not just valued by the British people; it is loved. That is why, contrary to the notions of Professor Caines, Labour will rebuild a public health service and run it in the common interest.
4.14 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The Gracious Speech has shown that important social reform will be at the heart of the agenda for the new parliamentary Session. I welcome the measures that it contains to improve the working of the economy, because it is wealth that makes welfare possible. I shall address in a moment some of the prejudiced, short-sighted and blinkered comments that we
482
heard from the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). I want to start with some of the most important issues.
The Labour party is disqualified from ever again being trusted with our national health service. Perhaps the most serious reason for that is that its current policies and its history in office show that they would destroy our economy. Listening to the radio yesterday, we heard the serialisation of the diaries of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). We were all reminded again of the time when volunteers had to man the hospital kitchens, when the economy suffered under the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, and when the NHS suffered bitterly. Unlike the right hon. Member for Derby, South, I was at that time working with the national health service, and I remember that only too clearly.
Mrs. Barbara Roche rose—
Mrs. Bottomley: At that time, the right hon. Lady was one of the culprits. She sat on the Government Benches during that time. She was a Member of the grim reaper Government who cut doctors' pay, cut nurses' pay and cut real terms spending for the only time in NHS history. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) for pointing that out once again to the House. Before the right hon. Lady lectures us, let us look at the disgraceful record of the Government of which she was a Member.
The background to the Gracious Speech this year is very different. We have an economic climate that is as favourable for long-term growth as it has been for decades.
Mrs. Roche rose—
Mrs. Bottomley: Inflation is firmly under control, unemployment is falling and exports are surging. We have been able to make Britain, in the words of the President of the European Commission, a paradise for inward investment. We have been able to do that not least because we have rejected the social chapter, which the Labour party would foist upon us. The Government's programme for this Session will help us to build on those prospects. That is good news for the country and good news for the national health service. The longer the faces on the Opposition Benches grow, the louder patients should cheer.
Thanks to our health reforms, we are better placed than ever to maintain a comprehensive service, available to all, at a cost that our economy can afford. I notice that the right hon. Member for Derby, South is happy to recite a vision of what might be achieved in the health service, but that she is totally devoid of any mechanisms by which the Labour party would deliver that objective. As a result of the reforms, we now have the potential to achieve more and more.
Last week, I was invited to address the conference of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on health care reform. The OECD experts have looked at the United Kingdom health reforms, and they like what they see. Their report highlighted a series of positive results stemming from the reforms.
Mrs. Roche: Does the Secretary of State agree with the vice-chairman of the Tory party, who advised his party

483
that the only way in which it could deal with the Government's record on the health service was to have a total news blackout?
Mrs. Bottomley: I would certainly like a blackout of the endless denigrating comments from the Labour party.
It is bizarre. I am keeping a check on how long it is before the right hon. Member for Derby, South gives a single word of credit to the people who work in the health service in Derby. We had no mention last time of the £48 million programme in Derby and we had no mention this time. I am just waiting until all those thousands of people who work in and serve the national health service in her constituency get any recognition. What matters is that we continue to deliver the results.
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry that the Secretary ofState is so at fault. She has clearly forgotten that, during our previous debate only a few days ago, I opened my speech by praising the staff of the national health service.
Mrs. Bottomley: The right hon. Lady made no recognition of the achievement of that team and of how the service has seized the opportunity of the reforms to reduce waiting times and to improve the quality and the quantity of patient care.
It is an example of the way in which the Labour party behaves that it does not hesitate to denigrate, for example, the work of Roy Lilley, but I wonder how many Labour Members have visited the Homewood Trust, which is a Rolls-Royce service for patients. That is the Rolls-Royce that I mind about.
The trust cares for some of the most severely—[Interruption.] It is interesting that the Labour party derides and jeers a trust providing care for some of the most severely mentally ill patients. When the right hon. Member for Derby, South was busy as a trade union official, my life's work involved trying to improve services for those patients. If I thought then that there would be the quality of service—[Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) is right. He has long been a champion of the cause. I invite him to visit the Homeward Trust and to see for himself the quality of care and the commitment of staff to that group of patients. He, as much as I, has long wanted to ensure that they are given the recognition and respect that they deserve. Before jumping to vituperation and personal attack, the Labour Members should visit and see with their own eyes some of the quality care that is being provided.
Rather than dwelling further on the gossip and on the pasting together of press cuttings of the Labour party, I should like to return to the comments of international experts, such as those at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which I was invited to address last week. Its report highlighted a series of positive results stemming from the reforms. They include the improved performance of hospitals, especially trusts, the success of GP fundholders and the doubling in the number of day cases, greatly contributing to increased efficiency.
Health care systems around the world face similar challenges. Changes are driven by medical advance, rising expectation and demographic pressures. Our response is widely regarded as well judged. Other countries that have long respected the national health service are looking to
484
us as pioneers of health service reform. The World Health Organisation, for example, described our "Health of the Nation" strategy as a model for other countries to follow.
It is still this Government who are coming up with the ideas. It is still the Labour party that has none of the answers. It does not even know the questions that it should be asking. The right hon. Member for Derby, South tells us that, for the third time of asking, the Labour party is consulting on what its policy should be. It is difficult for Conservative Members to hear that with a straight face. I have faced three Opposition health spokesman. All of them were looking for a policy and searching for the questions and the answers, without delivering anything which could have given any assurance to the people of this country.
Five years ago, the Gracious Speech unveiled the historic Bill to reform the NHS. Responding for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) offered his usual rash of predictions—or should I say, his rash predictions? He said that the Bill would spell the end of the Conservative Government, and that not a Tory Member of Parliament would be left between here and Aberdeen if we dared implement the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), who so ably seconded the Gracious Speech and who won his seat from Labour in 1992, might beg to differ.
The Conservative Government are still here, returned for the fourth time, with more votes than any other party in history. Our reforms are still here, and they are here to stay. Even the local hospital in the constituency of the hon. Member for Livingston went off to become a trust, and the hon. Member went off to another job.
Mrs. Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, as I know that many other hon. Members wish to intervene.
She is talking about reform of the national health service, but will she consider for a moment the change for change's sake that has been forced on the National Blood Authority, whose staff are highly skilled and provide an excellent service to the people who rely on it? Will she recognise that the donors who contribute to the service are deeply worried about the proposal to close five centres? When will we be told about the outcome of the consultation process?
Mrs. Bottomley: If ever we needed proof of the jeopardy in which people would be placed if the Labour party were to form the Government again, that intervention is it. The hon. Lady speaks, understandably, on behalf of the unions involved in the delivery of that service. Our health service, like that of every country, needs to change. Change is necessary, and we are rationalising the 14 processing centres to release resources for mobile units. I look to the courage of the people who are prepared to say that change is necessary because patients will benefit.
I pay the warmest possible tribute to the millions of people who regularly give blood to the national health service. The gift relationship established in our blood transfusion service, which is one of the best in the world, is remarkable, valuable and precious, but that does not mean that we should not rationalise the centres where the

485
processing is undertaken if we can streamline the service, thus releasing more resources for mobile units and for parts of the health service where there is pressing demand.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the chairman of the National Blood Authority came to Lancaster last Monday and spent the whole day there from 8 am? He spoke to all the staff and the anti-D donors and made it clear that there was no way on earth that he would imperil the donation of blood from the anti-D donors or others. His object was to make it easier to give blood, not more difficult. He also said that blood was a valuable commodity, and that, as it was given freely, it was up to us to look after it as best we can. I am sure that he will do that.
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for putting the case fully and fairly.
I was talking about history and the hon. Member for Livingston. His great hot tip was that the general election would be a referendum on the NHS. A number of hon. Members have raised the question of public opinion and perceptions. The hon. Gentleman later kept pretty quiet about the fact that he had said that the general election would be a referendum on the NHS. It was a good thing for the health service that he lost.
Dismantling the reforms, as the hon. Gentleman promised then and as the right hon. Member for Derby, South is promising again today, would mean chaos, upheaval and disillusion in the service. Incredibly, the right hon. Lady seems to have learnt nothing, as she is still pledging to reverse the reforms. She said that she would abolish trusts, that fundholders would go and that she would bring back the old command and control bureaucracy that encased the health service in cement.
She would be foolish to try it, and she must know it. In fact, I do not think that she believes for a moment that it would happen. It is a posture, an empty gesture that impresses no one—except, of course, her old friends the unions which sponsor the Labour party's health Front-Bench spokesmen.
I was wondering whether the right hon. Lady would have learnt from her predecessor's awkward predicament. He spent two years dithering about how to respond to the reforms and their growing success in dealing with patients. Like the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), he would not say yes and he would not say no. Finally, however, he got off the fence and decided that he was against them. Two weeks later, he was sacked. He is not making the same mistake twice. As the House will know, he made a spectacular and humiliating U-turn in Labour education policy. My advice to the right hon. Lady is to follow his example, to hoist the white flag now on health and decide to support the reforms, before she too gets shunted off.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am sorry to intervene in this private Punch and Judy show, but the Secretary of State mentioned the comprehensive health service available to all. Is she aware that, not only in my constituency but in many other areas, it is no longer possible for someone to get dental service on the NHS if he or she is seeking it for the first time? More and more dental practitioners are telling even the patients on their lists that, unless they pay a monthly subscription, the
486
service will no longer be available. When will the right hon. Lady make the NHS dental service available again to everyone in need?
Mrs. Bottomley: I beg to differ. Our weekly figures make it clear that dental services are available. But if the hon. Gentleman wants me to investigate the situation in his constituency, I shall be more than happy to do so. Although the number of dentists and the amount of dental care have increased, more children are registered and there is an unprecedented level of dental cover, we accept, as the House will know, that it is time to re-examine the system under which dentists are employed and remunerated, and the structure of the service. That is why we commissioned the Bloomfield report, to which we are now considering the responses. We want a service that is fairer to patients, to dentists and to the taxpayer.
My task is certainly to set out the achievements of the health service, but where issues need reconsidering with the profession, with patients and with the public, we should openly say so, and take forward that process of debate.
I notice that the right hon. Member for Derby, South has been singularly quiet on the subject of health care since her appointment. That is no surprise, because she was silent on the subject before that, too. The debates ahead on the Health Authorities Bill will afford her an opportunity to make her position and that of her party clear, and to admit before it is too late that the Labour party is wrong about the health reforms, as it has admitted that it was wrong about almost everything else.
We welcome the opportunity that the Queen's Speech provides to take three Bills through Parliament this Session, because we wish to speak at great length about the achievements and the further developments in the health service. My hon. Friends look forward to being in Committee, where they will miss no opportunity further to explain and to set out the achievements of the health service, and the way in which our reforms have made it possible to do even better for patients.
The Bill will complete the unfinished business of the reforms. It will abolish regional health authorities, and build on the decentralised system of decision making now largely in place. In place of the existing arrangements, it will create single health authorities, better able to champion patients' needs. It will ensure that we have a streamlined system of management, able to balance local flexibility with greater strategic direction on core issues. Regional health authorities have served us well, but now that, rightly, decisions are taken closer to patients, they are no longer needed. A redundant layer of management can be removed, and the Bill will secure that.
The right hon. Lady identified several areas, and I agree that it will be important to make it clear how medical education, training, research, communicable diseases and the other factors that she mentioned will be dealt with. Only yesterday, I saw the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to discuss some of the issues involved concerning education and research.
In sweeping away the regions, we shall be able to save substantial sums on administration, and we shall invest that money in even more and better patient care. I challenge the Opposition to support the Bill, and I hope they will. If they resisted it, that would confirm what we have long suspected, so I welcome the right hon. Lady's comments. However, we believe that the Opposition are

487
still the disciples of old-style central planning, the friends of the command and control bureaucracy that we have consigned to history, and the true champions of bureaucracy and bureaucrats.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I understand from the health authority in West Cumbria that it is £1.5 million short. An argument has broken out among the general public about how that shortfall should be funded. Many of the people who come to me say that they are prepared to pay higher taxes to ensure that they have a proper health service in West Cumbria. What does the right hon. Lady say to them?
Mrs. Bottomley: I say to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that his constituents should appreciate the fact that they have a Government who are able to invest progressive extra resources in the national health service—£1.6 billion this year—and a Government who can afford to make a commitment of real-terms increases in resources. As I set out at the beginning of my speech, the Labour party, which the hon. Gentleman supports, was lamentably unable to deliver. Whatever its promises, it cannot deliver and it ultimately betrays the public, the patients and NHS staff.
Mr. Thurnham: A moment ago, my right hon. Friend talked about blood donors. I do not know whether, like me, she has been over to the Treasury to one of its blood-letting sessions. Is not that as good a place as any to reflect on how much greater value for money she is achieving in the national health service? Is not the latest national health service report as good an example as any of all the points where we are getting much better value for money and much greater efficiency in the national health service, under my right hon. Friend's direction?
Mrs. Bottomley: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) is certainly right. I find the association between blood-letting and the Treasury too close for comfort. When I give blood, I go elsewhere because I do not feel totally relaxed in that environment.
I noticed that in responding to the Gracious Speech, the Leader of the Opposition, as the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) did today, made a number of mean-spirited and frankly disgraceful attacks on NHS managers. Labour claims to be in favour of efficient management, yet it always attacks the very people in the system who have brought it about. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) then quoted the usual inflated figures about increases in the number of managers. He failed to mention the 18,000 extra qualified nurses, the 8,000 extra hospital doctors and dentists and the 3,000 extra general practitioners. The right hon. Member for Derby, South may look at the figures for nurses. I commend her to look at the project 2000 nurses and at the dramatic increase in practice nurses. She will then want to look again at her figures.
What the Leader of the Opposition did not, of course, mention was that NHS management accounts for less than 3 per cent. of staff while front-line doctors and nurses account for almost two thirds. I know of no health service in the world that can better those figures and all the members of the team deserve congratulations for their work for the health service. The Labour party seeks to set doctor against manager, nurse against executive and
488
clinician against clerk. A well-run health service needs them all and if the Labour party knew anything about running a modern health service, it would admit that.
Frankly, I resent the Labour party's insinuating comments that the information provided by the Department of Health and by the NHS is made up of factoids, and is dubious and somehow not to be trusted. Last week, the national health service, the biggest organisation in the country and one of the most significant health services anywhere in the world, published the NHS annual report. It documents the achievements of our staff and it is a tribute to them and their work.
I remind the House of some of the highlights. The number of patients treated rose to more than 8 million for the first time ever. That is thanks to the work of NHS staff. It is a rate of increase in one year twice the annual average increase in the 1980s and, as my hon. Friends will want to know, five times the miserable figure achieved under Labour. The annual report showed that there were significant reductions in junior hospital doctors' hours and that there was improved training for nurses. There were more and better immunisation servaces for children, breast and cervical cancer screening programmes, community nursing, services for mentally ill people and much, much more. Those are the achievements of health service staff and they do not wish their achievements constantly to be belittled by the Labour party.
Lady Olga Maitland: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's catalogue. Does not she also agree that the Labour party would choke rather than admit that this Conservative Government have launched one £l million national health service project every eight days?
Mrs. Bottomley: Once again, my hon. Friend is right. Is it not interesting that all the Labour party can do is jeer and sneer? Most people think that a million-pound project every eight days is something from which the patients would benefit and about which patients would be glad to hear.
On waiting times, which have traditionally been the great problem of our national health service, I am pleased to inform the House of further excellent figures published today. There has been a small, welcome reduction in the overall list size, but, more significantly for patients, because this is what really matters to them, we have made even further dramatic progress on cutting waiting times.
In the past year alone, there has been a fall of nearly 10,000 in the number of patients waiting more than a year for treatment. That is a dramatic achievement—10,000 fewer patients waiting more than a year now compared with a year ago. The figure now stands at 62,000—still too many, but less than one third of what it was before the reforms. Half of all patients do not wait at all, but for those who do, our policies have virtually halved the average waiting time. By extending and improving the patients charter guarantees, we will drive that figure down further still and provide an even greater dividend for patients.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs. Bottomley: We are building a national health service fit for the 21st century. Increasingly, we want to focus on the quality of care. We need to home in on, and wherever possible improve, clinical outcomes. As

489
technology advances and medicine evolves, we must ensure that patients reap the full benefits of a state of the art health service.
I am pleased to be able to announce today that the Government will set aside an extra £40 million next year especially to support research and teaching in the NHS, which will bring to £530 million the earmarked funds dedicated for this purpose. The decision underlines the Government's commitment to research and teaching in the national health service. It will support the health service in training tomorrow's doctors, and allow work to be accelerated in the NHS research and development programme on innovative and evidence-based health care.
The NHS R and D strategy has made impressive and often unsung progress. Its continued evolution is essential for the NHS to take full advantage of the advances in science and technology. Research is crucial for identifying those methods in health care which will lead to better ways in which to promote health, prevent illness and treat patients more quickly and effectively. I look forward to the opportunity of working with the profession to enhance further the NHS's national and international reputation for teaching and research—again, an area about which we hear very little from the Labour party.
Mr. Kevin Barron: If we are to have the confidence that the right hon. Lady wants us to have in her and the health service, will the right hon. Lady tell the House what she thinks about a report on the front page of The Guardian, which states that a letter leaked from the Ian Greer Associates office names the principal Member of Parliament involved in lobbying Ministers and individuals of the House against the tightening of the voluntary code for tobacco advertising as her own Parliamentary Private Secretary?
Mrs. Bottomley: Certainly my Parliamentary Private Secretary has no recollection of such a matter at all. Much more to the point is the fact that any holder of my office who is not used to energetic lobbying by people from all persuasions and interests would be unable to do the job. If anybody wanted to take lessons in lobbying, for all the respect, indeed, affection that I have for them, there would few better advisors on the arts of lobbying than the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing themselves.
Talking of the BMA and its colleagues, the recent meeting of the medical profession on core values in medicine was, I believe, a landmark. It showed that the Government and the profession share a commitment to the same objective—to a modern, dynamic health service based on knowledge, informed by research and focused on outcomes for patients, to a health service of the future and for the future.
In the same way, I am pleased to be working with the medical profession in taking forward our proposed Medical Act (Amendment) Bill. The public rightly have confidence in the vast majority of our doctors, but there is regrettably also a very small number of doctors whose performance is deficient. The General Medical Council, the doctors' regulatory body, wants to improve the procedures which they have for dealing with that minority. There may be some, for example, who need further training before they can be allowed to continue to
490
practice. This Bill will provide those necessary powers, and the Government are glad to be able to support the GMC in that matter.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and Opposition Members have long made that point, and I am pleased that we are able to take it forward at this stage. I also welcome the support of the right hon. Member for Derby, South and of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on behalf of his party. I hope that that support will translate into practical action which will facilitate the passage of the Bill through the House.
I want to speak now about the important Mental Health Bill also announced in the Gracious Speech. The principle of caring for mentally ill people, where proper and possible in the community, is long-standing and supported on both sides of the House. The national health service now spends more than £2 billion on services for mentally ill people. More and more of that money is being spent in the community. There are now better services for the vast majority of mentally ill people than ever before—four times as many psychiatric nurses, four times as much residential provision, twice the number of day centre places. However, the right hon. Lady and many of my hon. Friends know of areas in which we have not yet delivered the comprehensive standard of care that we want for all patients, and we are determined to take that work forward.
We have, for example, a £45 million capital programme to increase the number of medium-secure psychiatric beds. It has long been a concern of mine, as members of the Select Committee and others will be aware, that, while care in the community generally works well for the majority, a small group of the most vulnerable patients do not always get the support they need. There have been a number of well-publicised cases which have brought the issue into sharp perspective. The national health service needs to do more to make services for that group a greater priority. It is beginning to happen.
For years, in the cities in particular, the large acute hospitals commanded most of the money available. Our Bill introduces stronger powers for looking after the most severely mentally ill people in the community. The new power of supervised discharge will build on our programme of action to strengthen care in the community. We have already introduced tougher and clearer guidance on the discharge of patients from hospitals. Four out of five health authorities now have in place supervision registers.
Supervised discharge will apply to those patients who have been detained in hospital and who, on discharge, need special support in the community. A patient subject to supervised discharge will be required to abide by the terms of the care plan drawn up by the clinical team when he or she leaves hospital. Failure to comply would lead to an immediate review and the possibility of compulsory readmission to hospital under the Mental Health Act.
That, too, is a measure which I hope should command support on both sides of the House. It will significantly tighten care in the community. It will provide added

491
protection for the public and for patients themselves, and it will reinforce confidence in the policy of care in the community itself.
Several hon. Members rose
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am sure that the House will welcome what the Secretary of State has said about mental health. I know that she has a personal commitment—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is asking a question, but I would be most grateful if other hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen would keep their peace so that we may hear that question.
Mr. Kirkwood: We all welcome what the Secretary of State has told the House. We all accept the need for filling some of the gaps to which she has referred. Does she not accept, too, that, in community care more generally, some of the transitional arrangements are producing some difficulties, which I do not believe are caused by lack of good management in local authorities? If those local authorities which are suffering some shortfalls in transitional arrangements demonstrate to her that it is not bad management which is causing that shortfall, would she consider addressing some of the financial gaps which are emerging?
Mrs. Bottomley: When I became Secretary of State, a number of hospitals and health authorities came to see me in the ninth month of the year and said that they were greatly surprised to discover that the year had 12 months, not nine, that it came as a great shock and that they were running out of money. I said then, and I say now, to local authorities that, when people take on a position of responsibility, it is their job to act as good stewards for the extra resources that they have available. It is essential that they realise that they must plan that resource through the year.
Some of my hon. Friends may want to know the sums of money going to some of the local authorities which have been making the most noise. The Isle of Wight, for example, has received a 2 per cent. increase this year in its personal social services—almost £2 million more.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Liberals.
Mrs. Bottomley: Liberals, as the hon. Gentlemen says.
Gloucestershire, for example, has a 10 per cent. Increase—an extra £5 million. Devon has a 13 per cent. increase in personal social services moneys—an extra £14.6 million. Local authorities have an extra £1.2 billion for community care. It is a policy which local authorities fought hard to secure, as it were, from the Government. They were determined that they would act as good stewards. They worked closely with us in the implementation of the policy.
They must now demonstrate that the trust that was placed in them was well founded. It is irresponsible to indulge in scaremongering tactics in respect of some of the most frail and vulnerable in the land when this year there are resource increases to which no other Department in local government is looking, even remotely.
Mr. Alan Howarth: On the issue of good stewardship, and on another aspect of care in the community, did my right hon. Friend note the report
492
yesterday, published jointly by the Policy Studies Institute and the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, which showed that, in terms of cost-effectiveness—indeed, by a factor of about one third—and of quality of life and dignity in independent living, there is a clear advantage in allowing disabled people to manage their own budgets for domestic and personal care rather than having services provided for them?
My right hon. Friend has expressed her relish for reform, and she made some encouraging remarks recently to the conference of the Association of Directors of Social Services. Will she confirm that it is the Government's intention to amend the National Assistance Act 1948 during the Session to allow individuals to make their own arrangements?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has been a long-standing champion of that cause, as the House knows well. I began being somewhat sceptical and cautious, feeling that local authorities might not be able to be trusted to take on the responsibility. I have been assured that, on the contrary, they are able stewards. I must confess my concern about the signs that we have been seeing this year that the authorities might be playing at the sort of games that we have seen in other areas. They will need to demonstrate that they can be trusted to manage a budget through the year without holding to ransom the most frail and vulnerable.
I am not able to say more on the issue that my lion. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) has raised, but I shall continue to reflect on his persuasive comments before I am able to make final announcements.
Before completing my speech, I wish to comment on the police investigations at Bassetlaw hospital and at other hospitals. It is clear that they involve serious matters. The police have our full support in the inquiries that they are pursuing. The House will understand that I am constrained in what I can say in advance of the investigations coming to a conclusion. I have made it clear, however, that I expect the NHS to co-operate fully, and I am sure that it is.
All seven hospitals involved have given a helpline number for any past patients, or their relatives, who are worried. Inevitably our minds all go back to the appalling crimes committed by Beverley Allitt. As I recently stated in a written answer, all recommendations contained in. Sir Cecil Clothier's important report have been or are being acted upon. If there are further lessons to be learnt from the Bassetlaw case, I give the House an assurance that action will be taken as soon as they become apparent.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: If I can catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall say a few words about the investigations that are taking place. There is, however, something that I would rather say in private to the Secretary of State. Would it be in order for me to have a private meeting with the right hon. Lady later this week, when we could discuss the matter?
Mrs. Bottomley: I am more than happy to arrange such a meeting. I well understand the hon. Gentleman's profound concern about the issue.
The Gracious Speech carries forward the Government's programme of enlightened social reform. In the NHS, our programme has led to a service that is more responsive to the needs of patients. It is more flexible and it is

493
responding better to the challenges that it faces. By being more efficient, it is a far better servant of both patients and the taxpayer.
Through four successive Parliaments, the Government have supported the NHS, as we have supported the welfare state. There has been extra funding, extra staff and better results. Over 3,000 more patients are treated every day, there are shorter waits and there are great improvements in the quality and range of care.
In the 1980s, despite significant extra spending, public satisfaction with the health service fell. That trend has now been reversed. Even the right hon. Member for Derby, South acknowledged that the British social attitudes survey, published last week, shows that, since 1990, satisfaction with how the health service is being run has risen. Dissatisfaction has fallen. Those patients who use the NHS, as hon. Members know only too well, as opposed to those who wish to write it down, are overwhelmingly satisfied with the service that they receive. As the benefits of the health reforms become ever more clear, that trend will be sustained and increased.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Derby, South was a sign of a bankrupt Opposition. Wherever the Opposition look—the economy, health, education and social security—they know that the Government have acted courageously and responsibly to safeguard the best interests of the country and its people. They know also that only by appearing to adopt our policies or adapt our principles would they ever have even the faintest hope of success with the voters.
There is one unanswerable question that faces the Opposition: if they were wrong for so long, as they now admit, why on earth should anybody trust them now? They have nothing to offer the health service, and they have nothing to offer the country. After the next general election, once again, they will have nothing to show for ditching their principles. It is not enough to swear allegiance to the NHS and then to bury one's head in the sand.
A great public service such as the NHS must evolve. It must adapt to meeting changing needs, changing expectations and changing capabilities. Governments must face and not fudge the difficult decisions that have to be made. Our policies address the challenges that lie ahead. The new health service is better able than ever before to maintain and enhance the comprehensive, high-quality service that the public deserve and patients expect. The measures in the Gracious Speech will help us to make a great service even greater.
4.56 pm
Mr. Ashton: I hope that the House will forgive me if I concentrate on an aspect of the national health service that has become of great importance—security in our hospitals, especially the Bassetlaw hospital and the seven other hospitals that have been mentioned. At the end of January, it was reported that there had been 16 incidents in the new Bassetlaw hospital—it was built only a few years ago. It appeared that someone had tampered with the high-tech equipment in the intensive care unit. After a check was made of the work rotas, a nurse who had been on duty on all the relevant occasions was suspended.
494
In the ensuing nine months, the police interviewed 500 members of staff and patients. They have now widened the inquiry, and 1,870 interviews have taken place, spreading over eight other hospitals, involving a further 57 incidents. No one has yet been charged and no one has been interviewed as a suspect. That is despite 20 detectives spending well over nine months on investigations. The investigations have spread to Nottingham city hospital; Sheffield Northern general; the Gloucestershire royal; Bristol Southmead; St. George's, Tooting; the Radcliffe infirmary, Oxford; and the Middlesex Central hospital.
Bassetlaw hospital is run by a trust. I suppose that it is no different from, or any worse or better than, any other modern hospital. In the intensive care unit there has been a 12 per cent. death rate, which is the national average in such units; there is no sign that deaths at the intensive care unit at Bassetlaw have been any different from anywhere else. Two patients died during the period when the hospital authorities say that tampering took place. Following investigations, the 16 incidents that were reported have grown to 30.
It is alleged that tampering has taken place mainly with the settings on life-saving ventilators and intravenous pumps—in other words, the settings have been altered. Sometimes relatives were left alone with patients. It is obviously extremely worrying if they think that they might be accused of tampering with equipment. Admission to the unit was by digital code security, the details of which were not generally known. I understand that that is the practice in all the other hospitals.
On Monday, I met the hospital trust chairman, Mrs. Valerie Dickenson, and the chief executive, Mr. Munro Donald, following allegations and revelations in The Independent on Sunday by Mr. Jonathan Foster, who has a long history of specialising in health service issues and, in particular, Beverley Allitt issues. He revealed that further widespread investigations were taking place.
When I met the hospital trust chairman, I was told that the nurse who had been suspended had been recruited in the normal way from the Northern general hospital in Sheffield, which is 12 or 13 miles away. She had answered an advertisement. Her boy friend had come to work in Bassetlaw and she wanted to move to Worksop. She was obviously cross-examined. Her qualifications were bound to be in order and there was no reason to think that there was anything untoward about the appointment.
The nurse in question applied for promotion and passed her examinations. There had been no problems before and I understand that there is nothing to show that anything was untoward at the seven other hospitals or places at which she worked. I am not accusing her or anyone else at the hospital of being involved in the incidents. However, 30 incidents took place at the Bassetlaw hospital and 57 incidents took place at another eight hospitals. That is very worrying for my constituents, for patients and for the town in general.
I have not revealed the names of any of the constituents who have complained. However, Mr. Steven Shaw of Workshop, whose mother Muriel died after many months in intensive care, spoke to The Daily Mirror. If the House will forgive me, I want to quote what he said in that paper:
"Detectives have interviewed everyone connected with my mum. They wanted to know if any of us had seen anything suspicious going on around her—if we had seen anyone tampering with

495
equipment. The inquiry has been going on so long now that we all want to know when the agony will end. It has been very upsetting waiting all these months without knowing what was going on. In many ways, it would be easier to bear if we were given the worst news. But the police say it could be next year before they can tell us anything definite. With all these other incidents, there are obviously going to be a lot more devastated families like us."
The situation is extraordinary. After all these months, and after 1,800 interviews and hundreds of statements, no one has been charged. The police have told me that no one has been questioned along the lines that that person was a suspect.
A cloud has been hanging over the hospital for nine months and the inquiry does not seem to be getting any further. There have also been a series of worrying incidents in the Trent region. Again, I do not allocate blame or say that those incidents are connected. However, we must remember the Beverley Allitt affair. She is now in Rampton in my constituency. Indeed, she was treated at the Bassetlaw hospital after mutilating herself during the trial.
Beverley Allitt was accused of killing four children and of attacking nine others over a period of 58 days. She was given 13 life sentences and is now in Rampton. The usual checks were carried out on her stability before she was employed at Grantham hospital.
Earlier this year, the new-born baby Abbie Humphries was kidnapped from a Nottingham hospital. That baby was missing for 15 days before she was found. Those are worrying aspects of security in our hospitals. The Secretary of State referred to the report of Sir Cecil Clothier, who led the inquiry into the Beverley Allitt affair. Sir Cecil Clothier, a former ombudsman, said:
"It takes only two minutes alone with a helpless patient to kill or injure."
He made 11 recommendations. The Secretary of State says that she has sent them to the health authorities and to the trusts and asked—I do not know whether she ordered—that they be implemented. I am not trying to be political, but the trusts virtually run themselves as they choose. They may be satisfied that such things could not happen in those trusts, but they might happen.
This is all rather like the problem with our football stadiums. People thought that the Hillsborough disaster could not happen and people could not be killed in that way, but ultimately it did. Action then had to be taken to improve football stadiums. A similar thing happened to the ferry when its doors were open and in respect of the King's Cross fire.
The security aspect of our hospitals is unbelievable. What has been done about Sir Cecil Clothier's recommendations on the screening of staff, camera surveillance inside hospitals, controlled admission for visitors and curfews on visiting times? Some of our hospitals are like King's Cross station: anyone can walk in or out of them whenever he or she likes. That is very worrying.
Staff in any inner-city accident and emergency department will be aware of the drunks who roll in at 10 pm on a Saturday night. Some of them just come in to get warm and have a cup of tea. However, nurses and doctors sometimes have to endure horrendous situations. Those drunks do not walk into nightclubs, because there are bouncers on the doors to keep them out. There are no bouncers at a hospital on a Saturday night.
496
This sort of thing is happening regularly. We have security in our town halls and in the Houses of Parliament. People cannot simply walk into the BBC or into a police station. I was in a London hospital in August. It seemed to me that half the neighbourhood took a short cut through that hospital. I do not want to mention the hospital by name, because the medical treatment was absolutely superb. The doctors and nurses worked wonders under impossible conditions. However, there were four lines of beds, 18 of which were occupied out of 24. There was a mixture of men and women in the ward. There was one bathroom, three toilets and horrendous traffic noise. Any weirdo could take a short cut through the hospital from one street to the next instead of walking around. There were no controls. People had to be wheeled into the street on trolleys to get to the operating theatres.
All hospitals are different. Some were built when Strangeways prison was built and, in many ways, their architecture is no better than that of the prison. However, others are very good. Many have no locks on internal doors and there is no one on the main door to stop people coming in. Visitors at the hospital to which I have referred rolled in at 11 pm looking as though they had come straight from the pub. The trusts are doing exactly what they like.
The problem with Bassetlaw is not the first case of trouble in health service hospitals. In 1990, two surgeons were knifed to death in Pindarfields general hospital in Wakefield. The man who did it is also in Rampton in my constituency. In 1991, a man was stabbed at Rake Lane general hospital in North Shields while he was in intensive care. In 1992, a patient was shot dead while talking on the phone at the Royal Free hospital. In 1994, three babies were abducted from hospitals in Bath, London and Nottingham.
Some trusts have said that they will electronically tag babies. Why only some and not all? When that question is asked, the first answer is, "But we will want more money." The Secretary of State said that more money is being made available and it is up to the trusts to manage their own resources. However, with regard to this problem, we no longer have a national health service. We have local health services which are spending their money and operating their hospitals as they think fit.
When a Beverley Allitt comes along or a baby is abducted, there is tremendous uproar in the media and there is tremendous news interest. Twenty detectives have been working on the case at Bassetlaw hospital for nine months. I do not know what that is doing to the crime figures in the rest of the county, but it cannot be doing them any good.
Morale in Bassetlaw hospital is very low, patients and patients' relatives are afraid, and the situation is getting worse after nine months. There seems to be no end to the inquiry. The police say that medical inquiries take a very long time. People have to be cross-examined and their memories become confused as time passes. The police must also consult experts. The problem is very difficult.
There must be a public inquiry into what has happened in Bassetlaw and what is happening to security in general. We have specific rules about dangerous drugs in hospitals. However, there do not seem to be any rules about dangerous people. They can come and go as they like. To stop allegations being made, we have rules whereby a male GP is not supposed to examine a female patient without another woman being present. However, in the

497
case of the problem at Bassetlaw, allegations ran throughout a hospital. False allegations were made about people at the beginning of the inquiry which have not helped the police and have not improved the situation. I hope that, sooner or later, there will be an arrest or that eventually there will be a public inquiry. Such incidents are happening far too often in far too many hospitals to far too many people.
Patients have the right to believe that, when they go into hospital, they will be not only treated but protected. Highly technical equipment can be fiddled with as soon as a nurse turns her back. Nurses cannot watch everything all the time. Anyone can wander in and say, "We'll have a bit of fun and alter this machine." Suspicion then falls on other patients, on relatives and on nurses. None of this is doing the health of the nation any good.
I shall have more to say to the Secretary of State when we meet later. I hope that she will now set up not just the sort of inquiry held under Sir Cecil Clothier into the Beverley Allitt case, but a general inquiry into hospital security and whether we need national rules and regulations on visiting and the conduct of patients.
5.10 pm
Mr. James Hill: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, because health is of such importance to all of us. My wife had a major accident on the motorway on Thursday. The car was completely wrecked and she had to be freed from it. An ambulance came from the Royal South Hants hospital within 10 minutes. After being kept in hospital for three hours, she was released, so it was a happy ending. I hope that that shows the Opposition that the national health service has tremendous back-up facilities, for which we will all be grateful at some time in our lives.
The hospitals in Southampton all have trust status and they are doing very nicely. There are no major grumbles. Figures that I obtained today show that in Hampshire the total money for social services and community care has risen from —148 million in 1993–94 to £173 million in 1994–95—an increase of 16.9 per cent. That is a very good increase, but the Opposition never mention such things. I am disappointed with Labour Members. Sometimes, they can be outspoken in the Chamber and give credit where credit is due, but not as often as in Committee where they back many of the initiatives taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
What is the point politically of deriding the national health service? That does nothing other than depress those working in the service, and the patients waiting to go into hospital get a bad impression. I have been in the House a long time, but I have had few letters from patients in Southampton hospitals criticising them.
The security of babies has been mentioned. There was a problem with the maternity unit of the Princess of Wales hospital when babies were given to the wrong parents. It was a rather nasty little episode, but I think that the problem has been solved completely by using armlets for identification.
Surely the emphasis of today's debate should be one of congratulation to my right hon. Friend. I have read nothing that proves that it is not sensible for us to increase the number of patients treated—to 8 million for the first
498
time ever, according to the NHS annual report. That is 8 million in a population of 55 million— [Interruption.] Already, the barrackers are jumping in and denigrating the system. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is a shadow Minister dealing with the NHS nationally, yet he sits there denigrating it. That must stop. We have the best health service in the world and no one should forget that, whether he lives in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England.
The facts must be stated once in a while. We must look on the good side and not carp, especially on the late-night television shows where politicians get around the table and tear things to pieces. The numbers on the waiting list have fallen quickly—by more than 3,000 in one year. That is admirable. Had the Opposition been able to achieve that, they would be wearing funny hats and carrying balloons; because we have achieved it, they treat it with disdain. General practitioners, consultants and those at the sharp end of the NHS do not like being constantly denigrated. They do not like the fact that they work an incredible number of hours, sometimes in cramped accommodation, while some politicians do nothing but sit here criticising them.
Any grumble that I might have is not about the health service, but about the social and welfare service. I am especially anxious that the Child Support Agency should be investigated intensely. I have some cases from my constituency advice service of unfortunate individuals who have become tied up in the system. One case involves a police officer who has served for 23 years—[Interruption.] Do Labour Members want to denigrate that chap's suffering as well? [Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you protect me from these denigrators? That is all they are; they are not here for the debate.
As I said, the case involves someone with 23 years' police service. He was married for 17 years and has three children. He left home with the clothes he stood up in and the family's second car. He gave his ex-wife the house, the contents and the main car, and she had custody of the children. He continued to pay the mortgage for a further year. He paid for the divorce and ran up an overdraft. He paid for clothes and holidays for the children, in addition to paying maintenance. He remarried and has a second family. He was just starting to get back on his feet financially when in December 1993 the CSA stepped in and then in June 1994 assessed that he should pay three times the amount of maintenance that he was paying.
As a police officer, if that man goes into debt, he will be in danger of losing his job and pension. The chief constable has told him that he is not eligible for financial help, as it is a domestic matter. His second wife—this may be greeted with a certain amount of glib humour by Labour Members—has now walked out on him. That is the result of a less than flexible approach by the CSA.
The second case involves a lady with two teenage children who was divorced in 1987. She was awarded £16 a week for the son and £12 for the daughter. In January 1993, the court awarded an increase to £20 a week for each child. Now we get to the nitty-gritty. In May 1993, she received forms from the CSA. She explained that she had just had a maintenance increase, but was told that if she did not fill out the forms family credit would be stopped.

499
In July 1994, the CSA awarded my constituent £17.62 a week, to be split between both children. The lady said:
"One final point, if the CSA had not reduced my weekly maintenance so drastically I would not have needed family credit next year, now I shall need the support for the next three years until my daughter completes her 'A' level exams."
As a compassionate, deep-thinking Parliament, we must admit that the matter requires further investigation.
We know that we cannot have a perfect society. We cannot give everything to everyone who wants it. Nevertheless, once in a while one has to come to an abrupt halt and say that the matter has to be dealt with. It must be investigated in the light of one of the political aspects that we invariably fail to consider: the public relations side of a severe policy. We must make sure that the public know exactly what Parliament is trying to do.
The difficulty in the House is that we have opposing political views. I sympathise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because the Opposition are not always co-operative. They do not always work with her. They look ahead to two or three years hence when they think that they will get the wheel and drive us right over the cliff. We need more co-operation, certainly on social services and welfare matters, and on hospital trusts. So many trusts are doing well and they will do even better if they see that we are one team here in the House. I wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State every success in the future.
5.21 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: I am sure that everyone in the House will join me in giving our best wishes to the wife of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) in her recovery from her unfortunate accident. The hon. Gentleman gave a good illustration of the quality of the people who work for the national health service, particularly those who have to deal with accidents and emergencies.
I start on a positive note by welcoming the commitment in the Gracious Speech to a Bill to introduce new procedures to enable the General Medical Council to deal with those doctors whose professional performance is found to be deficient. I must declare my interest. It has been referred to already. I have been a lay member of the GMC for five years. With me on that council has been the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), and we have been joined recently by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) from the Labour party.
The hon. Member for Chislehurst and I have come to admire the GMC, although neither of us joined with admiration particularly in mind. The GMC is sometimes criticised, although usually, I fear, from a position of ignorance. The GMC can do only what statute permits it to do. That is something which the newspapers and, as a result, the public rarely understand. It is fortunate, therefore, that the GMC appears to be a beneficiary of the Post Office debacle. It has earned a small but important slot in this year's legislative programme.
The council has pressed for change for two to three years. At present it can deal only with what is called serious professional misconduct—a term the meaning of which has been restricted over time by judicial interpretations in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It can also deal with doctors who are so sick that the health committee of the GMC is enabled to interfere with their registration.
500
Under the presidency of Sir Robert Kilpatrick, the GMC has sought to modernise the way in which it is run, not only by increasing the lay membership of the council and examining its procedures but by introducing what has been called, as a working definition, "performance review". This is not, as was suggested in one Health Department press release, a lesser offence than serious professional misconduct. It is much broader than that.
The GMC wishes, and is now to be allowed, to deal with doctors whose performance falls below acceptable standards. The aim of the council is universal good doctoring. With that extra shot in our locker, the council of which I am proud to be a member will be able to deal with bad doctoring. There is more to it than merely widening the remit of the GMC. The causes of bad doctoring are complex. It can be based on overwork, cultural misunderstandings, poor mutual support systems in the profession or sometimes poor support systems from family health services authorities. I suggest to the Secretary of State that some more research is needed into the reasons why doctors run into difficulties.
Another interest that I should declare is the unpaid position of parliamentary adviser to the Overseas Doctors Association of Great Britain. One of the matters that troubles me greatly is the disproportionately high number of overseas qualified doctors who find themselves facing the professional conduct committee of the GMC. It is perhaps time for the Secretary of State to consider funding some research into why that occurs. I know that it worries the Overseas Doctors Association of Great Britain as much as anyone else.
The Secretary of State mentioned medical schools in her speech. They, too, are a direct responsibility of the GMC. It has responsibility for the accreditation and quality control of medical education. There is some anxiety about the future of the medical schools and medical education under the new management structures. I hope that the management structures that replace the regional health authorities and those at other levels of the health service will properly reflect the important role of the universities. It is vital that they are involved in appropriate ways at various levels of the restructured NHS management to achieve joint planning in the disposition of staff and the provision of patient services. We have excellent medical schools in Britain. They must not be disadvantaged by management changes.
The Secretary of State made a passing reference to whether patients were cheering. In that context, I should like to make some remarks about fundholding general practices. I do not think that patients care very much—I do not think that they 'cheer or otherwise—about whether their general practitioners are fundholders, save when they find that they are disadvantaged by fund holding. I ask the Government to respect the views of GPs who conscientiously do not wish to become fundholders.
It is recognised that in certain circumstances fundholding practices may gain advantages, but there is a perception, which is justified occasionally by evidence, that those advantages may be unfair. There is also some evidence that in a few fundholding practices—I do not wish to blacken them all with a sweeping statement—

501
those whom one might describe as expensive patients are not welcome. It is logical that to try to drive all GPs into fundholding is a kamikaze policy for the Government.
The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carlile: If I may just finish the sentence. If all GPs become fundholders, the advantages which are available to the few fundholders will no longer be available to any of them. They will all face the chaos which, in some areas, they all faced before.
Mr. Malone: It is not the benefits being available to fundholders that matter: it is the fact that benefits should be available for patients. There is no question either of departing from the voluntary principle of fundholding. Of course the Government would like as many GPs as possible to take advantage of the system, but I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that there will be no compulsion.
Mr. Carlile: That assurance is welcome as far as it goes, but I urge the Minister to look at the success of some non-fundholding commissioning groups. He should look at what is happening in Nottingham, where 200 doctors have become involved in a non-fundholding commissioning group which has had at least as much success as fundholders—and probably more—in securing better services for their patients. I accept that the discipline may have arisen from the introduction of fundholding—I do not deny it for a moment—but I would ask the Minister to take an objective look at the idea, and possibly to accept that in some places it is not wise to urge fundholding when a better alternative may be available.
Another aspect of general practice that patients are not cheering is on-call services performed by locums. Much better quality control is needed to ensure that locum doctors working at night, especially for GPs, are fit to do the job they do—and have the equipment to do it. There is evidence—I heard it repeatedly in my five years on the professional conduct committee of the GMC—to suggest that some locum services are extremely slipshod in their management and in the way doctors are engaged to carry out the work.
I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister to the view that we are approaching the time when we must recognise that extra skills are required for a doctor doing locum work. He does not have the advantage of knowing the patient, or of knowing the aetiology of the patient's illness; he does not have the advantage of the patient's records. He needs a better history and quicker and more perceptive skills. He needs special training, in short, to be a locum doctor.
I suggest that the best night-call services are carried out not by the commercially-run services, but by GP co-operatives. I ask the Government to look closely at ways in which co-operatives can be encouraged to take more of these services—
Mr. Malone rose
Mr. Carlile: It looks as though I am on a winner tonight.
Mr. Malone: I am always glad to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman the fact that he is supporting a
502
Government policy. He will be well aware that measures are in hand to try to encourage co-operative practices for night cover. I hope that he will join us in persuading the medical profession of their acceptability. We need to make progress quickly, and his support would be extremely valuable.
Mr. Carlile: I seem to be on a lucky streak, so I will give that support wholeheartedly.
I should like next to discuss hospital locums. I was a member of the GMC's professional conduct committee when Dr. Gaud, the doctor who operated on patients knowing that he had hepatitis B, was erased from the medical register. It would not be right to comment on that hearing, but I would like to comment on the issue. In that case, a surgeon was able to obtain employment in hospital after hospital because his references were not pursued. It is common practice, when locum consultants and assistant consultants are taken on, for their references to be taken as read. It should not be so. I invite the Government to take urgent steps to ensure that there is a foolproof and fraud-proof system to guarantee that references are always pursued.
Furthermore, there is evidence that some senior consultants are sometimes all too ready to give a favourable reference without possessing the material to justify one—perhaps even occasionally to get rid of a colleague whom they no longer want around. Those are hard words to say, but I believe them to be true. I ask the Health Department to treat this as an issue requiring serious attention. We cannot afford another Dr. Gaud.
I turn next briefly to pay for medical and paramedical staff at all levels. The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) commented on performance-related pay, its definition and its nature, and on whether it is to be individually performance-related or local pay. At the moment that is causing a real worry for all staff. They have no confidence—and I feel none—that a fair system of performance-related or local pay can be devised.
In my constituency, the Powys NHS health care trust has declared its intention to switch to local pay. That has engendered the worst possible morale among staff. It is not right to impose on the NHS a system of pay led by business needs instead of deciding priorities according to patients' needs. There is a danger that rural areas will start to lose medical and nursing staff because of the threat of local pay. It undermines the whole principle of the doctors and dentists review body, which considers pay objectively and nationally.
While on the subject of dentists, I should add that the Secretary of State was plain wrong. She should go and find out what is happening around the country. NHS dentistry for adults is not available in vast areas of rural Wales. In the county of Gwynedd, the situation has become so bad in the past week that no NHS dentist is now available for new adult patients. In my constituency, for distances of 30 miles or more, it can be impossible to find an NHS dentist. The situation has become critical; even if someone finds an NHS dentist—save for a genuine emergency—he has to wait months for treatment.
In other areas of the country, things are different. I understand that in parts of London it is easy to obtain a consultation with a good NHS dentist, but it is not sufficient to use London or urban statistics to distort what is happening in other parts of the country.

503
I shall end with a few comments on community care. It will never be the jewel in the crown of this or any other Government unless it is properly resourced. Local authorities' standard spending assessments bring huge variations in the money available to the authorities, and in many areas that is leading to increased rationing of care. The elderly, the disabled and their carers can be the losers. Local authorities have worked hard to make a reality of community care, and the idea that some local authorities are trying to wreck the system is a calumny which cannot be demonstrated to be true anywhere.
The increased help given to local authorities was warmly welcomed by members of the public, but it has led to increased demand. The Government unfortunately failed to estimate correctly the element of unmet need. They consistently state how much money has been directed to social services departments, omitting to say where it has come from. By making that omission they perpetuate the myth that it is new money. It is not. It is a reallocation of social security payments to people who previously could have opted for residential care with no assessment of their needs. The Government had no accurate figure for the extra costs required before introducing the policy. The suspicion is that they know no better now. By transferring a fixed sum to local government, however, the Government are successfully capping the spending that is going into community care.
The Government further added to the problems of local authorities by restricting the use of the money transferred from the DSS, so that 85 per cent. of it must be spent on the private sector. The argument for that, apparently, was that it was private sector finance. It was not. It was public money paid in from public taxes. Indeed, that whole area has been so mismanaged by the Government for so many years that £2.5 billion of public money was poured into the private sector without any regard to proper assessment of the individuals, or any attempt at strategic planning.
The Government must recognise two things about community care. First, they must recognise that there are acute funding problems, which have been mentioned already and which largely arose because the Government changed the rules; and secondly, that community care, certainly in rural areas, often means anything but care in one's own community. For many people, it means being shunted off into a community far away from one's life and times, from one's friends and relatives. That is not acceptable.
There are a multitude of other issues that one could raise in this part of the debate on the Gracious Speech, and we shall certainly have a lively debate during the Session on issues relating to health and social services. I hope that the Clydesdale hospital will not remain as the memorial of the Session—an incident led by dogma rather than by considerations of quality and value. Knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing is no basis for improving the nation's health. I hope that, by the end of the Session, we will, by some co-operation—I hope that there will be a large measure of that—have succeeded in improving the nation's health and the way in which the nation is cared for. But I believe that a change of attitude by the Government is needed if that is to be achieved.
5.41 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: I begin by expressing my appreciation and that of my constituents to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health for
504
taking time out during her very busy Conservative party conference week in Bournemouth last month to visit the Royal Bournemouth general hospital in my constituency. I know that she was suitably impressed by its undoubted success and performance in treating my patients and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), but I wonder whether she was informed that it was originally scheduled to be built in 1977, but, like so many hospitals, was a casualty of the Labour Government cuts at that time. There was also a reduction in nurses' pay, to which my right hon. Friend referred. It took the restoration of Conservative Government prosperity for that hospital to be built, for the benefit of our constituents.
I shall make four points, two of which relate to the theme of today's debate. I want to reflect the concerns expressed to me at a public meeting on law and order which I held in my constituency last Saturday afternoon. Apart from when party conferences are in town, there are simply not enough police patrolling our streets during the day—some 20 or 30, I am told—and their resources are fully stretched during the night. Those are the police's words, not mine. They do not want to see more clubs opening in Bournemouth, because they could not cope. That situation threatens to hold Bournemouth back as a successful resort.
Of course, I welcome the new freedom that is now given to chief constables to increase manpower without Home Office approval, but there can be no more police without more money. So I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will announce a substantial increase in resources for police manpower in his Budget statement next week and that some of that will come Dorset's way.
I particularly welcome the proposed legislation in the Gracious Speech to make it easier to return those who are mentally ill to hospital, for which I have called for some time in my capacity as the honorary parliamentary consultant to the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones). I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on the initiatives that she has already taken in mental health during the past three years—more than the previous 300 years put together. I hope that she will consult widely on what she is proposing.
I strongly urge that the new legislation be subject to the same Special Standing Committee procedure that the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1983 underwent. It is a process that is sadly underused, inviting as it does interested parties to come before a Standing Committee, just as they are invited to come before a Select Committee. I may be one of the few Members left to have served on the Special Standing Committee that considered that Bill. I hope very much to be able to do so again.
I welcome the reforms that I expect will be announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, to soften the impact of the Child Support Agency on absent fathers who have handed their houses over to their ex-wives in clean break settlements. I also hope that the travel-to-work costs of absent fathers and those incurred by children visiting the father, or by the father visiting the children, will be taken into account when assessing his payments. That is only fair and just. I look forward to learning from my right hon. Friend just how he will reconcile those changes while maintaining the whole point of the CSA, which is to ensure that parents accept the

505
financial responsibility for their children, and not the taxpayer, many of whom might be much worse off than the parents.
I shall conclude on a foreign affairs issue, which I could not refer to in the debate last Thursday, because I was in Azerbaijan.
The House will be aware of the six-year conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. The Armenian people have been seeking independence from Azerbaijan, which has resulted in some 40,000 dead, more than 100,000 wounded and maimed and well over 1 million people displaced. I have now seen—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman will refer to the health service or the pension policy in Azerbaijan and relate it to the Gracious Speech, but I hope that if he is minded to do so he will link it in.
Mr. Atkinson: I will, of course, be referring to the humanitarian support, including the health services that the refugees desperately need at the present time. I understood, however, that in the debate on the Gracious Speech, one is allowed to stray a little from the theme of the day—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must know that we have an amendment before us. Had he spoken yesterday, he would have been entirely in order, but today he would not be in order to stray wide.
Mr. Atkinson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will, of course, refer to health issues in what I propose to say.
I have seen the refugee camps in Armenia and Azerbaijan, and it is clear that, without further substantial and immediate help, many of those refugees will die during the coming winter, particularly those living in very insubstantial tents. They need the benefit of medical aid and other supporting health services through the United Nations, to whom I pay tribute for the considerable amount—
Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have always understood that, following the Gracious Speech, we would debate what was in it. The fact that an amendment has been tabled surely cannot restrict Members in what they wish to debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a senior Member. He will recognise that the question is on the amendment before us, which the Labour party, of which he is a member, tabled. That is the question before the House. Therefore, today's debate, until 10 o'clock, is about the national health service and pensions policy, as related to the amendment tabled.
Mr. Robert Hughes indicated dissent.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but those have been the rules of the House for the 20 years that I have been here.
Mr. Atkinson rose
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to return to the specific issue that the House is debating.
Mr. Atkinson: It is clear that I have strayed beyond the parameters that you have allowed, Mr. Deputy
506
Speaker. Let me end my speech, however, by referring to the Queen's Speech as it relates to the situation that I mentioned. I welcome the statement that the Government will seek to enhance the role of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in conflict prevention and the resolution at the Budapest summit in December, and look forward to its contribution to a successful outcome of the dispute over Karabakh.
5.50 pm
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I shall confine my speech to health issues.
The very purpose of Government is to have duties and responsibilities, and the election of a Government carries the burden of trust from the electorate. I believe that the present Government have lost that trust as a result of their actions on the national health service. One would expect the ideological vision of any party that has been in power for 15 years to be near completion, but the Tory philosophy that everything should be left to the market or the business ethic has proved to be fundamentally flawed. It is not what the people want and at the next general election—in two years' time, or even next Monday—we shall see what they do want; the Government will then pay the price.
Meanwhile, for the past 15 years, the price has been paid by those who are not equipped to defend themselves. No area of government demonstrates that more clearly than the NHS. On behalf of my constituents, I take this opportunity to thank all its workers for their skill and dedication, and for always putting patients first: that has always been, always will be and always should be the culture of health care, and to suggest otherwise is to insult the integrity of all who work in that field. I hope that Mr. Lilley of the Homewood health trust will resign; if he does not do so voluntarily, the Secretary of State should ask him to. After what he has said, he has no place in the national health service.
With a population of more than 475,000, due to rise to half a million by the year 2000, Bradford is the only metropolitan district in England whose population is growing. It is growing mainly among the very young and the elderly, especially those above the age of 85. Both groups depend heavily on the NHS. A recent report by Bradford Health Strategy drew attention to the relationship between health and wealth, stating:
"The health of Bradford's citizens vanes in direct proportion to their wealth."
Given that one third of Bradford's population survive on some form of benefit, it is vital for health provision to meet the community's needs.
In 1991, Bradford's hospital trust was launched as a flagship; but it has been a complete disaster. It is already on its second chief executive, and in June was heading for a —6 million deficit. Morale is at its lowest as staff see more resources being poured into bureaucracy: there are more accountants than ever before, spending money on letterheads and administration. Remedies considered to reduce the deficit included the closure of a day ward at St Luke's hospital.
My constituents are still on long waiting lists, but under the Bradford system patients must decide whether they still require operations. Having waited 12 months, they receive a card asking whether they want to go on waiting;

507
if they do not return the card, they are removed from the list. That is quite convenient when it comes to waiting list figures.
A consultant in my area recently wrote to me complaining that he could not respond to one of my constituents because he was overworked and there was a shortage of neurosurgeons in the United Kingdom. In fact, he said that there were more neurosurgeons in downtown Tokyo than in the whole of the United Kingdom. The spin doctors of the Tory party tell us that there are no problems in the NHS and accuse Opposition Members of talking it down; but that is not true. Conservative Members do no good by saying how wonderful the service is while destroying it and gagging NHS workers who complain about what is going on.
The Tory record speaks for itself: we have seen increased prescription charges—
Mr. Stephen Day: Does the hon. Gentleman admit that expenditure on the NHS in real terms is now 60 per cent. higher than it was in 1979? Does he also admit that a record number of patients are now being treated and that nowhere is the number being treated greater than in areas where trust hospitals and fundholding practices work together? Is that not an argument for extending reform, rather than sticking to a system that was designed to meet the needs of the 1940s and cannot possibly meet those of the 1990s?
Mr. Sutcliffe: Surely, if the system is to be changed, those changing it should listen to what the health care professionals have to say. That has not been the Government's record. I can only go on the record of the trust in Bradford, which was formed in 1991 as part of the Government's "flagship": the resources being provided there do not meet the needs of Bradford people.
Mr. Malone: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to concede that the great advantages secured by that trust include the removal of dialysis services from Leeds to Bradford, and far better physiotherapy in the hospital, where it can be provided in a community context? I know, because I have visited the trust and seen those improvements. Why does the hon. Gentleman persistently describe the picture as black when it clearly is not?
Mr. Sutcliffe: That is not true. If the Minister has indeed visited the hospital, I hope that he commented on the £6 million deficit. I do not know at which time of the year he visited, but if he wishes to return to find out what methods of reducing the deficit are being used, I will gladly accompany him and try to find the answers myself. When asked what it is doing, the trust plays its cards close to its chest; that is due to lack of accountability.
Moreover, not all the developments referred to by the Minister match local needs for certain types of health provision—for instance, provision for the elderly. As the Minister knows, I used to lead Bradford council; I was happy to discuss and negotiate Bradford's health care strategy with many local agencies, but when we tried to talk to the trust we found that it adopted a very distant attitude to the people of Bradford.
Let me return to the Tory record of increased prescription charges and charges for eye tests. Today we have heard about the privatisation of dental care; we have also heard about the two-tier family practitioner service and the discrimination against patients according to
508
whether their GPs are fundholders. In the place of the old service, we see more costly, more bureaucratic and less accountable health trusts.
The following question could be asked: if people do not use the service, does all that matter? I wonder how many Conservative Members use the NHS. What is so tragic is that the position could have been very different. I have been told that the recently privatised utilities and other privatised companies, have secured millions, if not billions, of pounds in shareholder dividends and profits; if only a proportion of that had been used for the:NHS and similar services, people could have received service at the point of need.
The Queen's Speech gives the health service nothing new; in fact, it provides less of the same. It does not provide the accountability that we require, or give doctors, nurses and health care workers what they want. It is necessary only to talk to those employees to see how low health service morale now is. They want the resources to use their dedication to provide services for people in need; what we need is a speedy change of Government. I hope that that will happen on Monday, but I doubt it: not many Tory Members have the backbone to do what they say they are going to do.
6 pm
Mr. Hartley Booth: I support the Government in their opposition to the amendment that has been moved this afternoon. Like many hon. Members, I have sat patiently listening with great interest to the debate. We heard a great deal about "factoids" and "killer facts" from the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who led for the Opposition. I hope that the good Lord will save us from the hon. Lady if she ever comes back to the House with killer policies for the NHS. She singularly lacked any policy proposals today.
At the start of my speech, I have to declare a vested interest: many years ago I was employed by the NHS as a porter—my first paid employment. I do not know whether that has to go on the Register of Members' Interests, but I thought that I should bare my chest at the outset.
I support what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said earlier. When one goes to any group of people to ask them about the NHS, 95 per cent. say, "When I used it, it was marvellous. The doctors and nurses were splendid." The users of the NHS think that it is good news. As for my local experience, I have to thank the Government for promising to rebuild Barnet hospital.
But I make no apology for moving the debate sideways within the terms of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Derby, South. I believe that if the former Member of the House who, at various times, represented Devon, Cornwall, Dorset and a pocket borough called Mitchel, and who is otherwise known as Sir Walter Raleigh, brought back his noxious weed from America today, he would not be welcomed. I wish to talk about that subject in the health context.
On 8 October this year, the British Medical Journal published a 40-year study on health and death. It was the longest and most in-depth study of its sort ever undertaken. It contained the prediction that about half of all regular cigarette users will eventually die as a result of their habit. It forecasts that by 2025 no fewer than 10 million people will die from smoking each year. By that

509
time, more than 200 million will have died from the habit. Currently, 3 million people die from smoking each year and in Britain the figure is 110,000. Even with the so-called 17 per cent. yearly reduction in smoking in developed countries such as ours, that figure is far too high, and this House must address it.
It is well known that smoking causes 90 per cent. of all lung cancer deaths. It is less well known that 25 per cent. of cases of ischaemic heart disease are caused by smoking, as are 75 per cent. of deaths from bronchitis and emphysema. We must weed out this killer from our nation. We owe it to the world to spell it out now that the British Medical Jou rnal has published these new facts. We must take action to prevent the spread of tobacco use and to prevent the vulnerable and the ignorant from choosing to smoke.
The horror catalogue of tobacco use contains one fiend of dreadful aspect with gory hands and bloodstained jaws, if I may put it that way. I speak of our complicity, both in this country and in Europe, in the tobacco business. Belatedly, the most recent research findings have convinced me that tobacco advertising is indefensible—even with its health warning. No hair splitting or sophistry can disguise the fact that we are responsible for allowing what is wrong merely because duty from tobacco use is so large.
In the House we have a history of eventually doing the right thing—of course, this Government do it more regularly than most. Slavery was wrong, but, thanks to Wilberforce, in 1832 we rose above the vested interests. The denial of votes and political representation to women was wrong, but we got over that earlier this century. We now have to abolish tobacco advertising.
I welcome the Government's good sense in raising the tobacco issue in Europe. I thank the Government for raising the level of tobacco duty—one can point to no other single more important factor in explaining why more people are choosing not to smoke. I look forward to more good sense in the Budget next week, when I hope that the Government will announce that they will increase tobacco duty again. That alone will save lives.
My right hon. Friend is right to act on this subject in Europe. It is fair to say that, so far, only Britain has resisted the ban on tobacco advertising and I hope that it will shift its position now that it has new facts to grapple with.
For some time, British Health Ministers have taken the right decision to put pressure on spending Ministers to stop tobacco subsidies. As early as 19 July 1991, Baroness Trumpington said in another place:
"The Government have consistently criticised the tobacco regime on health grounds and will continue to do so."—[Official Report, 19 July 1991; Vol. 531, c. 364.]
That decision is right and it is to be welcomed, but there is new evidence not only of the evil effects of the product, but of the crazy nature of the European tobacco subsidy regime.
The European tobacco subsidy scandal is not understood fully. Each year the European Union gives £1 billion to tobacco growers in southern Europe. The money goes mostly to Italy, but also to Greece and, surprisingly, countries such as Belgium, France and Germany. So not surprisingly, votes for its abolition are in short supply. Britain receives not a puff of subsidy in this area.
510
Of all the current frauds in Europe—it seems that frauds are a big growth industry there—this is the worst, and the House should address it. Conservative Members sometimes find it difficult to explain the details of the excellent efficiency savings that we are making in the NHS, yet at the same time we are spending money on a scandal in Europe.
Our money is spent on the poisonous weed in this way. In another place, the Government have admitted that British taxpayers spent at least £50 million on the European tobacco crop in 1990. Bearing in mind the fact that this country is responsible for 16 per cent. of the total European spending of £1 billion on tobacco, our tobacco subsidy is £160 million. As we are net contributors, our proportion is probably closer to £250 million. But taking the lesser figure of £160 million, each year we are spending the equivalent of one to three hospitals on supporting the growth of this poisonous crop in southern Europe.
That is not all. Another issue is how the tobacco is produced and where it goes. Half the black tobacco cannot be smoked by the people in Europe because it is so awful. It is dumped on the third world, where there is no health warning on the advertising. It is not surprising that the demand for that noxious product is rising all the time.
That is not all. The quality of European tobacco for which we pay is dreadful. With its high tar content it is likely to cause cancer and the other problems that I have mentioned. This must stop. We must gain for ourselves line item veto in our budget proposals. This Parliament has never flinched from curbing squandering and spendthrift rulers. Kings, lords and Ministers have fallen to the demands of the House. The House must give notice that it will block any spending that is onerous, oppressive and damages human health.
I support the Government's fine record on preventive medicine and on far-reaching and far-sighted funding of community medicine. However, they should polish their crown. They should abolish tobacco advertising in Britain and move to stop tobacco dumping in the third world. They should put pressure on the finance and fanning Ministers to veto any budget that contains another pound, ecu or lira to be spent on black tobacco growing in Europe.
6.11 pm
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I do not suppose that the people in my constituency or any other really mind who runs the health service, so long as it is run well and is free when people need treatment. I do not want to knock the trusts. They are there and they will stay until we have the power to put them right in the way that we see fit. Unfortunately, we have had some trouble with the trust in south-east Northumberland, where my constituency is located.
The Ashington hospital is about to close, although part of it is still open. There is the new Cheviot and Wansbeck hospital run by the Cheviot and Wansbeck trust, which became a trust in April last year. Three months after that it announced that it was £1 million in debt and the cuts began. Little did we know that some cuts had already taken place because there were already debts. My argument is this: why did it apply for trust status? If it had stayed with the health authority when it knew that there was a £1 million debt, help might have been available. Now that it is a trust, there is no help. We

511
understand that that £1 million debt may grow to at least £2.5 million by the end of the year, so there are more cuts on the way.
One of the day care wards will be closed and the pathology laboratory is to be shared with another hospital. We all know what might happen there. The worst event was the sacking of midwives and nurses at the hospital to save money. The maternity wing of the hospital took a fairly big cut. Over a few months, 12 well qualified midwives were made redundant. Of course, the trust brought other people in—new health care workers at £2.80 or £3 an hour when fully qualified midwives could easily command £6 or £7 an hour. It was getting rid of experienced midwives and nurses and replacing them with inexperienced health care workers—that is the new term.
One of the gynaecologists at the maternity hospital had seen what was happening. He wrote a letter to the chief executive of the trust and sent a copy to the chairman of the regional health authority. He said that he was amazed to see the work of the midwives and health care workers in the maternity wing. He was amazed at their exhaustion and their worry. He saw their frame of mind and knew that they were overworked. He said that lives would be lost if something was not done, but nothing was done. As we know, those involved in the trust ignored any warning that they were given from the people who matter—the doctors.
There was a disaster. A mother in my constituency lost her first baby after experiencing a perfectly normal pregnancy. I saw the local doctor and he said that there should have been nothing to fear and that there should have been a normal delivery. She went into the maternity wing at Ashington hospital and was in labour for 12 hours. For three of those hours the baby was in the birth canal, but no one was attending to the mother. The nurses and midwives were overworked and were dealing with somebody else at the same time. It was not the nurses' fault: they simply could not cope—that is why the gynaecologist had written the letter.
When the baby was born, it was exhausted and the hospital had to send for an emergency baby unit from the Royal Victoria infirmary, 20 miles away in Newcastle. The unit was rushed to the Ashington hospital in an attempt to save the baby's life. The experts had to insert a needle into the baby, but it missed the child's heart, hit an artery and the baby died.
When I heard about the case I took it immediately to the ombudsman. Unfortunately, the mother is, quite rightly, suing the hospital. That event was a warning.
Lo and behold, about a month and a half later there was another incident. This time the mother came from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) and I had no dealings with it. The family were very upset and were not saying much. All we knew was that the child had died in strange circumstances in the same maternity unit. Very little was said. I could not get in touch with the parents because they did not come from my constituency, but we understand that they are now taking legal action against the hospital.
All that arose because the trust was in debt by £1 million and decided to save some money by cutting a few hospital workers, particularly midwives. The deaths of those two children should never have occurred, especially when there had already been a letter of warning from a gynaecologist, which the regional health authority and the
512
chief executive of the trust had chosen to ignore. I think that the Minister has received that letter. If he has not, I shall give him a copy. It is a disgrace when something like that happens and two mothers lose their children.
The trust asked some of the midwives whom it had made redundant to come back. It knew that it had made a mistake. The union man's advice to the midwives was to stay out for another month because they could lose redundancy money if they came back too quickly.
Other things have been happening in relation to the trust. The problems are all down to the lack of money and to a hospital becoming a trust when it was in debt. I should like to ask the Minister how a hospital can become a trust when it is in debt. On two occasions, I asked the chief executive of the trust and the panel of men who sit either side of him why the hospital became a trust when it was in debt. I received a little bit of an answer from one of them. He said, "Captain Harry did not tell me." How in heaven can one believe that? A person could pull the bells on my foot if he wanted me to believe that one.
The position in Wansbeck is not good. If cuts of £2 million or £3 million go ahead at the end of this year, I foresee that that brand new hospital serving south-east Northumberland will close, or that another hospital may take it over, as has been rumoured will happen. I asked some of the people working there whether they had heard any Americans talking because some Americans might be after a nice private hospital in south-east Northumberland. That is a danger.
I asked the Minister for an inquiry, but I did not get one. Naturally, there should be an inquiry and the matter should be examined. The health of people in south-east Northumberland is at stake. I received a letter from the Minister saying that I had made some good, valid points but that, unfortunately, he could not call for an inquiry.
Never mind: things have developed since then. Only a few weeks ago, a sub-committee of the community health council£another sub-committee£passed a resolution of no confidence in the Cheviot and Wansbeck trust. Lo and behold, two Tory councillors put forward that motion of no confidence, which still has to go before the full council for ratification. Two Tory councillors oppose the trust, but the Conservative party says that trusts are wonderful and great and must remain.
I do not know why the Minister's colleagues in Northumberland put forward the motion of no confidence. Perhaps the Minister will be able to find out. All that I ask the board to do is to resign and to let someone in who can do the job. The hospital is in a downward spiral and, unless money is found, it will either close or be taken over by another hospital. Of course, the money will never be found because the Government will never bail the trust out and it knows that.
It is interesting to consider what is happening with GP fundholders. Fundholders and non-fundholders in my constituency have a large number of patients. I visit the practice of a non-fundholder who wishes to remain so. The GP at a nearby practice is a fundholder.The non-fundholder knows that fundholders receive preferential treatment. Patients of fundholders are being admitted to hospital before those of non-fundholders. That is being done deliberately to force non-fundholders to become fundholders. That view was expressed by my doctor; I did not find it out myself.

513
I am aware that at least one practice is getting rid of some of its patients, pushing them on to non-fundholders as well as fundholders. One practice in my constituency is removing old people from its books. Another will not treat drug addicts. Whatever one's views on the subject, drug addicts are patients and they need treatment. Nevertheless, that practice refuses to treat them and sends them to another practice.
That practice has lost about 1,000 patients in about 18 months and has made an application to become a fundholder. It is getting rid of patients who will cost a lot of money to treat. It wants to have an elite of patients who will not cost it too much money. That is a dangerous position. Many burdens are being placed on non-fundholders who, on principle, will not become fundholders. They face the burden of looking after old people, drug addicts and anyone else who costs a lot of money to treat.
I hope that the Minister will consider what some of those practices are doing. I am sure that it is happening not only in Blyth Valley but in other regions. The Minister should take time to consider the number of patients that fundholders have lost in a year and how they have pushed them off somewhere else. I hope that he will seriously consider the problem.
6.26 pm
Mr. John Butterfill: I should like to deal with the pensions issue and to welcome the Government's proposal to introduce a Pensions Bill. The need for pension legislation is manifest—recent scandals have made that clear to everyone—and it is right that the Government should legislate to protect people who receive pensions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and I probably represent more occupational pensioners than anyone else. No one is more assiduous in defending their rights than my hon. Friend. There are concerns about some of the Government's proposals in the White Paper. I should like to bring them to the attention of the House and of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I hope that, before the Bill is introduced, problems will be corrected in the ways that I should like.
I pay tribute to the assistance that hon. Members have received from the Association of Consulting Actuaries and the National Association of Pension Funds, both of which have guided us through some-of the more difficult and tortuous parts of this rather esoteric subject.
It is right that a minimum solvency requirement should be built into all pension funds. There is nothing worse than someone working all his life to receive an occupational pension, having paid into it all his life, only to find that the fund contains insufficient money to pay him the pension to which he rightly believes that he is entitled. It is essential, therefore, that we frame our legislation to give adequate protection.
I am concerned that bureaucratic rules may be drawn up which defeat the object that we intend. If the mechanism for defining minimum solvency requirements is too rigid, it could undermine specifically defined benefit schemes and deter employers from providing them. That would be a great shame for employees and
514
would also hurt the Government, who would have to pay out more in means-tested benefits. There would be no winners in those circumstances.
Similarly, we must remember that pensions and pension investment are long-term businesses. They provide for liabilities for pensions and pension trustees many years ahead, whereas markets are essentially short term. Yields, values, equities, values of properties and values of gilts go up and down. The danger is that too strict a mechanism may drive fund managers out of equity investment and, at least predominantly, into gilts. That would not only disrupt the market but deprive British industry of a valuable source of investment funds.
One of the greatest dangers at the moment is that not enough of our institutional money is channelled into investment in productive industry. Too strict a mechanism may defeat that desirable objective. The House will know that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry commented on that fact and suggested ways in which we could guide pension fund moneys into investment in industry. It would be a great shame if the proposed Bill were to defeat that objective.
Secondly, I wish to deal briefly with the contentious issue of trustees and their investment policy. Who should be trustees? It is suggested—rightly—that trustees should not be comprised entirely of employers because, as happened with Mr. Maxwell, they may choose to raid the funds to prop up their businesses, with thoroughly undesirable results. Equally, however, we must be aware that if employees are too heavily involved in the management of a scheme they may have a similar interest in keeping the company going, an interest which may not coincide with that of existing or deferred pensioners. There is therefore a danger both in having too many employers and in having too many employees as trustees. We need independent trustees of proven probity who will be able to protect all those involved in the complex business of investment policy and in where and how pension funds are held.
Thirdly, I am a little worried that the White Paper does not deal with the custody of funds. Who holds the cash or the assets? By whom are they controlled? The example of Mr. Maxwell proves that, unless such issues are clearly defined, there is a danger that cash and assets may fall into the wrong hands. It is therefore extremely important that we provide for proper independent custody of valuable assets.
Finally, I wish to deal with regulation. Most of us agree that it is important that we continue to encourage occupational pension schemes. Valuable as private pensions may be, they satisfy the needs of only a limited number of the population. Those who are young or who may change their jobs often will probably be better off with a private pension. For many other employees in industry and commerce, however, an occupational pension to which a benevolent employer makes a valuable contribution will probably produce a better result. It is therefore vital that nothing in the legislation should prevent the continuing provision of occupational pensions.
I am concerned about regulatory costs and burdens. We are in danger of imposing on pension funds the same costs and burdens that we imposed on the investment industry through the Financial Services Act 1986. Were we to do so, the effect would be simple: employers would vote with their feet, stop providing occupational pension schemes

515
and say that employees should have private pensions. Everyone would then suffer. I therefore urge that the costs of regulation be kept to a minimum.
Specifically, I believe that the cost of funding the regulator, which the Government propose in the White Paper should be met by employers and pension funds themselves, should fall on the Government. We aim to protect the public, but if we place too heavy a cost on employers they will not provide occupational pension schemes. If that were to happen, we should all lose. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to ensure that the Government pick up the bill in this instance.
6.33 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I greatly welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) because it seemed almost a generation ago that the flickering light was taken to the social security brief which is occupying half of our debate. I shall continue in the same vein as the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him into his sphere of concern and expertise, namely pensions.
It might be helpful if we move to a recent speech that did not gain the coverage that it perhaps deserved. I refer to a speech made by the Secretary of State for Social Security in Northern Ireland. It is perhaps a sign of the lack of confidence we have in ourselves that it is not what happens in the Chamber that matters so much as the coverage that we get might outside. As I am anxious to promote the Secretary of State's career, I shall spend a short time bolstering it now.
I believe that the Secretary of State's speech is the most important given by a senior politician this year. He outlined the theme of his lecture, which was what he believes to be
"the single most significant social change affecting the UK and most other western countries."
He went on to explain:
"That phenomenon is not the ageing of the population. Nor the breakdown of the family. Nor the increasing proportion of women at work. Rather, it is a phenomenon which is still largely unrecognized—the growing dispersion of earnings power."
I shall consider to what extent the Gracious Speech covers what the Secretary of State regards as the big issue of our time.
There are some wonderful give-away points even in the brief quotation that I read out. Indeed, one can build from it the modern Tory laws of politics. The beginning refers to a worldwide trend. Whenever the Government discuss a trend that is unfavourable to them, they describe it as "worldwide". Thus, the dispersion of earnings, which is very bad, is a "worldwide" trend. However, when trends begin to be favourable—for example, when unemployment goes down—it is all thanks to the Government, although, of course, when it goes up, it is part of a terrible worldwide trend.
In his speech, the Secretary of State did not concern himself—unusually, given the rigour of his analysis—with the fact that we know quite a bit about the dispersion of earnings in this country, and the trend is not as worldwide as he alleged in his lecture.
The record growth in inequality of earnings in this country can be accounted by three forces: half of that growing inequality is due to the Government's tax changes since 1979; a quarter is due to the rise in
516
unemployment, and a quarter to the changes in the job market to which the Secretary of State devoted so much of his interesting discourse. I provide that information because it is something that we need to consider.
We shall be examining our tax policy between now and the election, and considering how we are going to fashion our fair tax policy. If half the inequality that we deplore has been brought about by the Government's tax changes, we clearly have to think carefully about the changes that we shall reverse in order to lessen that inequality. Instead of doing that, the Secretary of State, understandably, considers the unemployment rate. Again, I thought that that was rather unfair, because figures can be used to favour one side or the other.
When examining any modern economy, it is no longer appropriate to concern oneself merely with the unemployment rate. We must combine it with the number of people who would usually be in work but are not—or, to use the technical jargon, the inactivity rate. If one adds the inactivity rate to the unemployment rate, it is clear that our performance—sadly—is no better than that of other countries. Nor is our performance in job creation.
Again, the Secretary of State chose two key dates for his analysis. He took the period after the first Thatcher recession and just before we went into the recession caused by Lord Lawson's Budget. And, looking at that very limited time span, he said, "Haven't we done rather well with job creation?" All of us would wish that the Government's claim about job creation were right, but the sad fact is that, if we take the total period of stewardship, from when the Government came into office until now, our economy over the past 16 years has been good at producing jobs, but by their management of the economy the Government have destroyed most of those new jobs. We have created many jobs, but we have not sustained them.
When considering the Gracious Speech, we should take the framework that the Secretary of State has given us and examine some of the more serious trends on which we need to spend more of our time. I shall give one illustration. Sir Brandon Rhys Williams was for long the Member of Parliament for Kensington, and one of his many activities was to safeguard the National Birthday Trust, which was responsible for three cohort studies.
The 1970 cohort study has now examined its subjects at the age of 21, and it found that many of them, having been through 11 years of our state education system, are largely illiterate. Of course there are points to be scored across the Floor of the House about the various stewardships of the different Administrations, but we should all be appalled by the fact that, after 11 years of taxpayers' money being spent on their education, people come to our surgeries hardly able to read or write.
We must consider that trend against what the Secretary of State described as the globalisation of the world economy, which will make it harder rather than easier for people without skills to get work in future. We must address that central problem. What is in the Queen's Speech to tackle it? There are two measures.
First, there is talk about allowing technical courses in schools for pupils aged 14. As someone who has lobbied the Government for eight years to carry out that small reform, it would be ungracious of me to say, "About time too"—although I now believe it to be totally inadequate. What is wrong with our city technology colleges is the

517
fact that there are not a thousand of them, so that we could produce an education relevant to many of our young constituents.
The other measure in the Gracious Speech is the job seeker's allowance. Opposition Members would have no complaints about that if it were being introduced at a time when most people who wanted to work had work. But our great fear is that, under the guise of their supply-side measures, the Government will try to rough up many of our least able constituents so as to get them out of the dole queues, and that that, rather than getting them back into work, will be the primary objective.
Those two measures are totally inadequate to deal with what we all see in our constituencies now. As we have disfranchised younger people from work, two trends have appeared. One is that some of our younger female constituents, rather than being bound to their own homes, are deciding to start their own new homes and to have children and thereby gaining a certain freedom. That is a trend about which I am deeply unhappy, but it is happening.
For our very young male constituents, the opposite is happening. Ironically, they are even more firmly bound than ever before to their original families. In our constituencies are being created groups of unskilled young males condemned to a state of permanent adolescence. They are not in school; they are not in training schemes; they cannot get work.
While we are considering the extent to which the Gracious Speech meets the challenge that we see in our constituencies all the time, and which the Secretary of State boldly and clearly outlined in his recent speech, I ask the House how we are to judge the worth of the two measures. Sadly, I come to the conclusion that we now have a Government who—collectively, as opposed to some of the individuals within it—seem to have no will power to match measures to the situation that many of our constituents face.
The hopeful note in the Secretary of State's speech was about the Reich theory of the labour market and about taking our constituents up market for their skills. But even if that were possible in the short run, I do not believe that there would be the levels of employment that we require.
Similarly, I do not think that we shall see another American election won by a free trade candidate. Nor will we be able to maintain the line on free trade when we see how devastating is the impact of that policy on our poorer constituents. I believe that we shall need to move towards much clearer trading blocs, with competition being maintained within them rather than between them. Before some hon. Members look too shocked at that idea, I remind them that, although we all refer to GATT and free trade, if we really had free trade we should not need GATT, which is in itself a way of managing trade.
I suggest that, if we are serious about securing a breathing space in which to take the people now confined to a state of permanent adolescence back into the labour market, we shall have to dream things that we in this Chamber have yet to begin to dream about.
6.46 pm
Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made what was an
518
interesting speech to start with, although I am sorry that he ended on what seemed a pessimistic note. I do not share his pessimism. The hon. Gentleman must have been selective in his reading at the weekend. Although I commend him on following the Secretary of State's speech in Northern Ireland, he seems to have missed the weekend's bigger headlines, which were all about lottery fever, and the concerted effort by many people to increase inequality.
The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that inequality was a bad thing, but presumably everybody going in for the lottery did so on the basis that inequality was a good thing. We must accept that people believe that we live in a world not only in which there is inequality but in which there should be inequality. Otherwise, such an enormous number of people would not have supported the lottery and put in money that, although some of it went to good causes, also went into the pockets of the people fortunate enough to win large sums, and who now sit there having achieved great inequality through the wishes of the large number of people who bought tickets.
The hon. Gentleman may rather have lost sight of the human motives that underlie our feelings about inequality. That made me think more about the subsequent news about large salaries for the directors of utilities. The hon. Gentleman may feel that something should be done about those; perhaps we should empower the shareholders of privatised utilities to decide what directors' salaries should be in advance, rather than having to read about them in the newspapers some time later, after a small group of non-executive directors have made the decisions. To the extent that many people are happy that there should be inequalities, perhaps we can all be winners on the privatisation front in one way or another.
I was a little perplexed by some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) about the Government not being good at sustaining jobs. I look at the record for Bolton as a whole. When the Labour party was in power, unemployment trebled from 2,100 to 6,500. Admittedly, the unemployment figure is higher today at 9,300, which is a 50 per cent. increase on the figure under Labour, but there was a threefold increase while Labour was in power. The hon. Gentleman's memory must be a little short if he criticises this Government for not sustaining jobs. He should remember what happened before.
I very much commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security for the measures in the Gracious Speech on the social security front. There are three major measures covering pensions, the job seeker's allowance and disability, to which I shall come later. Those measures prove that the Government are a strong reforming Government; there is plenty in the Gracious Speech on that front.
What we might see in the Gracious Speech if we ever had the misfortune of being given a Labour programme crossed my mind. If that happened, there would be a Clinton-like con trick on the British public, as they would soon realise. The Labour party has performed U-turns on school league tables, on its position on the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and on its position on Europe, which suddenly changed after the former Prime Minister obtained a £600 million rebate. There are U-turns on clause IV, and there have been great disappointments with the social justice commission. Labour is now wriggling on the minimum wage.

519
The minimum wage is a classic example of how a Labour party programme would lead to unemployment. Almost 20 years ago, the former Secretary of State for Social Services, Barbara Castle, produced a paper showing how minimum wage legislation would lead to increased unemployment, especially in the regions. She showed that there would be an especially severe effect in Northern Ireland, as well as in other regions, if there was any attempt to introduce a minimum wage.
I noticed at the weekend that Bill Morris of the Transport and General Workers Union, one of the paymasters of the Labour party, was wriggling when asked what would happen to differentials if there was a minimum wage. He was more or less forced to concede that wages would leapfrog as differentials came in, which would lead us back to inflation, back to high interest rates and back to higher unemployment—perhaps the International Monetary Fund would come in again.
Looking at the picture in the United States, it is interesting to note that, according to The Economist this week, 16 per cent. of workers in the United States have wages that are below the minimum wage in France. If the minimum wage in the United States was at the level that it is in France, the jobs of 16 per cent. of workers in the United States would presumably be at risk. That shows why unemployment in France is double the level it is in the United States, where the latest figures show that it is at 5.8 per cent. and falling. In France, unemployment is at 12.7 per cent. and rising. There seems to be a clear correlation.
The minimum wage is a classic example of how Labour policies would lead to unemployment and to weakening the economy. By contrast, this Government's policies are leading to a strong economy. I am confident that the Budget which will be before us in a few days' time will be good for business in the country as a whole and for business in Bolton, where there is a strong emphasis on manufacturing. I am confident that the Budget will help to reduce unemployment even further. Unemployment in Bolton has fallen by 2,000 in the past 12 months, and I am confident that it will continue to fall.
We have the strength of an economic recovery based on an export-led boom. Exports are up by 11 per cent. overall and by 17 per cent. to the European Community, much of which is still in recession. That has given us 4 per cent. growth in gross domestic product, the fastest in Europe. Inflation is at the lowest level for almost 30 years. Productivity is up by 6 per cent., and unemployment nationally is down by the best part of half a million. That is the way in which we can fund the sort of welfare state that we need.
I do not know what else we shall see in the Budget, but I am sure that we shall see further evidence of the control of public spending as the basis for it. I hope that items such as housing benefit will be brought under control. I am sure that it should be possible to cap housing benefit if it is done on a local basis and at the same to give a boost to the private rented sector. We may see housing investment trusts coming forward, and I hope that there will be a boost to the sale of council houses. We may need more legislation on that front to make it easier for
520
councils to dispose of their council houses, even if the tenants are unable to buy the whole freehold under the right to buy.
Mr. Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend has just advocated a regional, or even a local, cap on housing benefit. Would not that flatten out differentials and effectively set a going rate, which would encourage landlords to move their rents up to that level if they happened to be below it? That would do nothing otherwise to encourage the development of the private rented sector which, my hon. Friend said in the same sentence, he advocated. Will he explain a little more why he supports such a possible change?
Mr. Thurnham: As my hon. Friend knows, the rents that landlords set are limited by the rent officers. I am sure that he appreciates that there are no incentives for tenants to move to cheaper accommodation. There are no incentives for either tenants or landlords to seek any savings in the cost of the accommodation they have at the moment. We have seen housing benefit increase substantially.
I am sure that it should be possible to arrange matters so that there were incentives for people to make use of the least expensive accommodation that they can sensibly afford. At the moment, as my hon. Friend will be aware, there are massive abuses of housing benefit throughout the country, especially in areas such as London, where some high rents have been charged. I am confident that it should be possible to control that, although I take my hon. Friend's point that we need measures to boost the private rented sector at the same time.
We have the "rent a room to a lodger" arrangement, which gives £3,000 free of tax. That should be extended to a lodger who is not under the same roof. In other words, people should be able to rent out a property they own at up to £3,000 a year without having to pay tax on it. That would be an incentive for them to provide accommodation up to that cost.
I very much welcome the fact that the Government are introducing their own Bill on disability. I am sure that that is to the credit of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the new Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. I also give praise to his predecessor. I am sure that there have been some strong discussions behind the scenes. We look forward to hearing the full details, and I hope that we shall have a full statement of the details this evening or before too long, so that we know exactly what the Government have in mind. When the Bill is published, we shall see the full details.
My message to the Government is that they should be as bold as possible. They have an excellent record on disability overall, and spending on disability has trebled to £17 billion a year. The Government's general approach has been a step-by-step, balanced approach, in contrast to that in the private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
I see that the hon. Gentleman is here at the moment. He knows that I had reservations about how one could proceed with a big-bang approach. I shared his aims, but I believed that, when it came to implementation, it would be more sensible to proceed in stages rather than to try to achieve everything at once. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be as bold as possible, and that he may

521
be able to go beyond what was in the consultation paper, by introducing measures that will provide as much additional opportunity as possible for disabled people.
The Government's own example is important. The public sector is a huge employer in its own right, yet organisations such as the BBC employ only one tenth of the so-called "quota". There are health authorities and local authorities that do not employ any registered disabled people. That goes to show that the quota itself is nonsense. There is no doubt that we can dispense with the quota and go towards legislation that will outlaw unfair discrimination in the whole area of employment. We have excellent examples of some organisations, such as the Shaw Trust, which work to provide opportunities for disabled people at a cost substantially lower than that of the Government's own arrangements through Remploy.
I hope that the Government will go as far as possible to provide access to buildings. This is the expensive area, and we have already had long debates about what the costs would be. The Government need to assess what sort of time scale is appropriate.
We must outlaw some of the blatant discrimination one comes across. Recently, I saw a case of a lady suffering from cerebral palsy, who had worked all her life. When she came to retire, she put her name down for a retirement home and was given an indication that she would be able to proceed with her application. However, when the owners of the retirement home found that she suffered from cerebral palsy, they suddenly said that they did not think that they could proceed with the deal.
It is that sort of nonsense which needs to be totally banned, because it is blatant discrimination of the worst sort. We look forward to seeing the details of the Bill, and I hope that it will be strong in all the areas that I have outlined.
I hope that the Bill is especially strong in the area of transport. A recent opinion survey of the members of the Conservative disability group showed that their number one priority was transport. I hope that we can bring in measures such as ensuring that all new buses are of the low-floor type, and that taxis and so on are made to enable disabled people to make as much use as possible of all forms of transport.
In deciding where the right balance should be struck and how far the Government should go with their Bill, we need to keep as wide a perspective as possible, and not only consider exactly what we may want to do in this country. We must bear in mind the fact that, in a global sense, there are enormous difficulties for disabled people. Although we should do everything that is sensible, practical and pragmatic in this country, we should bear in mind the considerable difficulties and chaos abroad.
It is a few years ago that I visited Romania, but I remember going to an adult psychiatric hospital—so-called—at Podriga, where the conditions were simply frightful. There was no doctor in the hospital, patients were dead in their beds, there was no running water or proper heating, and the lavatories were blocked and overflowing from one floor to the floor below. The conditions in that place were absolutely horrific.
My daughter happened to be working in Romania in that hospital at that time. If anyone would like a Christmas present, I certainly recommend the book published this
522
week, entitled "Sophie's Journey", in which she describes the dreadful conditions under which the people in that hospital were placed, as well as the conditions in the Ionashen orphanage where she also worked.
I give great credit to the Government for the measures which are in the Gracious Speech. I wish them well with those measures, especially the measures which will be announced shortly in the disability Bill.
7.1 pm
Mr. Roger Berry: Twelve months ago, we would have been surprised to hear that the Government were to introduce a Bill to tackle, in their words, discrimination against disabled people. I welcome the fact that we now have that Bill, although perhaps it is useful to reflect on what has happened over the past 12 months to change the situation. As a matter of fact, a Government report published in 1982 by the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People—the CORAD report—recommended that the Government should make discrimination unlawful. Of course, every year since then, no action has been taken.
Comments have even been made about how inappropriate it is that private Members' Bills deal with the matter. I could not agree more. The fact that the issue had been left for so many years and private Members had to seek to legislate on an important matter of civil rights was wrong. If we are now generally agreed that we should use the law to outlaw discrimination against disabled people, I very much welcome that change of heart.
It is, in fairness, generally recognised that disabled people face discrimination in every aspect of their lives—in employment, in education, in access to leisure facilities, transport, and so on. No doubt some right hon. and hon. Members will have attended the Scope reception at lunchtime, where one of the reports published, the result of an extensive survey of disabled people undertaken by an independent research agency, concluded:
"The problems faced by disabled people in coping with hostile attitudes and inadequate support are much greater than many think."
I hope that it is now recognised that this is a serious area of discrimination and also that there needs to be legal redress. After all, we have laws in this country that seek to banish discrimination on the grounds of gender and race and, indeed, in Northern Ireland, on the grounds of religion. Why, therefore, should we not make it illegal to discriminate on grounds of disability? We should.
If the House has achieved that consensus over the past 12 months, I am very grateful. It has to be said—I say this in as constructive a manner as possible—that, in the past Session, not many issues were as controversial as the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. It resulted, of course, in a couple of apologies for misleading the House, and led to the departure of a Minister. It resulted more positively, perhaps, in raising the political profile of the issue. I have no doubt that the events of last year also resulted in the Government's publishing a consultation document in the summer and I have no doubt that the events of the past 12 months resulted in the commitment in the Queen's Speech to introduce a Bill to tackle discrimination against disabled people.
I believe very strongly that disabled people's organisations deserve every credit for the fact that this issue has been put at the top of the political agenda. We must recognise that every organisation of and for disabled

523
people was saying last year, as such organisations have said every year recently, that comprehensive, anti-discrimination legislation was required and, therefore, that they wanted the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. The Rights Now campaign deserves credit for the way in which that lobbying was conducted over the past 12 months.
Support for the Bill has been voiced not only outside but inside the House. A clear majority of hon. Members support the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. They did so last year and, if we examine support for early-day motion 1, we see that they also support it this year.
Briefly, I shall refer again to Scope. I am not advertising it, but its reception happens to be the only one to which I have been today, so far. The Scope reception also published another report. Again, it was an independent survey of how Members of Parliament feel about civil rights for disabled people. I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the outcome—70 per cent. of Members of Parliament responded by saying that they supported civil rights legislation. A clear majority responded by saying that they supported the specific measures in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I believe that it is the extent of support outside the House and inside the House that has brought about the change in the Government's attitude, and I welcome it.
The Government ought to be aware that some of us may be slightly less charitable than the hon. Member for Bristol—sorry, the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). Goodness me, what a strange slip, given that I am from Bristol myself. The hon. Gentleman has a vision that the Government have been struggling to liberate themselves from various constraints and have finally done so. I suspect that, rather than the Government struggling to get out, people were pushing the Government.
The Government have now realised the extent of support for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Indeed, that is probably why none of them voted against the Bill on Second Reading in the last Session. Not one vote was cast against it. It is probably also why not a single vote was cast against a single clause in the Bill in the past Session. Indeed, not a vote was cast against the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in the entirety of the debate in this Chamber in the past Session. That was not how the Bill was killed.
This House has repeatedly supported the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. It has been through all its stages in another place. Indeed, in the past Session, it had yet another unopposed Second Reading in another place. In summary, the Bill was not defeated in the past Session because it lacked support. It is a fact that support was so clearly demonstrated that the Government were forced to respond to it.
The Bill envisaged in the Queen's Speech has yet to be published, although I have read some very interesting accounts in the press. There has obviously been some degree of either briefing or lack of security—I do not quite know which. If the Bill is along the lines of the consultation document, clearly, there are problems for many of us. The consultation paper that the Government issued in the summer did two things: first, it made untrue statements about the civil rights Bill; secondly, it set out a number of measures that in my view—this was the view also of disabled people—were far from comprehensive.
524
I shall refer briefly once again to the Government's arguments on the costs of the civil rights Bill. I hope genuinely that we shall never again have to listen to the contention that we cannot have the civil rights Bill because it would cost £17 billion. It was not argued that it was badly drafted or that the Government could produce a better Bill. The cost argument should not be repeated, because £17 billion is a bogus figure. As I have said before in the House, it is true that the compliance cost assessment arrived at that figure.
The all-party disablement group has said—the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and are members of it, and we share the view of the group—.that £17 billion is the result of several serious errors, conscious or otherwise. There is double counting in the assessment. For example, the chapter submitted by the Department of the Environment includes certain costs of access to buildings. Those costs crop up again in the chapter produced by the Department for Education and in that produced by the Department of Employment. The double counting accounts for about £6 billion.
It is not good enough for people to reiterate numbers that they know are wrong, and I hope that it will not happen again. The documents which demonstrate clearly that such assertions are wrong have been in the hands of Ministers for several months.
Mr. Thurnham: I wish to intervene because the hon. Gentleman referred to me. Perhaps he will admit that he had not been able to provide a costing of the provisions of his Bill. Is it not naive to imagine that a Bill that, on any reckoning, would have cost many billions of pounds could be slipped through the House on a Friday, when attendance in the Chamber is often very low, and at the same time to claim that there was no opposition to it because most hon. Members were not present?
Mr. Berry: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The Second Reading debate was hardly about slipping the Bill through the House. On the Friday that debate took place, 231 Members were present to vote for the Bill's Second Reading; taking account of the four Tellers, there were 235. With great respect, we surely cannot say to those right hon. and hon. Members who took the trouble to be in their places in such numbers on that Friday that they were doing something casual in trying to slip the Bill through the House.
The Government were invited to oppose the Bill on that day if they wished to do so, and they did not. It is for the Government to explain why, having not opposed the measure on Second Reading or in Committee, they were then to invent the story that somehow the Bill was fatally flawed or that it would be so expensive that it would wreck the economy.
I have always contended that it would be difficult to put a precise figure on the civil rights Bill. I moved an amendment in Committee to ensure that there could be no reference to a binding time scale. I recognised that it would be for the Secretary of State of the day to determine the level of expenditure implied for his or her Department. If it is said that I cannot produce a figure, it should be remembered that the Committee and all those who supported the Bill were anxious not to tie any Government to a specific timetable. That argument cannot be used as an excuse for blocking the Bill.

525
The compliance cost assessment, as I have said, engaged in double counting. That was wrong. The assessment assumed also that all the Bill's provisions would be implemented within five years. There was no reference in the Bill to five years or any other period. The report to which I referred demonstrates that, if we allowed for the phasing in of accessible public transport vehicles—producing such vehicles, not retrofitting—we would be able to save £5 billion to £6 billion. That leaves only £5 billion.
When I mentioned that saving earlier in a packed Chamber—I think that the House was waiting for a debate on sleaze—hon. Members groaned and said, "We are left with only £5 billion." I say with the greatest of caution that £5 billion phased in over a few years is not a great deal of money. The outlay would be about a third of what it cost the Government to introduce the poll tax, to try to prop it up and then to axe it. If the Government are able to find about £14 billion for an exercise of that sort, I shall not apologise for seeking to find £5 billion to ensure that there are equal rights for disabled people.
Mr. Alan Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the cost of compliance with the civil rights Bill would be about £5 billion spread over many years. Does he agree that netted off against that cost should be the economic benefits of introducing the Bill, which consist of having a significant proportion of 6.5 million disabled people contributing to the economy through their employment opportunities, the development of new consumer services and tax and national insurance contributions? When those economic benefits are netted off—they must be real, but they are difficult to assess with precision—it is at least possible that the net cost of the Bill's implementation will be zero.
Mr. Berry: The hon. Gentleman is right. I pay tribute to the fact that over recent months he has stressed the need for a proper cost-benefit analysis of the civil rights Bill. It is absurd that we have a compliance cost assessment of proposed legislation but no proper cost-benefit analysis. It is absurd to examine the costs of operating a Bill without assessing the costs of not doing so. That is an odd approach. To give credit to the private sector, I am sure that it would not make decisions on such a basis, and nor should we.
Several studies have estimated the benefits to the Treasury of removing discrimination- in employment. The estimates range from £2 billion to £4 billion. If we cease denying disabled people their right to work, they will pay tax and receive less benefit. Studies have been made of access to public transport, something that would benefit disabled people and enable us all to move more quickly. The experience in Holland shows what can happen. Estimates vary, but it seems that about £1 billion could be saved.
I do not seek to argue that the civil rights Bill is something for nothing. There would, of course, be costs, especially in the short term. In the medium term, however, there would be direct financial benefits. As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) suggested, they would be of the same order as the costs. Surely the most unacceptable costs are those of discrimination.
526
Last week, the Prime Minister said that the anticipated Bill
"will include a right not to be discriminated against in employment, a right of access to goods and services and the establishment of a national disability council to ensure that the voice of disabled people is heard more clearly within Government."—[Official Report, 16 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 31–32.]
I welcome the Government's conversion to the idea of rights for disabled people. Not long ago there were those in the House and elsewhere who thought that the idea of talking about rights for the disabled was extraordinary. I remember being savaged by Bill Deedes in the columns of The Daily Telegraph for being obsessed with political correctness and for using the term "rights", a demand so unreasonable as to put one beyond the pale. Against that background, I welcome the Prime Minister's talk about rights instead of talking only about what good government can do for disabled people.
Let me explain why, on present signs—based on the provisions set out in the consultation document—the Government's Bill is likely to be inadequate. If the Government follow the line set out in the consultation document that was published in the summer, we will have a set of piecemeal proposals. We will not have the comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation that disabled people want and require. Two very important areas—education and transport—were completely excluded from that document.
In the consultation document, access to goods and services was limited to direct discrimination. For example, if a publican refused to serve a Down's syndrome sufferer, that would be outlawed. I welcome that, but that would not deal with physical access. The consultation document states:
"It is very important that those providing goods and services should not be required to carry out modifications to existing premises."
That may be important to the Government, but it is not important to disabled people who require access to premises. Anything that deals with the broad area of access to goods and services must address physical access.
Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister referred to setting up a new advisory body called the national disability council. I am deeply alarmed that that might simply be a talking shop. Unlike the disability rights commission which would have been set up under the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, the Government's advisory body would have no investigative or enforcement powers. It would not have the same status as the Equal Opportunities Commission or the Commission for Racial Equality. If that is true—the document shows that it is—disabled people would again be offered second-class treatment, and that is simply unacceptable.
My response to the Prime Minister's comment last week about ensuring that the voice of disabled people is heard more clearly within Government is that I believe that that voice has been clear. Disabled people have stated very clearly what they want and require. The obstacle to the voice of disabled people being heard more clearly in Government have hitherto been the Government themselves.
The Government should recognise that every organisation of or for disabled people, whose views have been known over the past 12 months before, during and after the consultation exercise, has said that a

527
comprehensive civil rights Bill is necessary. Anything less than that will be unacceptable. Anything less than that will not defuse the campaign for civil rights.
As I have said before, in a few years we will look back and wonder why on earth we had to have this debate in 1994 about whether we needed to ensure equal treatment for disabled people in exactly the same way as we seek to ensure equal treatment for women and black people. Let us hope that we have a comprehensive civil rights Bill as soon as possible. I very much hope that that is what the Government have in mind.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. In the two hours before the winding-up speeches, no fewer than 10 hon. Members hope to catch my eye. With a little co-operation, I hope that they will all be successful.
7.23 pm
Lady Olga Maitland: I warmly welcome the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I particularly admire her for her vigorous support for the achievements in 0the national health service that we have made over a considerable period. I was sorry that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) made a rather mean-spirited speech. It is almost as if the Labour party is seeking to make the health service its own health service rather than our health service in respect of which we, the Government, are the custodians of the future of the health service.
The remarks made by the right hon. Member for Derby, South bore no relation to the health service that I know. I am proud to use the health service. I visit a national health service GP and I queue up like everyone else in her surgery. I have never been let down.
It may be worth while to travel overseas and ask people in other countries about their fears and their terror of falling ill and being unable to afford the treatment that they desperately need. By contrast, we should then be able to understand and appreciate how precious and valuable our health service is. It is terrible to learn that one third of the American people have no automatic health cover. We should compare that with what we have in this country. We have a fine record, of which we should be enormously proud. The fear in America does not exist here.
What concerns me is that, where there is fear in this country, it is the result of scaremongering. I often knock on people's doors wanting to know how they are getting on. When I ask about their concerns, people say that they are worried about the health service. When I ask whether they have had any treatment which has gone wrong, I am told, "Oh no. In fact, the treatment has been the best possible. It has been fast and speedy. The doctors were wonderful, the nurses were dedicated and I'm feeling fine."
When I ask, "Well, why do you feel like this?" The answer is, "Oh, it's what they say on television and in the media. It's what the Labour party is saying. Clearly, they
528
are trying to make me feel that there's something wrong." However, their personal experiences have always led them to be appreciative and supportive of their treatment.
Mr. Alex Carfile: What about the doctors and nurses?
Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) asks about the nurses. I frequently visit my local hospitals. Morale at the St. Helier national health service trust hospital is excellent. I have yet to come across a nurse, doctor or consultant who has criticised the management. To a large extent, critic ism is politically inspired by the Labour party. Perhaps Labour Members should visit hospitals to see for themselves what is happening.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Lady Olga Maitland: No, I must move on.
Having made clear my appreciation of the health service, I have a message for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I support comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about mixed-sex wards. It is clear to me that many people, particularly women, do not wish to share a mixed-sex ward. A close elderly relative of mine was in that situation and, frankly, it was very embarrassing for her.
Ms Tessa Jowell: I support the hon. Lady's call for single-sex wards. Will she join me in pressing the Secretary of State to instruct and direct purchasers to ensure that women—particularly those being admitted to psychiatric hospitals, 50 per cent. of whom have suffered sexual abuse at some time in their lives—have a choice when they are admitted to hospital and can choose to be cared for on a single-sex ward?
Lady Olga Maitland: I sympathise with the hon. Lady and I support her call. It is something that we should be seriously considering, not something about which we should be doctrinaire. There is a way around the problem while also ensuring that we get the most efficient health care available.
I give a warm welcome to the Government's plans, outlined in the Gracious Speech, to introduce a Bill to tackle discrimination against disabled people. It seems somewhat ironic that the first person even to touch on that topic today happened to be my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) rather than a Labour Member, despite the fact that the Opposition's amendment mentions it. I was surprised that the matter was not raised until rather late in the debate, and then by a Conservative rather than a Labour Member. It makes me wonder whether it really is such a high priority for the Opposition after all.
Disabled people are entitled to new rights which give them greater dignity and respect and more facilities to enable them to lead the life of their choice. I have seen their frustrations—the "does he take sugar" syndrome is grossly insulting. More than that we, the able-bodied, are the losers because we deny ourselves the benefit of the massive contribution that disabled people can make to our society.

529
In short, as one disabled man, a former high-flying executive in my constituency—Mr. Ted Gates—said:
"Think of us in terms of what we can do. The white stick, the wheelchair, the hearing aid can mask able and quick-minded people whose talents we should be taking advantage of. In any case, why should we be denied access to services that everybody else takes for granted?"
I totally agree with him.
The truth is that education and persuasion can go only so far. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rightly said, the point is to focus on what can be done now and to present a Bill that will progress quickly. Sweeping statements calling for "comprehensive civil rights", which in any case is an American term tailored to their constitution, not ours, are not in themselves tangible, practical answers to daily problems. The borrowing of moral and legal fashions from America, ignoring the fundamental differences between our two systems and cultures, is rapidly becoming a curse in British politics. It is far better to concentrate on practical, day-to-day matters on which everybody is fully consulted—both the disabled and the providers of services on whom financial burdens can fall.
It is appropriate to concentrate, as our consultation document does, on employment rights, building regulations, access to goods and services and the establishment of a national disability council. Judging by the response from disabled people whom I know, those moves are very much appreciated. In my constituency, the Sutton Alliance of Disabled People welcomed the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People last week. Among the points that were put to him was the need for a fully accessible transport system, and especially for accessible buses. They should be more widely available. I have to agree that, interlinked with the section in the consultation document on goods and services, attention must be paid to transport.
Interestingly enough—my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North—East touched on this-when a survey by the Conservative disability campaign asked responders to list in order of priority the three disability issues that they felt were most important, they put improved access to public transport first. The second was access to public buildings and only third came anti-discrimination legislation. Over and over again, people have said to me that access to buildings is meaningless unless they can physically travel there. Not everyone has an adapted car. Indeed, barely half a million disabled people hold a driving licence—hence the importance of considering bus provision.
Sixty-eight low-level platform buses are already being piloted in north London on five routes, with great success. They are sought after not just by wheelchair users, but by mothers with children in buggies, by people laden with shopping and by the elderly and frail who do not have the strength to haul themselves on board a normal bus. The custom is there, but sadly only a small number of bus companies are bringing such buses on stream. I accept that they cost about 15 per cent. more than a conventional bus, bringing the final cost to more than £120,000, but bearing in mind the fact that demand for them goes much wider than just registered disabled people, why not insist
530
that all new buses coming on stream must be fitted with a low-level platform? That is something that cannot be left to persuasion; it requires legislation.
I also welcome the decision to consider employment rights. Again, it is an area on which persuasion needs to be hardened up, but by the same token we must listen carefully to what the employers tell us about the problems that they have in employing disabled people. I wholly agree that it is iniquitous to have about 2 million fit and able-bodied people with disabilities who are not working. To get them off benefits and into earnings would make them net contributors, which must be to our advantage. In any case, employers would find that disabled people were excellent workers and more reliable because the job would mean so much to them.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People appreciates the need for an advisory body—the national disability council—and that he accepts that it must have teeth. A toothless tiger would be a waste of time and money. There is no point monitoring discrimination without the power to do something about it.
A case that such a body would take up might be that of a young woman in Sutton who came to me for advice. She is in her early twenties, has two university degrees and is a skilled computer operator. Unfortunately, she cannot get a job. Admittedly, she is not very mobile and she does not speak very clearly However, so desperate was she to prove herself that with one potential employer she even offered to work for one week free of charge just to show what she really could do. As it happened, the job was well below her academic qualifications and she was rejected out of hand. I should like to think that the proposed national disability council would fight such monstrous discrimination tooth and nail. That woman should not be fobbed off without any means of seeking conciliation or redress. The council must not be just a talking shop.
Having said that, the major steps that the Government have taken over the past 15 years to make life easier for disabled people are well documented. In all, 35 pieces of major legislation have been introduced. Last year, we spent £17 billion supporting current disability programmes—that is equivalent to £300 for every person in the country, which is almost as much as we spend on our national defence whose budget is £23 billion. There will always be more to be done, but we do not have a track record of which we should in any way be ashamed.
I have one plea to make, and it is to the ardent campaigners who work with such great zeal on behalf of disabled people. The uproar in the summer may have had the positive effect of concentrating our minds on the cause, but it also had the dangerous effect of raising disabled people's expectations to unrealistic levels. I visited disabled groups in Sutton and saw for myself just how unsettling that was. Sadly, the whole issue became political and partisan. As a result, disabled people became confused, worried and anxious. I trust that now we shall have a period of calm and thoughtful work to take advantage of the 1,000 responses that have come in from all over the country from national and grass roots level organisations in shaping a Bill that will respond to very real needs.
Of course, some will say that the Bill does not go far enough. One can never satisfy everyone, but the truth is that most people will find that it plays a significant and

531
helpful role in their life. I am glad to say that, after a hiatus in the summer in which many passionate words were spoken, I now have a good working relationship with the disabled community in Sutton. We understand each other much better and I look forward to continuing my links with it. I should not like to see that relationship destabilised by those who seek political advantage from elsewhere.
In conclusion, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on his determination to chase across the landscape from north to south, listening to groups and grass roots individuals, let alone to go to the United States and examine the strengths and weaknesses of the American disability legislation. No one could argue that the Government are not a listening Government. The consultation document made that clear as it repeatedly said, "Let us have your considered views."
The Bill is the disabled people's Bill. I want it to reflect their practical input. I welcome the report that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security argued strenuously for an extra £100 million to support the Bill. All that is on top of the £17 billion that the Government spend every year on helping the disabled. There is commitment on our side. For the sake of all the disabled people whom I have met over several years, I hope that the Bill will have a smooth passage through Parliament.
7.41 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate being called in the debate on the Loyal Address. Those hon. Members who know me will appreciate that I always welcome conversions. However, I recognise that genuine conversions are preceded by true repentance.
I wholeheartedly support the movement for action to remove the discrimination against disabled people that has existed for far too long. I do not retract my support for them. I have had a good relationship with the people in my community for many a long year. There has been no hiatus.
In the United Kingdom, the reforms of the national health service have been proceeding for some four years. In Northern Ireland, they are just getting under way. They started later, but they are now getting up a head of steam. Elements of the Eastern board have moved to trust status. The Northern and Southern boards are well on the way, but the Western board shows little sign of movement. Has it spotted something that the other boards have not? Could it be that it looks with dismay at the pain and confusion which has resulted from some parts of the transition?
From my knowledge of the slimming down that has taken place in the Eastern board and the Southern board, I wonder whether the supposed reduction in administration that will result from the abolition of the regional authorities is not merely a move to other areas of management. We have discovered that most of the people in the Eastern and Southern boards have moved to the various trusts and continued in management.
There is no denying that some aspects of the NHS reforms have brought improvements. However, too many decisions have been ill thought out. I wish to comment on several of them in Northern Ireland. Many of the factors also have relevance to other parts of the United Kingdom.
532
For example, I understand that boards and trusts in Northern Ireland have been told that they must implement a cost improvement programme and make efficiency savings of 3 per cent. in the coming year. Although 2 per cent. savings are likely to be made from improved productivity, where will the remaining 1 per cent. come from? In a public service which has been required to find regular savings, there comes a time when such cuts can be made only by imposing redundancies. I am concerned that the time is nigh.
Redundancies are also likely to result from some of the competitive practices that are being employed. I have nothing against competition; it often leads to a better deal for the consumer. However, the practice of multiple service tendering is causing a great deal of angst in the Province. In the past, NHS organisations had in-house services. Many such services were by nature small scale and not, on the new basis of competitive tendering, cost-effective ventures in their own right. For that reason, few private suppliers entering the NHS market wish to bid for individual services. Instead, the companies bid to supply all the services to a trust.
Under the competitive tendering system,the former providers can set up a company and tender an in-house bid. I take a particular case in Belfast, in which the contract winners bid £1 million less than the organisation in second place and £1.5 million less than the in-house bid, which came in third place. How can a company offer a bid £1.5 million lower than the in-house team, which has a detailed knowledge of what is involved?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sponsored by Unison, which pays me no money directly, as the hon. Gentleman will know. As members of Unison, we are repeatedly approached by health service workers in Northern Ireland who express the deepest anxiety about the issue he raises. They say that competitive tendering is simply a charter to cut pay.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the intervention. Under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, contractors are obliged to take on the staff under the existing terms of employment. However, human nature being what it is, even the acceptance of a small financial inducement changes those terms and leaves the staff vulnerable. I suspect that the contracting companies, as in the Belfast case, will be able to come in under budget only by making staff redundant.
It is fascinating to discover how competition has been eroded. In my constituency, the saga of the City and Royal Victoria hospitals continues. A decision has been made to rationalise laboratory services, and one laboratory or part thereof is likely to close. The element of competition, which was one of the prized benefits of the new approach, has gone. The closure rather appears to be an attempt to avoid competition. The inevitable result will be redundancies among some of the finest medical scientific staff one can find anywhere.
I do not wish to spend time on the issue of the Jubilee maternity hospital again, but will the Minister clarify, either in the reply to the debate or in a few days, his response on complementary medicine? The issue is causing great concern throughout the community.
I welcome the letter that he sent to all of us, but the very fact that confusion remains has been emphasised by early-day motion 14 and the subsequent amendment to it.

533
It shows that there is still some concern, which is heightened by the fact that we in the United Kingdom are apt immediately to implement European legislation, and that officials go further than they ought to. Other countries either ignore it or take years to implement it. It is time we started to protect our industry and services.
May we have an explanation of the outburst against "The Cook Report", which investigated sudden cot deaths? I raised this subject years ago, but I was never satisfied with the answers we were given. Neither am I satisfied with the attempt to rubbish the work of a scientist who has been pursuing the matter for years. I welcome the fact that the trend towards making children sleep on their backs has minimised the number of deaths—but have the pathologists and scientists at the Department examined the issue? My information is that they have not. Instead, they have accepted other explanations, without doing the necessary pathology work.
I have no intention of playing down the good work of the national health service, but I disagree with those who keep telling us that we are better off than other countries. That is not saying much. We want to maintain the high standards of our health service.
I offer the House a simple illustration of how the tendency towards privatisation can be detrimental. A constituent of mine with a small business to run was prevailed upon, because he needed heart surgery, to go private for the operation. The operation was successful, but then septicaemia set in. Specialists at the hospital advised his wife to take him home, on the grounds that he was going to die in a short time, anyway. She refused. She said that he had contracted the problem in the hospital, so he should be treated in the hospital. He was given antibiotics and, once he had recovered, he was transferred to another hospital for treatment of his arthritis.
Owing to his long stay in hospital, my constituent's firm went bankrupt. He was charged not only for the cardiac surgery but for the time he spent in hospital recovering—a further nine days at £200 a day, simply because he had contracted septicaemia. That is scandalous. As we seek to keep our health service moving forward, we must begin to eliminate some of these anomalies.
7.51 pm
Mr. Sebastian Coe: I am pleased to be able to contribute to what has been a wide-ranging debate. Although I intend to speak about health, I should like first to compliment the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—not in his seat now—on a speech of substance. It is a great pleasure to watch the faces of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues as he trespasses with such furtive guile into subjects that have remained no-go areas for his party for so many years.
I begin with a remark that runs the risk of sounding trite, but it is a truism all the same to say that the economic and cultural strength of a country, particularly this country, lies in its people: they are its greatest asset. Their health and well-being are at the centre of any discussion on health.
534
We know this from the stark reality of third world poverty. We know it from the pockets of deprivation in the United Kingdom, which are matched by equally challenging medical difficulties, in densely populated inner cities or in peripheral rural areas. We know it, too, from World Health Organisation statistics, and from the figures of similar agencies.
On no issue more than health does the House have a great responsibility to enter into responsible and dignified debate, and we have had such a debate this evening. It is a prerequisite of such debate that we avoid the anecdotal trail at all costs—the tabloid slogan that panders to scare stories of dubious origin, and even more dubious academic or scientific rigour.
The media have a major responsibility to fulfil. I would have liked to ask the editor of "Panorama", after the programme a few weeks ago that examined health care for the elderly, whether he would have slept as easily after the programme if he had known of the concern expressed to me only some hours later by a constituent about to receive treatment at the Treliske hospital in Truro. The hospital serves many of my constituents very well. He had got in touch with my office in a blind panic. After watching the programme, he feared that he would turn up at the hospital the following day only to be turned away. He thought that everyone over the age of 65 was suddenly going to be refused hospital treatment. His fears were, of course, unfounded.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth)—I am sorry to see that he is not in his place—spoke with erudition and with his long-standing concern about cot deaths. I am very pleased to have been given a son seven weeks ago. During my maiden speech, it was my great pleasure and privilege to thank the staff at Epsom general hospital for the safe birth of my daughter. Tonight, it is a great pleasure to thank them for the safe delivery of my son.
A few days ago in Cornwall, my wife and I switched on with great interest to watch "The Cook Report" on cot deaths and the problems surrounding some of the fire-retarding agents that have supposedly contributed to them. While we should never turn our backs on new information—scientific rigour is all about scrutiny and monitoring—we should also be careful about engendering unnecessary panic. Forty thousand people rang up ITV straight after the programme, and I for one wonder whether the programme makers took great pleasure in the glee with which they were able to announce that fact. Those people were extremely frightened.
I must also question the editorial judgment of any programme that decided to leave in the crass, ludicrous advice to parents of young children that, if they believed their mattresses comprised any of these substances, they should wrap them up in polythene. I am pleased that the Department of Health and the Chief Medical Officer managed to put the lid on that one quite quickly.
Hard evaluation, nationally, locally and at the point of delivery, often tells a story very different from that portrayed by selective editing. The constituent I mentioned, who was so unnecessarily frightened, went on to receive the right treatment. It was successful, and he is recovering. But he is not alone. He is one of the 7.4 per cent. more people who have been treated at Treliske in the past year, and had he needed out-patient treatment, he

535
would have been one of 8.3 per cent. more people going through the system. He is using a hospital that serves the medical needs of my constituents extremely well.
The hospital has just invested £1.4 million in a new dermatology unit, creating 14 more bed spaces and freeing resources in Falmouth community hospital. The hospital has a new public health laboratory—£3.6 million worth of facilities, opened in April and incorporating some of the most modern clinical microbiology provision to be found anywhere in the country. It has a county-wide coronary angiography service. That means that many of my constituents will not now have to travel to London for treatment—a total saving to London hospitals of some 400 patients a year.
Patients now enjoy the reassurance of being treated locally in familiar surroundings, with staff whom they know and with families close at hand. That enhanced service for my constituents, and the other services that will be created locally, are all part of the reordering of priorities from the centre, which have given new life to many of our regions.
If the London reforms mean that none of my constituents has to make a 520-mile round journey to London for treatment, I welcome them with open arms. For my constituents, the importance of health care delivered through community provision is, of course, all-important. They see new and expanding health centres, more practice nurses and well-funded care in the community, which, in Cornwall, is bedding down remarkably well. They see general practitioners who provide a standard of care and commitment that is unrivalled and who strive for continual improvement and, more often than not, achieve it.
My constituents are now part of practices that have more control over local hospitals. Gone are the days of the conversations that I once had with a local GP who, when confronted by one of his patients who had been booked in for a 2.30 appointment at a local hospital, but who was not seen until 6 o'clock, went to see the hospital administrator, who looked askance at him and said, "Well, of course, we book everybody in at 2.30."
There are new initiatives in health centres. Only last Friday in my constituency, I opened Link Line, a computer service that now operates from the Poole health centre, allowing information to be collated and disseminated among my constituents—all in support of care in the community. Health education and, more importantly, health promotion must be central to any national health strategy. There is more evidence in GPs' surgeries than ever before of real developments.
We still have much to do. As we go about our duties in this place over the next week, some 450 people will die from coronary heart disease. As we go about our duties in this place next year, some 40 million days will be lost to that disease. The sadness behind those statistics, behind the tragedies, is that so many of the deaths are preventable—not all of them, but so many. Recent figures highlighted our concerns about the number of women who smoke and who remain resistant to health campaigns. It is certainly no coincidence that coronary heart disease now claims more women than ever before.
We have much to do to remove the embarrassment factor from health promotion—the kind of embarrassment that seems to be behind the inordinately high incidence of prostate cancer, which goes undiagnosed and treated for so long, and which claims so many men.
536
Some of the major developments in health promotion have been in female diseases: advances in breast screening, cervical cancer screening, not to mention the major step forward in our immunisation programmes.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) in part grudgingly accepted, then dismissed, the statistical significance of the recent British social attitudes survey. I must say that I find it more than statistically significant.
Let me return to the anecdotal evidence. I can count on the fingers of both hands the number of letters that I have received from constituents complaining about health services, GPs or hospitals over the course of this year. That is not to say that problems do not exist, but when constituents write, it is often not about a direct experience, but in response to a newspaper article or television programme that may have been badly researched. Very rarely are they from people who have suffered bad patient care.
The British social attitudes survey supports that. Nearly three quarters of those with recent experience of in-patient care are satisfied with that service, as compared with 56 per cent. of those without recent experience.
When the Government tackled the reforms, it was to an institution, a management dynamic that had remained inviolate from any reform for nearly 40 years. There are few institutions in this country about which one could say the same. The national health service still remains the biggest single employer in Europe, at one time employing more people than the Red Army. There was a management sclerosis. It is uncomfortable in some quarters to say that, but it was the case. Few things, if any, were costed—from bandages to serious operations.
The answer, of course, is that organisational change and the pattern of the new relationships that emerge within that change cannot be transformed over night or by the single flourish of the legislative pen. It has taken time, and it will take time, but it is gratifying that the British social attitudes survey is now identifying that transition and the very real advances made on behalf of the British people.
8.6 pm
Ms Tessa Jowell: I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate and I would particularly like to address the proposals contained in the Queen's Speech that will give effect to changes in the law in relation to the community care that is provided to people suffering from serious mental disorder.
I shall draw on my own experience as for 13 years I was assistant director of MIND and, for five years, I was a member of the Mental Health Act Commission, which was a statutory body charged specifically with supervising the needs of people who are seriously mentally ill. It is important to place on record that the legislative proposal arrived in the Queen's Speech belatedly and only as a result of its successful battle for space after the proposal to privatise the Post Office was dropped. It is not a mark of great Government commitment to solving the problems of community care for people suffering from serious mental illness.
The first issue that we must deal with is the number of people who will be, or potentially be, affected by the proposals. The estimates based on research vary enormously from 300,000 to the more tightly defined estimate: that people who are seriously mentally ill are

537
about 1 per cent. of the 1 per cent. of the population who suffer from schizophrenia—between about 2,500 and 4,000. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will be able to shed some light on the size of the group that the proposals are expected to cover.
I am sure that I do not need to remind the House of the background to the new proposals and the public concern about recent tragic cases that has given rise to a crisis in public confidence about the effectiveness of community care. Why do things go wrong? None of the people who committed dreadful acts of violence, which, in some cases, resulted in murder, was unknown to the services. They had all at some time been in touch with the services. Characteristically, that group of people rarely commits an offence without talking to somebody beforehand about their intention.
Those dreadful tragedies occur because the system fails the victim and the patient. Too often, they occur after a culmination of events—after several cards have been posted through the door, saying, "Sorry you weren't in, and I missed you." When the community psychiatric nurse, the social worker or whoever is charged with responsibility fails to make contact, dreadful consequences follow.
In the past two years, there has been more debate about the crisis of confidence in community care for mentally ill people in the leader columns of newspapers, in pubs and on buses taking people to work than on the Floor of the House. We should not forget that, for every murder and every failure in community care, there are a hundred successes which are quickly obliterated. We now need to rebuild public confidence in a tattered policy.
What is causing the crisis in community care? The picture is complex. That there are many causes rather than just one has been the consistent theme of reports during the past 12 months. It has been expertly documented by the Mental Health Foundation and, more recently, by the Audit Commission, whose authoritative report was dismissed by the Government in an appalling and disgraceful way. They accused the report's authors of being unbalanced; I think that when any of us reads an Audit Commission report that is truly unbalanced, we look out of the window to see pigs flying past.
The crisis in care in the community relates not to the intention or the policy, but to the realisation of intention and policy. There is now ample evidence and experience to show what needs to be done to build effective, valued and co-ordinated services and guarantee high levels of professional performance. Living in the community, with a range of support services and practical assistance, is a viable alternative for all but a handful of patients who, for periods of time, need secure hospital treatment: indeed, it is the consistently preferred option for those needing such services.
For the policy to work, however, the needs of those whose lives will be shaped by it must be acknowledged and respected. Both the Mental Health Foundation and the Audit Commission argued that the approach to the development of community care services should be led by the needs of patients. They described the essential framework as including an appropriate place to live, an adequate income, a useful daytime occupation, access to help and support on a 24-hour basis and the opportunity to be consulted about the range of support available.
538
It should be remembered that—as many survivors of mental illness will say—mental illness is a career. Too often, planning and support are provided in relation to a single episode as though it were a discrete event rather than, as is sadly the case, likely to be one of a series in the individual's adult life.
Although we know so much about what makes community care work—have, indeed, known so much for 30 years, since the long-stay mental hospitals were first run down—we now have a geographical lottery. In only a handful of regions is there anything approaching a comprehensive mental health service capable of providing the support that patients need. What a scandal it would be if a cure for breast cancer were known, but available only to those living in, say, the Wirral or Edinburgh. Precisely that position exists in relation to the long-term care and support of mentally ill people. We know what is needed, but the Government have failed to provide it on a consistent and national basis.
Sixty-six per cent. of resources spent on mental health services are still tied up in the mental hospitals which treat 10 per cent. of those who suffer from mental illness. That means that, in the community, 90 per cent. of mentally ill people benefit from only a third of the mental health budget—an imbalance that desperately needs to be corrected.
The Secretary of State has said that reforms to mental health law have caused the
"pendulum to swing too far".
Interpreting such generalities is always difficult, but the Secretary of State appears to have claimed that patients' freedoms and civil liberties are now respected more than the need for those freedoms and liberties to be restricted or removed in the interests of the patients, or of society.
The changes in the law are primarily designed to adjust the swinging pendulum, and to reassert power and control over the way in which patients choose to live and behave; they are not intended to create any new legal regime whereby patients can be assured of the service that they need and to which they should be entitled. In words that the Secretary of State has been heard to use, "patients must take their medicine".
That is how the Secretary of State's legislative proposals will be regarded by those who fear being subject to the new powers, and by professionals who strive to win more—and more versatile—resources for their clients, only to find themselves being made legally responsible for supervising patients within services that are unable to meet even minimal levels of need.
Last year, I served on the health committee inquiry that examined in detail the case for additional legal powers, and broadly rejected the proposals that the Secretary of State is now presenting. We did so because we felt that a more fundamental review of the Mental Health Act 1983 was needed, and that piecemeal reform was misconceived; in our view, extensive legal powers were already available but insufficiently used, or insufficiently effective.
I still believe that to be the case, but I firmly believe that the time has come for the House to debate proposals of a different nature which would legally oblige health and social services authorities to provide those in need with a minimum level of service. Unless Parliament requires such action, I do not envisage the Government,

539
or those with local responsibility, ever taking seriously their duties to those who suffer from serious mental illness.
In the report of its 1993 review of mental health law, which recommended the creation of a new supervised discharge power, Department of Health officials stated:
"it must be recognised that the use of the power implies a reciprocal obligation on the statutory services to provide the support the patient needs".
Any approach that does not make obligations explicit, easily enforceable and adequately funded will be both unjust and ineffective. I fear that the Government's measure promises to be both.
8.17 pm
Mr. Mark Robinson: I warmly welcome various aspects of the Gracious Speech, but I intend to concentrate on social security and health.
The Gracious Speech heralds a constructive legislative programme, containing measures that will be important to many people. It is a pity that the absence of ideas in the Labour party should present such a stark contrast. I could not help noticing that on seven occasions the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) failed to provide answers to what were, after all, very direct questions.
The success of the programme that has been announced will depend on the Government continuing their policies for a sound economy. Only through those policies can the programme be financed. They have resulted in the lowering of inflation, a steady fall in unemployment levels and—in succeeding months—the fastest-growing economy in Europe. Efforts to promote enterprise and improve economic performance must therefore remain at the heart of Government policy.
The Government must build on the work that they have done already to reduce the budget deficit, even at the expense of short-term popularity. I hope that the forthcoming Budget to be delivered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of Exchequer will reflect that.
As the honorary president of Frome Mencap, I welcome the Government's decision to introduce a Bill to tackle discrimination against disabled people. I have always believed that this task should be undertaken by Government, especially in view of the costs involved, and not left to a private Member's Bill. I wish legislation had been introduced earlier, but I am delighted to see it now.
We must not overlook the fact that the Government approach this subject with a considerable record of support for disabled people. Spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled has increased by more than 200 per cent. since 1978–79, rising to the present level of £17 billion. The new legislation must help disabled people in their struggle to achieve independence and secure even greater recognition of the successful contribution that disabled people make to life in the community.
I visit many community activities for disabled people in my constituency, and I never fail to be impressed by the dedication and achievements of the participants and by the carers who help disabled people so much. If I have a plea this evening it is that we do not forget the carers; that we do not forget to care for the carers. After all, respite makes a better carer. By encouraging and helping carers to look after disabled people, we ensure that they are able to do a better job.
540
Attitudes to disabled people have changed beyond all recognition over the past 30 years. That is reflected by the speeches that are made again and again on both sides of the House. I pay tribute to those members of the all-party group on disablement—the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and all the others, including Lord Ashley from the other place—who have done so much to raise the level of recognition of, and interest and concern for, disabled people.
That is why I believe that, when it is enacted, the importance of the legislation will be recognised. I am sure that it will work effectively. However, we must remember that we cannot achieve everything at once. It is by working hard, effectively and consistently for disabled people that we have secured vast achievements over past years. Fifteen years ago, people would not have believed that we could have come as far as we have today. That is not to say that we have gone as far as we can; we have not. We have much work to do and there is great enthusiasm in the community to undertake that work.
I visited the Bath and West show in my constituency this summer, where I attended a disabled persons games. This was not a special activity, heralded with special fanfare; it was a normal and natural activity which has gone on for a number of years. That is the way in which I believe that disabled persons want to carry out their activities: they do not want them to be seen as something special, or something to be gawked at, but as natural a part of community life as a hospital open day or whatever.
I now turn to the issue of unemployment or, more importantly, the need to get people back into employment. Many people come to my advice centres to complain about the inflexibility of the benefits system. People often say that they have sons or daughters who want to get back into employment but who are finding it extremely difficult. That is why I welcome the job seeker's allowance initiative.
It is very difficult to enact change in the benefits system, because whenever an attempt is made some pressure group will scream that it will disadvantage X or Y. It does not matter which party enacts the legislation, that is the automatic reaction—particularly as the negative points tend to be highlighted in the media whilst the positive ones are left, rather conveniently, to one side. It is only at a later date when one sees that the legislation is working and that people are benefiting from it that the press realise the success of the measures which the Government have already undertaken. I see the job seeker's allowance as building on such success by introducing the concept of incentive, which is what the back-to-work bonus will be all about.
I endorse wholeheartedly the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) in recounting experiences from his constituency. Not only is the national health service working well currently, but it is improving all the time. The Labour party does not like to acknowledge that fact for obvious political reasons, but it is borne out by monthly published statistics.
The long hospital waiting lists are reducing, and we need to see that. When I was first elected as the Member for Somerton and Frome in 1992, there was a long-running campaign for 24 hour ambulance cover. I was astonished that there was no such cover in Frome when it should have been provided. So I went straight to the Wessex regional health authority and I would not take

541
no for an answer. Within nine months, that necessary service was implemented and since that time I have received no further complaints about ambulance cover. That is a good local example of an improvement in the national health service.
Similarly, there were almost outraged demands for a comprehensive breast-screening service in the Frome area. Those involved in the campaign seemed to assume almost automatically that the Government would not make this service available. Equally speedily, the problem was resolved—another local example of improvement in the national health service.
I have seen great improvements in the quality of health care provided. I pay tribute to the local hospital trusts, which operate from Yeovil, Taunton and Bath, for the work that they have done to secure that improvement. Waiting lists in my constituency have come down substantially and the number of complaints in my mail bag is also coming down.
I meet people all the time who have returned from some sort of hospital treatment. They often express surprise at the quality of treatment that they have received. When I ask why they are surprised, they say that it is because of all the negative reporting about the national health service that they have seen in the newspapers. They say also that it is because of the negative comments that they hear from the House of Commons. Those comments come not from Conservative Members but from Labour Members. The Liberal Democrats are not free of blame on that score.
The most vociferous complaints about the NHS often come from people who have not been near a hospital for 10 years, and base their views simply on what they have read in the newspapers. I will not talk for London or Birmingham, but we often hear about the problems facing people in rural communities.
My constituency is wide-ranging and covers many rural communities. The people living in those communities are being extremely well-served and well looked after by the NHS. If they do complain, those complaints are taken up and dealt with extremely swiftly and the problems are sorted out. It is a sad fact that nine tenths of those problems are due to bureaucratic mismanagement, which, once it is looked at by senior managers, can be sorted out quickly and easily.
The improvements that have been brought about by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's insistence on supporting and developing the hospital trust concept and the success of many of the fundholding practices has brought about a need to refine and reduce administrative structures. That is why I am glad that a Bill will be introduced to abolish the eight regional health authorities. I would not say that it is overdue, but the time has now come. The regional offices that will replace them will employ just over 1,000 people, compared with nearly 4,000 managers and their support staff employed in the 14 regions two years ago. Time and again, constituents come to me to complain about excess management in the NHS. We are tackling that problem.
We can never do away with management, particularly in a service that is complex and which has strongly entrenched professional organisations. However, we can improve that management. We can streamline it and ensure that it works effectively. By breaking management
542
down to individual hospitals through the hospital trust system, we have managed to bring about a far better performance and, with it, thank goodness, substantial reductions in waiting times.
John Yeats has done a great deal of research into this subject, and he has said time and again that it is the time that people have to wait that matters, not necessarily the numbers waiting. People are prepared to wait a reasonable time for non-urgent surgery. People should not have to wait at all for urgent surgery. I am sometimes disappointed when I find constituents who are being treated as non-urgent even though their condition has worsened but their general practitioner has not reported that change to the local hospital. Once it is reported, treatment is effected quickly.
There is a great deal to encourage me in the Queen's Speech. I should like to mention briefly the reform of agricultural tenancy law.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not mention that even briefly. It does not fall within the terms of the amendment.
Mr. Robinson: I understand that, but it is enormously welcome to farming interests in my constituency.
8.34 pm
Mr. Alan Milburn: John Maples's advice to Ministers to batten down the hatches on NHS matters clearly came too late for the Gracious Speech. The Government will live to regret that. The NHS management changes outlined in the Queen's Speech will bring yet further health trouble to a Government who are drowning in a mess of their own making.
In October last year, the Secretary of State for Health first told the House of her plans to reform the management of the NHS in England. Her intentions were radical. She said:
"These changes will slim down NHS management. They will make it simpler and sharper … They will save money on administration to spend on patients, and they will uphold and strengthen accountability. They will continue the process of decentralisation".—[Official Report, 21 October 1993; Vol.230, c.400.]
How could anyone disagree with those aims? The claims will be judged when detailed proposals are laid before the House, but they also have to be judged against what has gone before. There, the Government's record betrays their rhetoric.
To date, the Government's assault on NHS red tape has turned out to be a damp squib. Even that inveterate self-declared campaigner against bureaucracy in the Welsh NHS, the Secretary of State for Wales, has failed to come up with the goods. Since he declared war on bureaucracy in the Welsh NHS in autumn last year the number of health service managers there has not fallen but has increased. The same is true in England, where the latest Department of Health figures show that in the year to September 1993 managerial numbers increased once again, this time by 13 per cent. That is despite a blatant attempt by Ministers to massage the figures. So much for the Secretary of State's claim about slimming down NHS management. It is not slimmer or leaner and it certainly is not fitter, but it is fatter.
What about the other side of the equation? What about saving money to spend on patients? The evidence is equally graphic. An extra £1.5 billion has been spent on

543
managerial salaries since the advent of the market in the NHS. There are bumper salaries for a few but a pay squeeze for the many. This year there are 17,500 fewer nurses on England's hospital wards than there were last year. Increasing the number of managers and cutting back on nurses is hardly the priority for a national health service where 1 million patients are currently waiting for hospital treatment.
The Secretary of State for Health now says that she has learnt all the lessons. She says that the abolition of the regional health authorities will put matters right by launching a new assault on bureaucracy. Her Department's figures give the game away. They show that she has the wrong target in her sights if she wants to make an effective job of tackling NHS red tape. The abolition of the regions will do nothing to tackle the 7,500 extra managers outside the regional health authorities who have been recruited to implement the Government's market changes. The boom in health bureaucracy has taken place not at regional health authority level but at hospital level as a new contract culture has taken over inside the national health service.
The abolition of regional health authorities will achieve at least some of the Government's objectives. It will undermine health service planning and further undermine local accountability in the national health service. The light touch that the Secretary of State commends as a virtue of NHS management executive outposts is irrelevant in a region such as mine, where the incidence of ill health and health inequalities call not for a light touch but for strong Government intervention. Those health inequalities and the health problems that characterise the north also call for in-depth knowledge of the region so that resources can be targeted where they can be most effective.
The merger of Northern regional health authority with Yorkshire regional health authority will make for a more centralised, out-of-touch service and a less accountable NHS. The future of health care will be the preserve of people without any stake in the regions. Policy, however, will mirror the sort of confusion that exists at more local level.
There is no disputing the merits of the proposal to merge family health services authorities with district health authorities, which makes sense, but greater coterminosity is being compromised by other Government policies, most notably by the free market approach to health authority mergers, by the advent of health commissions, which are even further distanced from local communities, and by allowing the local government review to happen without reference to institutional change in the NHS.
In my own area, for example, the Local Government Commission is likely to recommend in a few weeks' time the welcome restoration of self-government to Darlington. Henceforth, the town will run its own social and housing services, but the devolution of local government powers from County Durham to Darlington is being accompanied by the centralisation of health powers from Darlington to County Durham. The forced merger of Darlington health authority has resulted in the purchase of health care being undertaken by a county-wide commission. Inevitably, the already yawning gap between social services and health services, so apparent in community care, will become a chasm as decision-making structures become ever more distant from one another.
544
It is a classic case of one set of Ministers not knowing what the other set is up to. The dog's breakfast that results can only compromise patient care. Nor is that a problem peculiar to my area. Across the country, a laissez-faire approach to health authority mergers has given rise to a patchwork quilt of purchasers. There is no direction from the centre, no overview and no planning. Instead, the market and the whims of local health managers are deciding the future shape of the NHS.
There is one bonus, of course, for the Conservatives in this hands-off approach: a further distancing of NHS decision making from the local communities that the health service is supposed to serve. That makes it easier for centrally determined free market thinking to be imposed on the NHS in all parts of the country.
That policy is aided and abetted by a secretive and closed health appointments system. Not surprisingly, that system puts the friends, supporters and even the relatives of members of the Conservative party into key positions, both in NHS trusts and in health authorities. To date, the public have footed a —40 million salary bill for turning NHS trusts into a lucrative job centre for redundant Conservatives.
Ministers could have used the Queen's Speech to make the minimum changes necessary to restore credibility to that discredited system. They could have used the speech to ensure that the lists of people nominated to serve on a health authority or an NHS trust are published. They could have insisted that the selection procedure and the criteria be made transparent. Finally, they could have insisted that, as is the case for people wishing to serve on magistrates benches, the party political affiliations of individuals be declared.
Ministers' refusal to accept those changes clearly shows that they believe that jobs for the boys and for the girls are more important than public accountability in the NHS. They are unscrupulously using the current appointments system to further Conservative interests in the NHS.
I remind Ministers that the health service is not their plaything. It is certainly not the plaything of those people appointed by Ministers. It belongs to the people as a whole. It is a public service and it should be properly and publicly accountable. In place of the chaos and inefficiency of the Government's health care market, we need an NHS that is free, fair, open, accountable, well planned and properly managed. I am afraid that that sort of vision for the NHS will have to await a future Queen's Speech from a future Government.
8.45 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: There is much that I should have liked to debate with the Secretary of State for Health. Unfortunately, time does not permit that. I shall say, however, that she constantly says at the Dispatch Box that the previous Labour Government cut nurses' pay. I am afraid that she is misinformed. She should look back at the records. It was the Labour Government who set up the Hallsbury committee on nurses' and midwives' pay, and it was of great benefit to the nursing profession, in terms of both their pay and their status. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will consider the facts.
The Aberdeen Royal Infirmary NHS trust in Aberdeen was the flagship of the Government's trust proposals and campaign in Scotland. It was trumpeted as one of the best

545
trusts that would be available. All sorts of tributes were paid to it. What has happened? Waiting times have lengthened and the number of patients on waiting lists has increased to the extent that something has had to be done about it.
For some reason or other, the new trust, a flagship of the NHS trust system, has run into rough water. It is in choppy seas. Grampian health board, the purchaser, has had to do something about it. Today, it announced a new £500,000 plan to cut waiting lists. The result is that some services that are to be additionally provided will go to NHS trust hospitals. Some people, however, will have to travel from Aberdeen to Elgin, some 50 miles away, to have their operations.
Even worse, some 50 urological operations and 100 plastic surgery operations will be bought from local private hospitals. I fear that that is what the future holds. As the health service runs into difficulty, services will be bought from private hospitals, which is creeping privatisation. Of course, Ministers will say, "Do you want patients to wait longer and to suffer? Is it not better that services are bought from private hospitals?" It is all very well saying that, but a deliberate attempt is being made to run down the health service.
Grampian health board even went to the extent of trying to purchase about 100 operations from Health Care International hospital in Clydebank. Only seven people from Aberdeen wanted to be treated there. They did not want anything to do with that hospital. That sort of thing brings the health service into disrepute.
Mr. George Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: I am sorry, but I have sat in the Chamber all day and I shall not give way to hon. Members who have just entered the Chamber—at this point.
Mr. Milburn: Generous to a fault.
Mr. Hughes: I am generous to a fault, but I do not want to be diverted.
Community care has been at the core of the Government's national health service reforms. I think that all hon. Members agree that the right principle is behind the community care policy. No one would wish any long-stay patient to remain in hospital any longer than necessary. We would much prefer that such patients received community care. The problem is that for many people what is supposed to be community care is not community care at all.
In Grampian, there are some very good examples of small units for former patients of mental hospitals. They are well supported and are a tribute to the community care system, but they are not a cheap option as they can be even more expensive than in-patient care. However, what so many elderly people are offered under community care is simply a transfer from institutionalised public care to institutionalised private care. What lies behind that is one of the most damaging things that the Government have done, which is to abandon the duty to care. That is fatal for the health service and for the patients it serves.
We are witnessing a cynical exercise by the Government to transfer people from hospitals into the private sector to save the public purse. They wish people
546
to pay and to enable private nursing homes to make a killing. Some months ago, I had a very interesting conversation—that is a polite term for the exchange—with the owner of a private nursing home. At any rate, he was more open than the Government. He said that the first method of dealing with the elderly who were in need of nursing care was private hospitals, and that the NHS should be the last resort. He complained that too many social workers were interfering with his ability to choose who he wanted to accept in his private nursing home. When I asked him how he chose, he admitted that his test for admission was not whether his nursing home could provide adequate care or whether particular patients were the most needy, but whether they could pay.
I asked the owner what would happen if he accepted someone, but it turned out that his home could not provide the proper care. He replied that that would be someone else's problem and that the patient would simply go back to the NHS. The notion that the NHS is to be a sort of slum where people go only when there is nothing else available is what I find most offensive about the Conservatives' treatment of it. The NHS should be about excellence, and its first priority should be to ensure that people get the care that they need.
I deal now with an issue of particular importance to Aberdeen, which is the future of Woodlands hospital. It is not, in fact, in my constituency but in that of the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), to whom I might give way if he seeks to intervene again. However, many of the patients are, in a sense, my constituents, and certainly their parents are.
The patients at Woodlands are very vulnerable and require specialist medical care and attention. In its business plan, Grampian Healthcare NHS trust proposed that the hospital should be closed and its patients transferred to a unit on the site of the Royal Cornhill hospital. From the beginning, this issue has been handled extremely insensitively, to put it mildly. The manner in which it has been handled exposes a major flaw in the purchaser-provider split. Patients have been almost bandied about between purchaser and provider as though they did not count. I am sure that that was not the intention, but that is what has happened.
The unit that was to be opened at the Royal Cornhill site was to be a refurbished and extended former acute psychiatric unit for severely mentally ill patients. It was feared—indeed, this was mentioned in the trust's own documents—that the distinction between mental handicap and mental illness would be at best blurred or at worst extinguished.
There has been the three-month statutory consultation period about the closure, but Grampian health board—the purchaser—has confirmed the closure of Woodlands hospital and the transfer of patients to the new Royal Cornhill site. However, it is proposing a new-build hospital costing £3.5 million, which is £1.6 million more than the earlier cost.
Many of my colleagues might ask, where is the problem? They might jump at the chance to have in their constituency a new-build hospital costing £3.5 million. I do not reject the proposal out of hand—it must be examined seriously—but the recommendation raises as many questions as it seeks to answer.

547
Grampian Healthcare trust—the provider—has made it abundantly clear that it does not have the necessary money, so where is the capital to come from? There has been great controversy about the problems of selling the current Woodlands site, but why is it not possible to refurbish and upgrade the current hospital buildings, which were opened only in 1974? Admittedly they were built for children, but they could well be improved and adapted, because far fewer patients now use the service.
I am anxious to put patients first—they are the only ones who matter—but the parents must also be satisfied because they have a close and continuing interest in the future of those whom they still regard as their children although they are, in fact, adults. I hope that the Secretary of State will not rush to make a decision until all the facts have been thoroughly explored.
Would Lord Fraser of Carmyllie be prepared to meet a deputation of parents or friends of Woodlands? I discussed the matter last Friday with some of the parents as I do not believe that Members of Parliament can adequately articulate their fears and concerns. We are dealing with a very vulnerable group of people whose parents are naturally anxious about the future. Would the Secretary of State or Lord Fraser of Carmyllie be willing to meet such a deputation?
I am happy to report that three other hon. Members who share this "common resource"—the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Kincardine and Deeside—agree that the proposition is worth pursuing.
Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
Mr. Hughes: For 30 seconds.
Mr. Kynoch: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy but point out that Woodlands hospital is in my constituency. He has accepted that there are some successful examples of community care in Grampian. Does he also accept that the people whom we are unfortunately having to put into a purpose-built, highly modern building, which may be at the Ross clinic on the Royal Cornhill site, or where the Grampian health board has proposed, require hospital treatment? Does he further accept that, however sad it may seem, the relatives of those poor unfortunate people will more than likely find it very difficult to stand back from the situation and take a purely rational view?
Mr. Hughes: There is no doubt that there is no real alternative to in-patient care for those patients. Certainly the parents are emotionally involved, but I believe that they are capable of standing back and taking a rational view. If they could see the Secretary of State, they would put the case strongly, because, as I have said to them and as they all understand, we cannot allow the situation to last for months. We must arrive at a decision.
The problem about the new £3.5 million proposal that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is that it has been made almost as an afterthought. After three months of discussion in the statutory consultation period and some months of discussion beforehand, we were suddenly presented with that proposal. That is not the way to plan the health service. I agree with the secretary of the Grampian health board at least to the extent that having consultation after a de facto decision, rather than discussing the future planning of the health service, is not
548
the right way to go about things. I shall be pleased if a real rational discussion about the future of the health service comes out of the debate, even if nothing else does.
I should have liked to mention, even if only in passing, a great injustice in my constituency concerning the exgratia payment by the Department of Employment to redundant trawlermen. However, I can see the light in your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall not transgress against your good nature. I simply hope that if I apply for an Adjournment debate on the subject, you will use your good offices with Madam Speaker to ensure that I get it.
I believe strongly in the health service. We must have the first and the best class of treatment. I do not believe that the Queen's Speech provides that; it is deficient in many respects for my constituents, who are short of employment and who badly need housing and decent education. Regrettably, the Queen's Speech fails the nation, as the Conservative Government have failed it over the past 15 years. I look forward to a Queen's Speech that will redress the wrongs that have been done over the preceding decade and a half, or however long it might turn out to be.
8.59 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: In the short time available, I shall concentrate on a health care issue which needs widespread public debate, and on which we need answers from the Government. In recent years, there has been a dramatic reduction in national health service continuing care beds. Parallel with that development there has been massive growth in the number of long-term beds in private residential care homes.
For years, since the early 1980s, that trend has taken place with little if any public debate. Tory-appointed health service managers, acting by stealth and helped by the Government's cash restrictions, are closing down wholesale the beds for people with long-term illnesses. That means not only the elderly but anybody who needs a long-stay bed.
However, the situation was given a good public hearing when the health service ombudsman concluded earlier this year that the Leeds general infirmary had failed
"to provide long term NHS care for a brain-damaged patient".
That patient had been in hospital for 20 months and needed full-time nursing care. That fact was never in dispute; what was in dispute was where the care should be given and who should pay for it.
Similar arguments and discussions have been taking place in every part of the country, and are the subject of intense debate in my constituency of Halifax, where the Tory-appointed managers have decided to close a purpose-built hospital—Northowram hospital, where I worked for nine years. It now has only 261 beds, because the rationalisation programme is already taking place, and it cares for the elderly and mentally ill, offering excellent treatment. We are not talking about an old Victorian geriatric hospital. Northowram hospital offers excellent rehabilitation and reorientation programmes, and respite care for elderly, sick and mentally ill people, which gives carers a much-needed rest. It also has a number of continuing care beds for people who need them.
The Independent recently published a good compassionate article supporting someone whose husband was at that time in Northowram, although sadly he has

549
now died. Clifford Smith desperately needed full-time nursing care, 24 hours a day. His 80-year-old wife, now his widow, agreed to the publicity because she did not want the hospital that had cared so well for her husband to close, and she was frightened of what might happen if it did.
In his judgment on the Leeds case, the ombudsman quoted the Department of Health's guidance on discharge, specifically that part of it which says:
"No NHS patient should be placed in a private nursing or residential care home against his/her wishes if that means that he/she or a relative will be personally responsible for the home's charges."
I followed up that decision by asking the Prime Minister directly in the House if that guidance still applied. Would he give a guarantee that people would retain the right to a free national health service bed? The Prime Minister's reply was quite specific. He said:
"I can certainly give the hon. Lady that guarantee: the right to national health service care free at the point of delivery is an integral part of the Government's policy, and will remain so"—[Official Report, 14 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 1167.]
We also remember the Prime Minister's speech to his party's national conference when he talked about his own frail, elderly father and said that he would never do anything to harm such a patient. He should be reminded of what is now happening to many people.
We know that in practice, because of the massive bed closure programme over the past few years, many elderly sick and chronically sick people have been bullied out of their free national health service beds. A recent statistic from the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts shows us that the number of beds for the elderly and mentally ill in the national health service fell from 73,000 in 1990 to 59,600 in March 1993. Over the same period, the number of beds in private nursing homes rose from 89,600 to 144,000. That is a massive shift of elderly people and chronically sick people out of the national health service into the private health care sector, where they or their relatives are means-tested. In most cases, they have to find the money.
This privatisation had been happening quickly enough, but seemingly not quickly enough for the Government. When the ombudsman blew the whistle on this inhumane treatment of the elderly and the chronically sick, the Secretary of State for Health decided to do something. On August 12, she issued new draft guidance to health authorities which was aimed, ostensibly, at clarifying the responsibility for long-term care. It was an underhand way to introduce new guidelines as Parliament was in recess and the consultation period ended before Parliament came back. We can only conclude that the Secretary of State wanted to avoid the debate—but she will not be able to avoid it.
The new draft guidance, if implemented, will take away the right of a vulnerable group to have treatment on the national health service. It says that only patients with
"complex or multiple health-care needs"
requiring
"continuing and specialist medical or nursing supervision"
will have the right to long-term nursing care free of charge. The significant majority of people who need continuing care in a nursing home are expected to have their needs met through the social services.
550
We all know how patchy the social services provision is. We also know that, if the shift takes place, this group of people will no longer be entitled to a free national health service, but will be subject to a means test. Such patients may be discharged to a private nursing home against their will and they or their relatives will have to pick up the bill. That is the truth, because we do not have massive, comprehensive packages of health care in the community and those that we do have are not free. That is a complete betrayal of elderly people.
Many thousands of elderly people will lose their life savings and their homes because the draft guidelines introduce strict demarcation lines between what is medical and what is social. All that we get from the Secretary of State are the usual lengthy diatribes, which we had today, about how many more people are being treated on the NHS. She blathers on like a clockwork parrot and some of us are getting pretty sick of it. She has reneged on the principle of the national health service providing for medical and nursing needs from birth to death, and she has done so quite openly.
When the Select Committee on Health recently questioned the Secretary of State on the subject, she said that it was necessary to reissue the guidance because of the ombudsman's comments about the Leeds case. Later in the same evidence session, she refused to say, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), whether under the new guidance the patient in the Leeds case would have been entitled to national health service care. She said:
"I do not feel sufficiently intimately aware of the individual case."
We have had a major change in policy based on a case of which the Secretary of State admitted in a public meeting she was ignorant. The elderly and the long-term ill have no friends in this Government. The Secretary of State can only regurgitate as many statistics as she can think of at the moment. The elderly and the long-term sick are absolutely right to be frightened of her.
Anyone who saw the "Panorama" programme the other week and who saw people speaking out about their fears knows that it is not a question of the Labour party making them frightened. It is everything to do with what the Secretary of State is doing. She talks about community care which for many people does not exist. She should listen to elderly people, she should listen to the pensioners. I give her a warning: if she does not start listening, their voices will be raised to such a crescendo that even the present Secretary of State, who is blind to any opinion but her own, will be forced to listen.
9.9 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am pleased to be able to follow the hon. Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I wholeheartedly welcome two measures in the Gracious Speech, which state that the Government
"will bring forward legislation to make further improvements to the management of the National Health Service; and to provide for people with a serious mental disorder discharged from hospital to be cared for under supervision."—[Official Report, 16 November 1994; Vol. 250, c.6.]
I am sorry that I have been unable to attend the whole of the debate, but in the little time that I have been present I have heard some monstrously political statements about the national health service which, since the reforms that

551
we introduced in 1991—the introduction of national health service trusts and fundholding GPs—has gone from strength to strength. I noticed that both main Opposition parties—certainly the Labour party—wanted to abolish NHS trusts and fundholding GPs, which have so much benefited the care of health service patients in this country.
Mr. Brian Wilson: That is a brief.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I was not even speaking from a brief, actually. The hon. Gentleman, who interrupted from a sedentary position, should look before he speaks. I was not even speaking from a brief. I have some notes prepared, but I do not even need them because the Government's record on the national health service is so good and I happen to have one or two facts in my head about their achievements in that respect.
Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman does not need the Conservative central office brief, perhaps he would lay it down.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am more than happy to lay it down to keep the hon. Gentleman happy and I am perfectly happy to speak without the brief because, as I have already said, I have the facts in my head.
The main party of Her Majesty's Opposition want to abolish NHS trusts and fundholding GPs, which is absolutely disgraceful, considering the benefits that they have brought to the health service patients of this country.
There are now some 419 NHS trusts. My own NHS trust, the East Gloucestershire national health service trust, was introduced in April 1991 and has brought continuous benefits to the patients in my constituency in Gloucestershire ever since it was introduced. It has been able to bring about more refurbishment to the local hospitals and it has been able to treat patients in a more sympathetic way than ever the NHS was able to do before its introduction.
The result is that 92 per cent. of patients in Gloucestershire are now treated within six months. That is a significant performance. Also, as a result of the trust, nobody has to wait more than nine months for treatments for hip replacement, unlike the position in some neighbouring authorities where people have to wait considerably longer.
On the national scene, the performance is even more impressive. Some 98 per cent. of all NHS patients are now treated within one year. Waiting lists beyond two years have all but been abolished—[Interruption.] I hear sedentary interventions from Opposition Members. I remember the bad old days when Labour was in control in the 1970s. One was admitted to hospital merely as a number. One was lucky if one's appointment to see the specialist was not cancelled and, even if it was not cancelled, one probably had to wait some considerable length of time to see the specialist. Having seen the specialist, one then had to wait many months, if not years, for treatment.
552
With the introduction of the patients charter, patients are no longer mere numbers within the NHS; they are customers—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh, but my constituents, whom I meet in their hundreds throughout the year, welcome the care and dedicated treatment that they receive from NHS nurses and doctors. How much better the service is now, compared with its performance in the 1970s when you were in charge of it—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member credits me with too much. I was not in charge.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I would never credit you with being in charge of the NHS, Madam Deputy Speaker. I pay due deference to the Chair. Labour Members were in charge of the service, however, and what a chaotic shambles it was in those days.
To enter into a more serious political debate, it is fair to say that the NHS has never been better than It is nowadays. It has never had more money spent on it. We shall be spending £32 billion on it this year. That spending will be second only to expenditure within the social services budget. It is much to the Government's credit that expenditure on the service has increased from £8.5 billion in 1979, when the Conservatives regained power, to its present level.The money now being directed to the NHS will be better and more wisely spent than ever before.
There have been many critical speeches from Opposition Members about bureaucracy in the service. Yet one of the Bills described in the Gracious Speech is designed to abolish regional health authorities. That will surely reduce bureaucracy in the service, yet Opposition Members criticise what we are trying to do. We are reducing bureaucracy in the health service and providing better and better patient care by increasing the resources available for front-line treatment by doctors and nurses.
There is reference in the Gracious Speech to a Bill which will enable the long-term mentally sick to be cared for properly. I feel that I must mention the sad case of one of my constituents who was working in the East Devon NHS trust in the Edith Morgan mental health unit. A patient who had recently been discharged from the unit came back and killed her by stabbing her with a knife. On behalf of my constituents generally, I express my deep sympathy in regard to that case.
I welcome the Bill that the Government intend to introduce. I believe that it will come forward as a result of some of the representations that I made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Bill will enable the long-term mentally sick to be safely discharged into the community under long-term care—[Interruption.] Instead of making sedentary remarks, Opposition Members should warmly welcome the proposed Bill. I hope that they will support it as it makes its passage through the House—[Interruption.] I understand that time is pressing and that the Front-Bench speeches are due to be made—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. They will be made only if the hon. Member resumes his place.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I understand that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also understand that it is a fundamental principle that when a Member has the floor he is entitled to conclude his speech. If you will be very kind, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall rapidly conclude my remarks.

553
Contrary to all the scaremongering of Opposition Members, the health service is providing better care. Patients are spending less time in hospital, scientific advances are being made every day within the service, there are better practices and better treatments, and better drugs are being applied. Those advances have all been brought about because the Government have provided the resources and stewardship that the NHS needs.
9.19 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: My only comment on the contribution of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is that he would pass any loyalty test likely to be put to him by the Government Whips. He does not need to worry about his rating in that respect.
When considering the Queen's Speech, it will not surprise Ministers if I begin by referring to a sin of omission. There is nothing in the Queen's Speech about the Child Support Agency or its reform. May I say very briefly and sparely—there should be. We are seeing a disaster on a scale that none of us anticipated back in 1991. It is a disaster in respect of which our worst fears are being constantly outdistanced by reality as it emerges.
We received the report of the chief child officer the other week and I want to refer to only one bare set of statistics. Of a sample of 1,188 maintenance assessments examined by the chief child officer, he could certify as correct only 157. Some 545 were incorrect and in 486 the file was so incomplete that it was impossible to decide whether the cases were correct or incorrect.
I do not want to be vindictive, but I wonder how the civil servants' concept of performance-related pay would deal with such a situation. That is perhaps now academic as there have been changes at the top of the CSA. However, that point underlines the immense scale of the crisis.
I can think of no social policy initiative under this or any other Government that has produced so much anger and bitterness. Enormous damage has been done to individuals who have been caught in the system's inflexible cage. However, they are not the only casualties. Other casualties have been confidence in the law and, to some extent, the reputation of Parliament itself.
The figures are consistently obscure. It is difficult to discover exactly what is happening. My best guess from what I can discover is that we are now seeing a withdrawal of consent on a scale that is making a mockery of the aspirations and objectives of the system and bringing it into disrepute.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill). He said that, once in a while, there is a policy that must come to an abrupt halt. As Ministers know, I want to preserve the principle, but I agree with the hon. Member for Test that we must get away from the present position. That is why the silence in the Queen's Speech in respect of the CSA is so worrying and such a concern to all hon. Members.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Rubbish.
Mr. Dewar: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is shouting, "Rubbish." For a long time, Ministers have sheltered behind the coming Select Committee report. It
554
is no longer coming; it has arrived. I must say that it has sadly disappointed expectations in the country and, I suspect, in the House. It has done that for a good reason—the determined and disciplined voting by the Conservative members of the Select Committee, who ruthlessly stripped out a series of key proposals in the Chairman's original draft report.
I cannot go through the Select Committee report in detail. However, let me remind the House that there was in the draft report a recommendation for an independent review procedure to allow departures from the normal financial formula if circumstanced justified that. A disregard was suggested that would make the system rather more child centred and do something to make it measure up to the advertisements for it in its early days. Both those suggestions were filleted.
The proposals that 100 per cent. of pension contributions should be taken into account—which would increase the protected income—were binned by Conservative Members voting in a block. The Tories criticise the block vote, but I must say with some sorrow that they use it cynically when the situation demands. I believe that that exercise did no service to the standing and reputation of the Select Committee system, leaving aside the narrow matter of the merits of the issue.
Mr. Thurnham: As a member of that Select Committee, I ask the hon. Gentleman to make it clear whether he is speaking for official Labour party policy. Maintenance disregards would have cost about £300 million, according to the central estimate. The hon. Gentleman is talking about being cynical. Is he being cynical or is it official Labour party policy to support the £300 million cost of maintenance disregards?
Mr. Dewar: We have made it clear that we are in favour of the principle of a disregard. I have put that on the record during many debates in the House, so I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman sounded quite so peeved.
I was saying that we had witnessed an unpleasant exercise and that common justice demands urgent action. It is no good the Under-Secretary—the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt)—honourably going around like a man with a burden of sorrow, because that is little consolation to those who are caught in the turmoil and distress of the system. It is important that the Secretary of State makes it clear that there will be action on this matter and that reforming legislation will be introduced this Session. We are entitled to have that point clarified today and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do so.
Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman should go further, when the time comes, than the watered-down Select Committee report recommends. It may mean one or two hon. Members—for example, the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw)—being left hanging out to dry, but Labour Members would regard that as a public service. I shall not bang on about that point, but the right hon. Gentleman should deal with it and give the assurances that I have requested.
Another matter that is directly within the right hon. Gentleman's remit and competence is the compensation package for VAT on domestic fuel. Its impact has been considerable and there is no doubt that the increase from 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent., from which, apparently, there is to be no escape, will inflict serious fiscal damage.

555
I was looking at a recent report—hon. Members will be familiar with it—commissioned by the Disablement Income Group, which considered a series of cases where the principal person involved had severe problems, usually physical. It discovered that the added tax burden per week, after taking into account the compensation package, increased the bill from just under £1 to £3.22 in that range of cases.
The Chancellor said last year—I should like the Secretary of State's comments on this—that his intention was to award the same weekly cash increases again in April 1995, taking help overall to £1 per week for all single pensioners and £1.40 per week for all pensioner couples. The trouble is that the majority of people listening to those words will not recognise the small print in the footnotes. They will be looking for 50p and 70p, depending on whether they are single pensioners or pensioner couples, over and above the uprating that is due in April. They will be astonished to find that the additional payment will be 25p and 30p respectively.
Mr. Michael Connarty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I had already informed him that I wished to intervene when he spoke about pensioners. Perhaps I could put before the House the case of a pensioner today—unfortunately, my mother—who is 76 years of age. She went to hospital at 10 o'clock this morning for some pre-tests for a kidney operation that she is having on Thursday. She was not seen by a doctor until 6 o'clock this evening. When my sister saw her at 3.30 pm, she was still sitting in the same waiting room at Monklands general hospital in which she had been left at 10 o'clock this morning. She had received only a bowl of soup as sustenance all day long. Is that not exactly the sort of treatment pensioners are getting, both with VAT and from the health service?
Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know from my earlier brief conversation with him how distressed he is about this matter. Any family faced with that position would be upset. Obviously, I cannot comment on what went wrong, although something clearly did. It is perhaps a salutary reminder to everyone in the House that we can talk theoretically and statistically, but often human situations lead to great distress and tragedy. I hope that they will be put right in the period ahead, but I do not think that they will be if the present policies continue. I can only say to my hon. Friend that I hope that he will follow up the matter, as I am sure he will, on behalf of his mother and with the help of her Member of Parliament.
I want to return to the point I made about the single pensioner's £1 and ask for the Secretary of State's confirmation that it is made up of last year's 50p and 25p—this is a lovely euphemism—feeding through in the uprating figure. In other words, the 25p is hidden in the 2.2 per cent. by which we understand that pensions will be uprated this year. The only additional cash in hand above the uprating will be 25p for a single pensioner and 30p for a pensioner couple. Does not the Secretary of State recognise that that will be widely seen as sleight of hand bordering on a confidence trick, and that it will leave many pensioners fearful and angry as they face mounting fuel bills?
We know that some Conservative Members are prepared to vote against the April increase in VAT. Two Scottish Conservative Members have already signaled
556
their intention to vote against it if they are given the opportunity to do so. However, it would be useful if the Secretary of State could deal with the fact that there will be astonishment and some anger among pensioners in every part of the country when the arithmetic which I have just described becomes more widely known, and certainly when they receive the end product in their hands.
I remind the Secretary of State—I must do so in shorthand-of the problems in the private pensions sector that have arisen from the high-pressure techniques used to sell pensions. They have done great harm to confidence in the system and have produced many blameless, innocent and badly hurt casualties. All of us will remember the KPMG survey: the 9 per cent. of 735 files in which there was decisive and substantial evidence of compliance. None of us can quantify the scale of the problem. We recognise that the Securities and Investments Board is attempting to pick up the pieces.
I remind the Secretary of State—it is important to do so—that many of the problems can be fairly traced back to the irresponsibility of the Government. I am thinking of the uninhibited—that is a nice euphemism-advertising campaign that cost —1.2 million in 1986 and the 2 per cent. premium put on to the contracting-out payment. There was a general lack of any critical atmosphere or of any suggestion that some people might benefit from taking out a personal pension but that many would not. That is what created this difficulty for so many people.
I should make it clear that I do not want to undermine the private pensions sector. I recognise that there is a constituency for its product. However, it does not include people at the bottom end of the income scale, many of whom put the contracting-out payment and nothing more into a private pension. The tragedy is that many of them will find themselves, as anyone in the industry will confirm, with no significant cover. I am afraid that they are living under an illusion. They are left in limbo and they will be bitter and disillusioned at the end.
Although there was nothing in the Queen's Speech on private pensions, the Secretary of State owes it to the House to look toughly at what is happening and to try to build confidence, a sense of direction and perhaps social purpose back into the private pension sector. That sense of direction has been lacking because of Government policy in recent years, which led to an inflationary boom in buying when the circumstances did not justify it.
We have had a night of quoting the Secretary of State's speeches. I want to remind him that he spoke in Spain recently. In a snappy piece of copywriting from the Department, the headline of a press release was:
"Private pensions are the way forward, Peter Lilley tells the Spanish."
They must have been fascinated by, and grateful for, the right hon. Gentleman's message. It does not suggest to me that he has learnt all the lessons. I commend that to him for his attention.
I ask the Secretary of State to consider housing benefit for a moment. The matter was raised by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). He suggested regional rent capping as one way of cutting the housing benefit bill. The bill has undoubtedly risen a great deal, but to be fair to the Secretary of State, one of his departmental documents, "The Growth of Social Security", specifically recognised that the increase was linked to the Government's rent policy.

557
To clear the air and to help us in the debate, will the Secretary of State end for all time the rather unpleasant implication of the words of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, which seemed to suggest that the Government were contemplating hitting people held to be under-occupying properties simply because they have one or two bedrooms too many? In particular, the Chief Secretary instanced council house tenants. The Secretary of State will know that council house tenants who are "under-occupying", according to Government space standards, represent only 28 per cent.—not 50 per cent., as the Chief Secretary suggested—of public sector tenants on housing benefit. Of that 28 per cent., 79 per cent. are over retirement age.
If we go down this route, therefore, we shall target, typically, a widow left on her own, her family grown up, living on in the family home. The clear threat that has been implied in what the Chief Secretary said, both in radio interviews and subsequently in correspondence with me, is that these people will be left with a choice of moving out of the family home or paying a financial penalty in the form of reduced housing benefit help. That would be wholly unacceptable to the House and I hope that the Minister can end the argument today by making it clear that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is on a trip of his own and does not speak for the Government on this matter.
I welcome the pensions Bill. Of course it is right to move on to the Goode agenda. The House, however, will be familiar with the fact that it contains matters of contention. There is, for instance, the vision of the regulator as a long stop—to use the phrase that the Secretary of State once unfortunately chose. I agree strongly with the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who said that the regulator's fees ought to be met by the Government, not the industry. Unfortunately, he argued the case in terms of saving the industry money. I would argue it in terms of the need for the regulator to command public confidence in his independence. It is important that he is seen to be operating at arm's length from the industry, scrutinising, monitoring and using his powers. He will not be able to establish that position if he is seen as having the industry as his paymaster.
There are other matters of contention, too—the appointment of trustees, surpluses and contribution holidays, to name but three. I am upset by the fact that the Government have rejected important safeguards recommended by Goode. Then there is the future—or lack of it, if the Secretary of State has his way–of the guaranteed minimum pension.
Can the right hon. Gentleman deny or confirm that the pensions Bill will start its journey through Parliament in another place? If that is in the Government's mind, I should be very sorry. I speak for the whole Opposition when I say that.
I also welcome the disability Bill. It is not so much a tribute to Ministers—that has been suggested—as a tribute to the crass insensitivity with which the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was blocked, and to the Government's desperate need to head off another private Member's Bill tackling the same problem. Of course I will welcome such a Bill—if it is strong and comprehensive, and if it deals with education and
558
transport, two subjects that were neglected in the discussion document. I will also welcome it if it sets up not just an advisory body at the heart of the process—that could be swept aside—but a body worth its space. It must be a body that can innovate, which can use the courts in test cases to establish its position and to push out the frontiers. We shall be looking for that kind of strength and that sense of purpose before we turn a qualified welcome for the fact that there is a Bill at all into a warm welcome for its provisions.
I gather that the Minister of State is to be in charge. I read in one of the disability newspapers an interesting interview with him. It was run under the heading "A Just William". That was rather better copywriting than the Department managed in the previous quotation I used. In any case, a lady from the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People was quoted as saying that the Minister of State
"took his jacket off and I felt it was like talking to my younger brother".
I can only assume that the Minister has been on a charm offensive℄I enter the caveat that I do not know the worth of the tribute as I have never met the younger brother. All I would say is that the test will be what is in the Bill.
We give no welcome at all to the job seeker's allowance. It is an attack on the contributory principle. At a stroke, the rights and entitlements to benefit of people with a full contributions record will be reduced from 12 to six months. Some 90,000 people will be left after six months with no entitlement to benefit at all. Perhaps even worse, 190,000 people will be driven on to means-tested benefits. There can be no welcome for a Bill with those consequences, in the House or the country as a whole.
I do, however, recognise that there is bumping along behind it a raft of small measures designed to encourage people to re-enter the labour market, of which the back-to-work bonus is the most substantial. I am glad that the Government are now giving some attention to that aspect. We have been urging it on them for a very long time. I have always believed, and made it clear, that the social security system should not just be a grudging safety net but should be a way of building in opportunity and providing hope for those out of work.
We will judge those measures, and what the Budget adds to them, on their merits. I have no ambition to make a grandstand finish to my speech. I am very conscious of the fact that there should be quality, not quantity. That is fashionable at the moment. I hope that it is not sinister that the Secretary of State for Social Security is the leader of a pack, if not the pack. He has a Minister of State, three Under-Secretaries, a clutch of Parliamentary Private Secretaries—almost beyond count. I hope that, at the end of the day, what they do adds up to something rather better than what they have managed in the past.
I am, of course, a well-known optimist in these matters, but on the Government's record it is difficult to be optimistic. I hope, however, that my optimism will be justified tonight and that we will get an assurance on CSA reform, some comments on the way in which the compensation for VAT will be dealt with this year, some assurances on the control and regulation of the private pension sector, a slap on the wrist for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the removal of all worries on the private pension score. I await with interest what the Secretary of State has to say.
9.41 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): This has been a good debate. We heard a splendid opening speech from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, which entirely demolished the rather negative and unconstructive contribution from the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett).
There have been some excellent contributions from my hon. Friends, especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who raised some important points about the pensions Bill, and I will respond to him in detail.
I agree that we must balance the security of funds, which is very important, with the need to keep costs for employers to a minimum, as we do not want to discourage employers from continuing to organise pension schemes for their employees. But I would disagree with him, as I would with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), about the funding of the regulator. It is appropriate that the schemes themselves should fund it, because not all taxpayers have the benefit of occupational pension schemes, and therefore I do not see why they should meet that cost. [Interruption.] Everybody goes to school at some stage, but not everybody has an occupational pension scheme.
I welcome the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill). They raised concerns about the position of absent parents and of parents with care under the CSA and emphasised the need to balance those two positions.
The hon. Member for Garscadden, like the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), seems to want me to make some immediate changes to the CSA, without waiting to consider fully and sensibly the important report from the Select Committee, which I will do. I would simply remind him of the warning that was given to me in the report from the Commission on Social Justice, which warned against the Government
"rushing into …ill-considered changes in response to immediate public pressure"
on the CSA.
We will, of course, respond as soon as we reasonably can to the Select Committee. I think that it is appropriate to indicate then the sort of changes that we would wish to make.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) made some characteristically constructive comments about both housing benefit and disability issues, on which he speaks with great authority. Interesting contributions were also made by Opposition Members—especially the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who was characteristically generous in his remarks about my recent speech in Ulster, and made a constructive response to it.
I believe that the job seeker's allowance is an important aspect of our response to the problems that I identified in that speech, as are the changes that we have made in family credit. The point of my speech, however, was to highlight a supremely important issue—I thought it extraordinary that, in 400 pages, the Commission for Social Justice did not address it specifically—to which we should all devote attention if we are to deal with the major issue now faced by the western world.
560
The hon. Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry) made an important contribution on disability issues. I am grateful to him, and to the hon. Member for Garscadden, for welcoming the Government's proposal for a disability Bill; I shall say more about that in the main part of my speech. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) made a number of important points, which I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to consider.
The hon. Member for Garscadden raised the question of VAT on fuel, complaining that the £1 for single people and £1.40 for couples that will be included in this year's pensions to help people cope with VAT was inadequate. He thought that people would be surprised about that; I think that people will be rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman raised the point. Exactly a year ago, according to The People,
"Shadow Social Security Secretary Donald Dewar said: 'The Government has to add something on to take account of that and they could do it with an extra 50p on pensions.""
Now the hon. Gentleman is complaining when we give two or three times that amount.
Mr. Dewar: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Lilley: I want to make some progress.
Mr. Dewar: I shall take only 10 seconds of the Minister's time to remind him that we have engaged in correspondence and a number of exchanges on that subject. He knows that he is not putting a true construction on the quotation; I am surprised at him, and disappointed.
Mr. Lilley: I simply quoted what the hon. Gentleman said word for word, in its entirety.
I welcome the choice of social security for today's debate. Reform of social security is now rightly top of the national political agenda. That is not just because it is the largest component of public spending, constituting a third of total public expenditure; it is also because social security is one of the most sensitive issues facing us all. It concerns vulnerable people who are sick, disabled, elderly, unemployed or caring for children and families. It is also crucial to our economic success, determining our tax burden, our incentives and the flow of savings to industry.
The total cost of social security is now some £85 billion, which means that just to finance it, on average, every working person must pay £15 every working day. It is therefore vital that any Government, or any party seeking to represent itself as a credible alternative Government, should have a strategy for the reform of social security to ensure that the system is modern, that it is focused where it can do most good and that it does not outstrip the nation's ability to pay.
Conservative Members have a clear strategy for social security reform. I spelled it out in my Mais lecture, and the Gracious Speech takes it further forward. Each of the three Bills will deal with at least one of our key objectives.
Our first objective is to reinforce incentives to work. The job seeker's allowance Bill contains important new incentives which have been widely welcomed, and which I thought would be a litmus test of the Labour party's conversion to modernism. However, it has chosen not to endorse the Bill, which I think makes it backward-looking.
These incentives include increasing the ceiling of partners' hours from 16 to 24, which will help some 20,000 people. National insurance credits will be extended to those

561
working part-time, which will also help a substantial number of people. Most important of all, the back-to-work bonus will enable people who are working part-time on benefit to accumulate a credit of up to £1,000, which is cashable upon taking up full-time work. That measure will assist 165,000 people per year. Finally, the employment on trial rules will be relaxed to enable people to try out a new job and leave if it does not work out, without loss of benefit. This will assist 200,000 extra people.
Our second major objective, contained in the pensions Bill, is to encourage increased self-provision, especially for retirement. Three years ago this month, confidence in occupational schemes was dented by revelations following the death of that socialist millionaire, former Labour Member of Parliament and principal Labour spokesman in the press, Robert Maxwell.
I would not normally have mentioned his allegiance but, in the climate of modern-day McCarthyism— or perhaps it should be called "Prestonism" nowadays— which has been fostered recently in the press, we have been led to believe that corruption and fraud are associated exclusively with one party.
Prestonism assumes that it is more important to rake up a perfectly innocent seven-year-old hotel bill than devote any attention to a £500 million fraud perpetrated by a socialist. The Guardian would not devote any space to fraud by a socialist millionaire who extracted hundreds of millions of pounds from pension funds, because it prefers to devote its entire front page to stories about Tory Ministers extracting teeth on a Saturday. But it was an important issue.
Mr. Dewar rose—
Mr. Lilley: I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman; that is enough. He conspicuously ignored the problems of his former colleague.
Mr. Dewar rose—
Mr. Lilley: I will not give way.
In this Bill, we will implement the essence of the recommendations put forward by the Goode committee. We will create a strong regulator, which will be widely welcomed.
Pensions are a success story, despite what the hon. Member for Garscadden said. A total of £500 billion is invested in pension funds in this country. We want to build on our success and increase the £52 billion flow of new investment which those funds make available to British industry each year.
Thirdly, we wish to focus help on those who are in greatest need. That is the aim of the disability Bill. We already focus increased financial help on disabled people, and we spend five times as much on disabled people in real terms as was spent under Labour. We help six times as many people with the cost of care and eight times as many with mobility needs. But disabled people want opportunities even more than cash, and we support them in that endeavour.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Obviously, many hon. Members took part in the debates last Session and considered the Government's consultation document.
562
Given that the document did not refer to transport and education, have they changed their mind, and will those matters be included in the Bill?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will make a statement to the House shortly about the measures included in the disability Bill and legislative package. He has had a very constructive dialogue with disabled people and business men and women involved in this sphere. He will come forward with proposals that will be widely welcomed in the House. They will go further than our original proposals put out for discussion, and I therefore hope that they will meet the genuine needs and desires of disabled people. I recognise that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and many other hon. Members want to see those needs satisfied, as do we all.
Mr. Berry rose—
Mr. Lilley: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would allow me to continue.
We believe that it is possible to make progress, which will be widely supported and accepted, without imposing excessive burdens on industry. I hope that those measures will have the support that many hon. Members on both sides have said they may be willing to give.
The debate has revealed that the Labour party has no strategy for social security. Its motion calls for the abandonment of the job seeker's allowance and abandonment of the incapacity benefit, going straight back to invalidity benefit. That benefit has no objective medical test, which has allowed the number of people claiming it to double over a decade, during which health has improved.
It would impose an extra £1 billion or more of costs on the budget, and it would mean that the benefit was not well targeted. It would put general practitioners back into the invidious position of being split between loyalty to the taxpayer and loyalty to their patients. I cannot believe that a sensible, modern party would want to go back in that direction. I note that even the Commission on Social Justice does not recommend that the Labour party should do so.
The amendment is remarkable as much for what it omits as for what it includes. Financially, the most momentous decision in the Bills mentioned in the Gracious Speech, albeit the most long-term, is the equalisation of the state pension age. If we had chosen to equalise at the age of 60 instead of 65, it would have cost an extra £12 billion a year. Yet that was not even mentioned by the hon. Member for Garscadden.
That is all the more remarkable, because he gave it pride of place in his speech at the Labour Party conference, when he warned his party against joining the Government in the "Gadarene rush" to equalise retirement at 65. Who are the mad swine who are joining in the Gadarene rush? My right hon. and hon. Friends will recall that those who performed the Gadarene rush were swine possessed of a devil that had been cast out by our Lord.
We are being joined in the Gadarene rush by none other than the Commission on Social Justice. It does not think that it is a mad idea. It says:
"it is quite reasonable to start phasing in a common pension age of sixty-five in the next century".
Sir Gordon Borrie, who might think it a touch uncomradely to be likened to a mad pig possessed of a devil rushing headlong into a lake, wrote:

563
"as people live longer and as health improves … reducing the working lifetime and increasing the retirement period does not make sense".
What makes it all the more remarkable is that the hon. Member for Garscadden had in his hand a copy of the report when he made his speech to the Labour party conference. On the cover it says:
"Essential reading for everyone who wants a new way forward for our country".
It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman did not read as far as page 284. I got there, but only by dint of starting at page 283.
Does the Commission on Social Justice fill the huge vacuum that up to now has constituted Labour's social security policy? Alas, no. There is a welcome change in rhetoric, but no change in substance. Recently The Independent published a costing of what it considered to be the key proposals in the report of the Commission on Social Justice, and those which could be readily costed. It found that it came to £7 billion. However, it had a reassuring headline which said:
"'Social Justice' plans almost pay for themselves".
Alas, it turned out that the so-called £7 billion of savings all involved increases in the income tax burden on ordinary people.
After today's debate, the House will reject the Opposition's amendment. It will realise that only the Conservative party has a coherent programme for social security reform, that that is essential for any modern Government and that the Labour party has fallen at the first hurdle in its attempts to prove itself a modern Government. I urge the House to reject the amendment tabled by the Opposition.
Mr. Derek Conway rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 309.

Division No. 1]

[22.00 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Betts, Clive

Adams, Mrs Irene

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Ainger, Nick

Blunkett, David

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Boateng, Paul

Allen, Graham

Bradley, Keith

Alton, David

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Brown, Nicholas (N'c'tle u Tyne E)

Armstrong, Hilary

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Burden, Richard

Ashton, Joe

Byers, Stephen

Austin-Walker, John

Caborn, Richard

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Callaghan, Jim

Barron, Kevin

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Battle, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Bayley, Hugh

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Canavan, Dennis

Bell, Stuart

Cann, Jamie

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Bennett, Andrew F.

Chidgey, David

Benton, Joe

Chisholm, Malcolm

Bermingham, Gerald

Church, Judith

Berry, Roger

Clapham, Michael

564

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hutton, John

Clarke, Tom (Monlands W)

Illsley Eric

Clelland, David

Ingrain, Adam

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Cohen, Harry

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Connarty, Michael

Jamieson, David

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Janner, Greville

Cook. Robin (Livingston)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Corbett, Robin

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

Corston, Jean

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Cousins, Jim

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Cox, Tom

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Cummings, John

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jowell, Tessa

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Keen, Alan

Dafis, Cynog

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Dalyell, Tam

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Darling, Alistair

Khabra, Piara S.

Davidson, Ian

Kilfoyle, Peter

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Kirkwood, Archy

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

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Denham, John

Lewis, Terry

Dewar, Donald

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Dixon, Don

Litherland, Robert

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Livingstone, Ken

Eagle, Ms Angela

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Eastham, Ken

Llwyd, Elfyn

Etherington, Bill

Loyden, Eddie

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Fatchett, Derek

Macdonaid, Calum

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Fisher, Mark

MacShane, Denis

Foster, Don (Bath)

Madden, Max

Foulkes, George

Maddock, Diana

Fraser, John

Mahon, Alice

Fyfe, Maria

Mandelson, Peter

Galbraith, Sam

Marek, Dr John

Gapes, Mike

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Garrett, John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

George, Bruce

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Gerrard, Neil

Martlew, Eric

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Maxton, John

Godman, Dr Norman A.

McAllion, John

Godsiff, Roger

McAvoy, Thomas

Golding, Mrs Llin

McFall, John

Gordon, Mildred

McKelvey, William

Graham, Thomas

McLeish, Henry

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

McMaster, Gordon

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McNamara, Kevin

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McWilliam, John

Grocott, Bruce

Meacher, Michael

Gunnell, John

Meale, Alan

Hain, Peter

Meale, Alun

Hall, Mike

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Hanson, David

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll and Bute)

Hardy, Peter

Milburn, Alan

Harman, Ms Harriet

Miller, Andrew

Harvey, Nick

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Henderson, Doug

Morgan, Rhodri

Heppell, John

Morley, Elliot

Hinchliffe, David

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hodge, Margaret

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Hoey, Kate

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Home Robertson, John

Mudie, George

Hoon, Geoffrey

Mullin, Chris

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Hoyle, Doug

O'Neill, Martin

Hughes, Robert (A'deen N)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Olner, Bill

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

565

Patchett Terry

Soley, Clive

Pendry, Tom

Speller, John

Pickthall, Colin

Squire. Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Pope, Greg

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Steinberg, Gerry

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Stevenson, George

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Stott, Roger

Prescott Rt Hon John

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Primarolo, Dawn

Straw, Jack

Purchase, Ken

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Quin, Ms Joyce

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Radice, Giles

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Randall, Stuart

Timms, Stephen

Raynsford, Nick

Tipping, Paddy

Redmond, Martin

Turner, Dennis

Reid, Dr John

Tyler, Paul

Rendel, David

Vaz, Keith

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Water, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Wallace, James

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Walley, Joan

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Rogers, Allan

Wareing, Robert N

Rooney, Terry

Watson, Mike

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Welsh, Andrew

Rowlands, Ted

Wicks, Malcolm

Ruddock, Joan

Wigley, Dafydd

Salmond, Alex

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Sedgemore, Brian

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Sheerman, Barry

Wilson, Brian

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Winnick, David

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Wise, Audrey

Short, Clare

Worthington, Tony

Simpson, Alan

Wray, Jimmy

Skinner. Dennis

Wright, Dr Tony

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

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

Tellers for the Ayes:

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mr. Jim Dowd and

Snape, Peter

Mr. Eric Clarke

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Burns, Simon

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Burt, Alistair

Alexander, Richard

Butcher, John

Amess, David

Butler, Peter

Ancram, Michael

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Arbuthnot, James

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Carrington, Matthew

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Carttiss, Michael

Aspinwall, Jack

Cash, William

Atkins, Robert

Chapman, Sydney

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Churchill, Mr

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Clappison, James

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Baldry, Tony

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Batiste, Spencer

Coe, Sebastian

Beggs, Roy

Colvin, Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Congdon, David

Bendall, Vivian

Conway, Derek

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Body, Sir Richard

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Booth, Hartley

Cormack, Patrick

Boswell, Tim

Couchman, James

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

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

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Curry, David (Skipton and Ripon)

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Bowis, Jonn

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Day, Stephen

Brandreth, Gyles

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Brazier, Julian

Devlin, Tim

Bright, Sir Graham

Dicks, Terry

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Dover, Den

Budgen, Nicholas

Duncan Smith, Iain

566

Duncan, Alan

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dunn, Bob

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Durant, Sir Anthony

Key, Robert

Eggar, Tim

Kilfedder, Sir James

Elletson, Harold

King, Rt Hon Tom

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Knapman, Roger

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

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

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Knox, Sir David

Evennett, David

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Faber, David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Fabricant, Michael

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Fishburn, Dudley

Legg, Barry

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Leigh, Edward

Forth, Eric

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Lidlington, David

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Lightbown, David

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

French, Douglas

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Fry, Sir Peter

Lord, Michael

Gale, Roger

Lyell, R Hen Sr Nicholas

Gallie, Phil

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Gardner, Sir George

MacKay, Andrew

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Maginnis, Ken

Garnier, Edward

Maitland, Lady Olga

Gill, Christopher

Major, Rt Hon John

Gillan, Cheryl

Malone, Gerald

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Mans, Keith

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Marland, Paul

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Marlow, Tony

Gorst, Sir John

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Grant, Sir A. (SW Cambs)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Mates, Michael

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Grylls, Sir Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Hague, William

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Merchant, Piers

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archi

Mills, Iain

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Hannam, Sir John

Moate, Sir Roger

Hargreaves, Andrew

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Hawkins, Nick

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hawksley, Warren

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Hayes, Jerry

Nelson, Anthony

Heald, Oliver

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hendry, Charles

Norris, Steve

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Ottaway, Richard

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Page, Richard

Horam, John

Paice, James

Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Patten, Rt Hon John

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

Pattie, Rt Hon Sr Geoffrey

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Pawsey, James

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow, W)

Pickles, Eric

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hunter, Andrew

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Powel, 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

567

Robathan, Andrew

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Temple-Morris, Peter

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Thomason, Roy

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Thompeon, Patrick (Norwich N)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kant)

Thurnham, Peter

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

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

Sackville, Tom

Tracey, Richard

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Tredinnick, David

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Trend, Michael

Shaw, David (Dover)

Trotter, Michael

Shaw, Sir David (Pudsey)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shepherd, Rt Hon Gillian

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Viggers, Peter

Shepherd Richard (Aldridge)

Walden, George

Shersby, Michael

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Sims, Roger

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Waller, Gary

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Ward, John

Soames, Nicholas

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Speed, Sir Keith

Waterson, Nigel

Spencer, Sir Derek

Watts, John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wells, Bowen

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Spink, Dr Robert

Whitney, Ray

Spring, Richard

Whittingdale, John

Sproat, Iain

Widdecombe, Ann

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wilkinson, John

Steen, Anthony

Willetts, David

Stephen, Michael

Wilshire, David

Stem, Michael

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Stewart, Allan

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

Streeter, Gary

Wolfson, Mark

Sumberg, David

Wood, Timothy

Sweeney, Walter

Yeo, Tim

Sykes, John

Young, Rt Hon Sir George (Acton)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Tellers for the Noes:

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Mr. Michael Bates

Question accordingly negatived.
It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 24th November, the Speaker shall—

(i) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Deregulation (Procedure) not later than two hours after their commencement, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments to the said Motion which she may have selected and which may then be moved;

(ii) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to two and three-wheeled vehicles not later than one and a half hours after their commencement; and

(iii) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1994 not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon;

and the aforesaid Motions may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Wells.]

PETITIONS

  Child Sex Offenders
  10.15 pm
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am pleased to present tonight this petition, organised by the Action for Children campaign, which has been signed by 1,253 attenders at the 21st Greenbelt festival on 29 August. In the petition, they call for tough new legislation against those involved in the heinous crime of the exploitation of children for the sexual gratification of adults. I fully endorse the views expressed in the petition, which concludes:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House do introduce legislation to ensure that citizens of the United Kingdom who commit serious sexual offences against children abroad can be prosecuted in this country.
  To lie upon the Table.

  VAT on Fuel
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Bill Michie: In addition to the more than a quarter of a million signatures that were presented to Downing street on Monday this week by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South {Ms Primarolo), a further 2,000 signatures are attached to this petition to the House of Commons. It reads:
  The Petition of the Citizens of the United Kingdom
  Declares that the Government decision to increase VAT on domestic fuel from 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent. in 1995 will place a heavy financial burden on pensioners and others on low incomes which they will find hard to meet.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons votes down this terrible proposed increase when it is raised in the House.
  To lie upon the Table.
  10.17 pm
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Further to the petition moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), I have here a petition from 2,000 constituents in Sheffield, Hillsborough. They declare that the Government's decision to increase VAT on domestic fuel and power from 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent. breaks election promises and is unfair, hitting those who can least afford it. The petition reads:
  The Petitioners therefore request that this House of Commons passes legislation to stop the further VAT increase on domestic fuel and power.
  To lie upon the Table.
  10.18 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I have pleasure in following the petitions presented by my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) against the increase in VAT. This petition has 1,000 signatures from my constituency of Glasgow, Springburn. It reads:
  To the House of Commons
  The Petition of the Citizens of Glasgow, Springburn
  Declares that the Government decision to increase VAT on domestic fuel and power from 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent. in 1995

  569
  breaks election promises and is unfair, hitting those who can least afford it. The petition continues:
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons passes legislation to stop the further VAT increase on domestic fuel and power.
  To lie upon the Table.

Barnsley Football Club
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Wells.]
10.19 pm
Mr. Eric Illsley: I would like to declare an interest in the matter that I intend to raise. I own a share in Barnsley football club, although I derive no benefit from that club whatever. On 24 June, the football club was refused a temporary exemption from the licensing requirements of the Taylor report. That report required that Premier League and Endsleigh League first division clubs were to have all-seater accommodation in place by 1 August 1994, or to have closed down that accommodation which was not seated. I hope to persuade the Minister this evening to change that decision in view of the changed circumstances at the club since that decision was taken earlier in the year.
I should say at the outset that Barnsley football club is committed entirely to the Taylor requirements. Its request, which I am echoing tonight, is for a temporary exemption only from those licensing requirements, until the end of the season. Both the club and I accept that the move to all-seater stadiums should continue.
Since the start of the season, the club has required home spectators to use the brand new 7,000-seat east stand. Those seats were planned and built into the ground this year. That large number of seats was planned to maximise the number of seats for the expenditure which the club had to outlay. It needed a large number of seats as quickly as possible and it wanted those seats to be a permanent structure—a permanent stand and a quality building. That is what the club has achieved with the east stand, which is a quite remarkable building. The remaining 2,000 or so seats on the opposite side of the ground have now been reserved for visiting spectators.
Many fans chose not to use the east stand. Some were reluctant to move from their former seats and some fans, in opposition to the requirements of the Taylor report, chose not to be seated at all at football matches, which has resulted in decreased attendances at home games. The club desperately needs to attract those spectators back to the ground to maintain its financial viability. In June, I and representatives of the club predicted that attendances would fall and it appears that that is exactly what has happened.
Those falling attendances have been quite dramatic. The home gate this season has fallen to below 4,000, compared with last seasons's average of around 7,000. At the same time, the team is performing very well and is placed ninth in the Endsleigh league first division. Therefore, the reduction in attendances can only be related to the problems of accommodation at the ground and not to the performance of the team. The current attendance levels, at below 4,000 for a home match, means that the club will face financial problems unless that figure can be improved and improved very quickly.
I am sure that neither the Minister nor the Football Licensing Authority want to see the club's future jeopardised for the sake of a temporary exemption to last, perhaps, until the end of this season. The club is confident that it will have seating installed at the south side of the ground—known locally as the Pontefract road end—by the end of the season. That will provide cheaper seating than the east stand at the favourite end of the ground. I

571
stress that because many fans, who stood previously at home matches, like to stand at that end. Now that that end of the ground cannot be used, many fans have chosen to stay away.
Until the new south stand is built, the club would like to use the existing terracing, which is in front of the old stand. Even then, the numbers standing would be limited. That is because the club will be undertaking work on the construction of new seating at the south end of the ground. That for which I and the club are asking is limited in any event.
The Government's arguments were advanced in June and encapsulated in a letter sent by the then Secretary of State to the club. The arguments were based on the criteria laid down by the Football Licensing Authority. The criteria provided that any exemption from the requirement of licensing had to be the result of wholly exceptional circumstances or unforeseen delay, and not through any inaction on the part of the club.
A wholly exceptional circumstance for Barnsley football club is a covenant on the playing surface at the ground. The family which gave the club the ground—it originally owned the brewery that adjoined the ground—placed a covenant on the land when it was given to the club. The covenant provided that the land could be used only as a football pitch. That meant that if the club wanted to dispose of the ground it had to face the covenant on the pitch. That meant, in turn, that the club could not relocate to another ground without substantial problems in disposing of the playing area. Relocation was not really an option for the club. I suggest that that is an exceptional circumstance.
The club's other problems are to a great extent exceptional and unique to it. They began about 10 years ago with the miners' strike, which ended in 1985. Since the end of the strike there has been a rundown in the coal mining industry in Barnsley, with the result that the economy has been depressed for some years. The club's gates prior to the strike when compared with even those of last season reveal a substantial difference. They were about 17,000 before the strike, when the club was in a lower division, whereas they were about 7,000 last season. They are now below 4,000.
The ground has limited road access. There are difficulties in accommodating visiting spectators. Those spectators could not really be accommodated in the new east stand, which has 7,000 seats. I know that the Government were critical of the club for concentrating on that stand, but if away supporters were not to use it they would have to mingle with home supporters in the stand leaving the stand as well as passing through the car-parking area. There is no other egress from the stand that could separate home and visiting spectators.
I remind the Minister of the Barnsley against Stoke City Football Association cup replay match some years ago, when 2,000 Stoke City fans arrived at the ground very late, escorted by South Yorkshire police. The officers ordered the club to open the gates to the ground and the Stoke City fans were admitted without payment and in a hurry. The same force was involved at Hillsborough. Indeed, the match to which I have referred took place six weeks before the Hillsborough tragedy. That relates to a policy that was being pursued at the time. We are conscious of the problems that are involved in accommodating away spectators.
572
The development of the south side stand was delayed. That was referred to in the then Secretary of State's letter. There was a hint that the club could have speeded up that development. I was involved in persuading the brewery company to sell land to enable the club to build the 7,000-seater east stand. Not all the land that was sold to the club was required and so the club, after building the stand, had to sell the residue of the land.
Money was tied up in that residue until such time as a buyer was found for it. The residue was subject to planning restrictions which were completely outside the club's control. As a result, the club could not proceed to enable it to meet the deadline because of the tie-up of money from the land that the club had to sell and because of planning permission difficulties.
I want to quote from two letters that I have with me. The first is from my letter to Courage in July 1991. In it, I wrote:
"The purpose of my letter is therefore, to ask whether the Brewery would be willing to negotiate the sale of the land in question to the Football Club in order that steps can be taken towards the building of a new stand. As you are probably aware, the recent report by Lord Justice Taylor specifies that clubs within the first and second divisions of the Football League"—
as they were then—
"must have a certain proportion of seated accommodation within their grounds. Barnsley, sadly, is well below the proportion stipulated by Lord Justice Taylor and, therefore, the question of new facilities is a pressing one."
I wrote that in letter to the brewery in July 1991 to try to encourage it to sell the land which the club needed to allow development to take place. The reply from Courage in August 1991 stated:
"Following the merger with Grand Metropolitan Brewing we are currently engaged in a major restructuring exercise and we are not in a position to release any part of the brewery for the foreseeable future. I am sorry that we cannot offer a more optimistic response to the Football Club."
It is clear from that that, at the end of 1991, the club could not acquire the land to build the east-side stand let alone build the south-side stand. That caused the club several problems in relation to tying up money that the club needed to build the south-side stand.
I am pleased to say that the planning matters have now been resolved. The club met the Football Trust last week and it has met the various financial institutions to ensure that funding for the new south-side project is now available. That funding is no small amount of money. It is a £2 million development. It is not just a question of installing seats into original terracing; the structure of the stand must be made safe. The project is rather expensive.
I suggest that the delay in respect of the south-side stand was unforseen and not due to inaction on the club's part. As the Minister can see from the correspondence that I have quoted, the brewery was unwilling to relinquish the land until well into 1992. The club has been doing all it can with limited resources.
Once the south-side seating is completed, the club will be able to maintain cheaper seating accommodation at the favourite end of the ground for the home fans. Hopefully, that will resolve many of the problems, but that is obviously a season away.
The Secretary of State said that the all-seater policy was flagged up as long ago as 1990 and that the club should have acted sooner. However, Barnsley simply did not have the money to implement more than the one-seater stand scheme. It could not implement the

573
south-side scheme and the east-side scheme together. The east-side stand, the large 7,000 seater stand, took precedence to obtain the maximum possible number of seats in one development. No one foresaw the fact that the gates would fall as dramatically as they did.
Contrary to what the Secretary of State maintained in his letter, the club has not been too ambitious. It wanted to build a quality development and it wanted the fans to have a proper well-built stand. The facilities that are being removed comprise old wooden stands similar to the stand that so tragically caught fire at Bradford City football club. The club wants to avoid temporary botched accommodation. It wants to build quality accommodation for the Barnsley fans.
In his letter, the Secretary of State also maintained that the club could adequately accommodate away fans and home fans together and avoid possible disorder if the club employed very careful planning. As I have pointed out, the limited access to the ground from several sides made that difficult, although I am pleased to say that the Government have given the go-ahead, under the city challenge scheme, for a new road to be built as part of that scheme. That road will relieve some of the problems facing people leaving the football ground. That road is somewhere in the future, but we look forward to it being built.
Although this point has been made before, it is worth repeating that Barnsley must be an all-seater stadium. No one complains about that. Its current gate is fewer than 4,000. The neighbouring Rotherham team, which is in a division below Barnsley, does not have to have all-seater accommodation, but its average attendance is about 6,000. Preston is also in a lower division, but it is not required to have an all-seater stadium. It recently hosted a match with an attendance of about 14,000.
I have already said that the club is doing all it can to provide all-seater accommodation. The finance, the planning and the developer are all in place and work is due to commence as soon as the final matters are tied up. I think that it is worth comparing its position with that of other clubs that were granted exemptions—Sunderland, Grimsby, Derby, Portsmouth, Middlesbrough and Newcastle.
I understand that, although those clubs were granted exemptions on the ground that they were relocating to new stadiums, some of them have not yet begun the necessary work on building them. Indeed, in some cases the decision to relocate has been changed to refurbishing the existing ground. It is worth noting that Barnsley has tried its level best to accommodate the Taylor report and to get the money to build the seated accommodation, while some of the clubs that had exemptions seem to be, for whatever reason—and I know that some of them have problems—dragging their feet.
The club made the point earlier this year that gates would fall, which might jeopardise its revenue. That has happened and the fall in gates has been quite dramatic, despite the fact that the team are doing well. Fans have not been able to use their favourite area of the ground. In fact, I had to give up the seat that I have had for a number of years to move into the new stand. All that was predicted earlier this year has happened and the club is facing financial difficulties, despite the team doing well.
574
I urge the Minister to look again at the matter and find a way to grant a temporary exemption, perhaps until the end of the season, to ensure the financial viability of the club.
10.36 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on securing this debate and on his admirable persistence in trying to seek an exemption for Barnsley football club from the all-seating requirement imposed on premier and first division football grounds. The debate closes at 10.49 pm, so I may run out of time. However, I shall come to his last sentence, even if it is in mid-sentence, before I sit down.
I am aware that this is a very strongly felt issue with many football supporters throughout the country and that has been proven by the hon. Gentleman's speech today. I know that many football fans prefer to stand on the terraces rather than sit down. That point has been made forcefully by several hon. Members in the past. Converting stadiums to all-seating can also be very costly and can create problems for some smaller clubs.
In recognition of that, and having listened carefully to all the representations received, the Government reviewed the all-seating policy and, in July 1992, announced that only premier and first division clubs would need to convert their stadiums. Clubs in the second and third divisions of the football league are being allowed to retain their terracing, provided that it is deemed safe by the local authority and the Football Licensing Authority. I hope that that shows that the Government have not acted in an inflexible way, but have responded, to a considerable extent, to the legitimate concerns and wishes of the supporters and the clubs.
Before I deal with Barnsley's particular circumstances it may be useful to remind the House why the all-seating policy was introduced and what its benefits have been. All hon. Members are, of course, aware of the Hillsborough tragedy and the consequent report produced by Lord Justice Taylor, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We should also remember earlier disasters, such as those at Ibrox in 1971 and Bradford in 1985. Decisive action was needed to ensure a sea change, not only in the safety and quality of the grounds, but in the attitudes of the clubs to make them put crowd safety at the top of their list of priorities.
It is all too easy for some supporters to think, "It could never happen at our club." They should remember that Hillsborough was selected by the Football Association because it was one of the best grounds in the country and had hosted safely an identical fixture the previous year. As Lord Justice Taylor commented:
"I have little doubt that if the disaster scenario had been described to the management at Hillsborough prior to 15 April, they too would have said, 'Of course, it couldn't happen here.'"
We should also remember that other blight in the game of football, particularly in the 1970s and early 1980s—that of thuggery and hooliganism. The combination of poor crowd behaviour and dangerous facilities could not

575
be tolerated any longer and action had to be taken to ensure the very survival of the game. I quote again Lord Justice Taylor's report. He said:
"There is no panacea which will achieve total safety, and cure all problems of behaviour and crowd control. But I am satisfied that seating does more to achieve those objectives than any other single measure".
That verdict has been generally accepted both in the game and in the House.
The policy of moving towards all-seated stadiums must, of course, be implemented sensibly and pragmatically. As I noted earlier, many football fans like to stand and if that can be safely allowed, it is right for the Government, who believe in freedom of choice, to allow them to do so. The review conducted in 1992, in which all the relevant football organisations and the police were consulted, concluded that the grounds in the premier league and the first division presented the greatest risks in terms of crowd control and safety due to the larger crowds attending and the more highly charged atmosphere at the games.
Clearly, wherever a line is drawn, anomalies will arise. However, in seeking to ensure the reasonable safety of spectators, a majority of those consulted agreed that working on a divisional basis was the best approach.
Mr. Terry Patchett: Is the Minister aware of the valiant effort and the financial resources that Barnsley football club have put into complying with the Taylor report? Even given the dramatic unemployment situation in our area, Barnsley football club has received a great deal of support and has made a staunch effort to comply with the Taylor report. So far, I have heard the Minister blandly comment on seating and so on but I have not heard him refer to Barnsley football club.
Mr. Sproat: I am aware of the efforts that Barnsley has made. I shall turn to them in a moment. I wanted to put the matter in the context of the debate on all-seater stadiums.
In the opinion of most people, the all-seating policy has been a success. The measure of that success can best be seen in UEFA's decision that England should host the European championship finals in 1996. That decision was a vindication of all the work that the clubs have put into upgrading their stadiums to provide the facilities and comfort which spectators are entitled to expect as we enter the 21st century. The changes have not been easy or cheap, and have been made possible only as a result of the financial assistance provided by the Football Trust, which is, of course largely funded by a reduction in the pool betting duty.
The Football Trust has so far approved awards of more than £120 million towards Taylor-related work and, as hon. Members will know, the Government have agreed to extend the concession until the end of this century. I should also pay tribute to the advice and assistance provided by the Football Licensing Authority and the Football Stadia Development Committee and its predecessor the Football Stadia Advisory Design Council.
I turn now specifically to Barnsley's Oakwell ground. I should first congratulate the hon. Gentleman on Barnsley's 1–0 victory at Millwall on Saturday. I am sorry that you and I cannot share similar pleasure at the Australian game, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I said earlier that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central had been admirably persistent in arguing the case for standing to continue at Barnsley. He wrote to my right
576
hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), the then Secretary of State for National Heritage, in June this year. Those representations were carefully considered, as were those from the local authority, and of course the club itself. Indeed, the Secretary of State even held a meeting with members of the club to hear their case for an extension to the 1 August deadline.
It is worth pointing out that Barnsley has not questioned the all-seater policy, but has merely asked for an extension of time in which to introduce it. To quote from the original submission from the club:
"It must be stressed quite clearly by the Club that we fully support the move to all-seater stadia—it is our belief that, a generation from now, people will look back to this century and be astonished that spectators actually were even prepared to stand at football matches—let alone wanted to—and we are very proud of our new East stand—the first step on the mammoth task of converting the Oakwell Ground to being an all-seater stadium".
Those are the fair words of the club.
Nevertheless, Barnsley applied for an extension to the 1 August deadline and it was rejected. I will explain why the Secretary of State did not accept Barnsley's request for a temporary dispensation from the all-seater policy. First, it must be borne in mind that for a policy to have any meaning exceptions can be made only in truly exceptional circumstances. Barnsley did face some genuine problems, which the hon. Gentleman highlighted and which I acknowledge, but the question that Ministers had to answer was whether those problems were sufficient to be considered truly exceptional. When this was looked at in June this year, the answer was no.
I accept that Barnsley started from a very small number of seats, that its extraordinary constitution presents complications and that the planning process in relation to the development land that it sought can be very lengthy. However, had the club begun the planning process as soon as the Government's policy was announced, instead of three years later, many of those difficulties could have been overcome.
I also find it difficult to accept that the all-seater policy has restricted the admission of supporters. I note that the average attendance is 5,000, though the hon. Member maintains that it is lower now. That figure is in any case greatly inflated by the 11,000 attendance for the Coca-Cola Cup match against Newcastle. Since the ground has a seating capacity of more than 11,500, it seems that Barnsley's fears that it would have to turn supporters away, thus losing money and creating crowd control problems, have not materialised.
I appreciate that Barnsley has had to re-allocate home and away supporters around the ground, and that away supporters are generally sitting next to the directors' box—which can hardly be considered a great hardship. The Football Licensing Authority pointed out at the time the new east stand was being built that it should be designed with sufficient flexibility to allow it to accommodate both home and away supporters. Had that been done, some of Barnsley's current problems would have been avoided. However, the club chose at the time not to accept the FLA's suggestions.
I am also aware that 2,000 of the seats are of a temporary, uncovered design. But that, too, does not make the club's circumstances exceptional. Chelsea football club, which was also denied an extension to the 1 August deadline, has installed temporary, uncovered seating

577
which is regularly used. Barnsley's gate may have been affected by the seating. If some supporters are deterred from attending, that is a regrettable but unavoidable consequence of a policy with which Barnsley is in full agreement.
I entirely accept, and indeed mentioned earlier, that financing ground improvements can be very difficult, and in recognition of Barnsley's circumstances the Football Trust gave it a grant of £1 million towards its east stand. I understand that Barnsley is now applying for a grant for a new south stand, seating a further 4,500, and including a social club and community facilities. I am sure that, once the Football Trust and the Football Licensing Authority have been able to satisfy themselves that the design is suitable—I gather from the hon. Gentleman that they have now done so—the trust will give this application the proper consideration. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the trust is independent of the Government, and I cannot say what the outcome of the application will be.
Given all those facts, I cannot agree that Barnsley's circumstances are so exceptional that it should receive a dispensation from the all-seater policy, which was introduced with the safety and comfort of spectators in
578
mind. Many small clubs with limited resources have accepted the policy and made great efforts to introduce it. Many clubs have had to close parts of their ground during the season, losing revenue and atmosphere, and creating crowd control problems. Other clubs have also had to introduce temporary arrangements while redevelopment is under way. And other clubs have also had to face legal and planning difficulties. For the Government now to make special allowances for Barnsley might be considered unjustified, and unfair to all the other clubs.
I appreciate that what I have said will not have pleased the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central, but I hope that he will accept that I have looked into this case carefully; while I sympathise with any genuine difficulties that Barnsley may face, I am not convinced that I could, in all good faith, come to any other decision.
I shall be happy to see the hon. Gentleman if he wants to come and have a word with me. I will have a look at the problem again. I do not know what powers to change the situation I have, following the original decision, but in view of the hon. Gentleman's persuasive speech today I will certainly agree to a further meeting to talk the matter over.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  West Midlands Police
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the chief constables of West Midlands police and West Mercia police regarding the implications of the Frankley area coming under the jurisdiction of West Midlands police rather than West Mercia; and what plans he has to increase West Midlands police resources to cover the Frankley area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Boundary changes in the west midlands have been the subject of correspondence between officials at the Home Office and West Midlands police. The police funding formula for 1995–96 will assess the need for policing partly on the basis of resident population. The formula will also take account of the Frankley boundary changes. The funding level for West Midlands police in 1995–96 will be issued shortly after the Budget statement.

  Timberwolf Crossbreed Dogs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to include timberwolf crossbreed dogs in its provisions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  None. Wolves and wolf hybrids are already listed on the schedule to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976.

  Open Government
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the charging policy of his Department and the agencies for which he is responsible in respect of inquiries under the code of practice on access to government.

  Mr. Howard
  In line with guidance on charging under the code of practice on access to government information produced by the Office of Public Service and Science, which recognises the diversity of cost and operational structure across the range of bodies implementing the code, the Home Office has developed the following arrangements for charging for information under the code of practice.

  A charge is not normally made for the work involved in meeting straightforward requests from most inquirers for information, providing it takes less than an hour. A charge is made for dealing with more complex requests which take more than one hour. This is calculated at an hourly rate of £20, reflecting average staff costs.
  64
  In addition, a charge may be made for photocopying, supplying a video or tape, for disk or computer runs and for postage. There are no standard charges for these but a charge would not normally be made for costs amounting to less than £10.

  No charge is normally made for answering inquiries from journalists. However, journalists may be charged if the cost of providing information to them exceeds the current limit for a parliamentary question.

  As regards charging by the Department's agencies, the Prison Service and the United Kingdom Passport Agency have adopted a similar approach to the Home Office. The Forensic Science Service and the Fire Service college charge on a full-cost recovery basis.

  The arrangements in the Home Office for charging for information are set out in "Departmental Procedures on Open Government". A copy of these has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make full use of new technology to enhance enforcement of speed limits.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The enforcement of speed limits is an operational matter for chief officers of police.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the response to the current bidding round under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  There has already been an enthusiastic response to the current section 11 bidding round, and the available funds look set to be significantly oversubscribed. I have therefore decided, in view of the importance of the work funded under this scheme, to double the funding available in the first two years covered by the current bidding round, bringing to £30 million the central funding available in respect of each of 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  The additional funding will be provided jointly by the Home Office, the Department of the Environment and the Department for Education and has been made possible by adjustments to spending priorities.

  The deadline for applications and revised applications will be extended until 30 December and local authorities and others who are eligible to apply are being informed.

  New Prisons
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many companies and consortia have submitted tenders to construct and manage the new prisons planned at(a) Fazakerley and (b) Bridgend; and if he will identify the companies and consortia and indicate when the contracts are likely to be awarded.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 21 November 1994]: 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.
  65
  Letter from Derek Lewes to Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 22 November 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the companies and consortia which have tendered for the contracts for new prisons at Fazakerley and Bridgend.
  Five companies submitted tenders to design, construct, manage and finance new prisons at both Fazakerley and Bridgend. They are Group 4 Tarmac Ltd, United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd, Premier Prison Service Ltd, Securicor Seifert Atkins Consortium and Secure Care Services Ltd. I expect contracts to be awarded by the end of March 1995.

  Remand Prisoners, Hull
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young people are at present on remand at Hull prison; what are their ages; and what is the nature of the alleged offences for which they are being prosecuted.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 21 November 1994]: 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 Lewes to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 22 November 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of young people on remand at Hull prison.
  On 17 November this year nine young prisoners were being held in the separate young offenders' wing at Hull, of whom five were on remand and three were convicted and awaiting sentence. Eight of these prisoners were aged 16 years and one was aged 15 years. The offences with which they were charged are burglary, robbery, criminal damage and taking and driving away a motor vehicle.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Research
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent assessment he has made of the distribution of public investment in research between civil and military projects.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The "Forward Look of Government funded Science, Engineering and Technology", published in April 1994, and available in the House of Commons Library, sets out for scrutiny the current balance of public expenditure on civil and defence research, and changes in this balance during the period 1986–87 to 1996–97.

ENVIRONMENT

  Playing Fields and Open Space
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what circulars or directives he has issued to local authorities concerning the retention of playing fields and public open spaces in urban areas.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  National planning policy for open spaces and playing fields in urban areas is set out in planning policy guidance note 17, PPG 17, "Sport and Recreation", published in September 1993, and in planning policy guidance note 3, PPG 3 "Housing", published in March 1992.

  Negative Equity
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of households with negative equity in each of the last two years.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Estimates of the number of households affected by negative equity are calculated on a quarterly basis. Based on Department of the Environment house price data, around 644,000 households were affected by negative equity in the third quarter of 1994, compared with around 801,000 in the same quarter last year.

  Open Government
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the charging policy of his Department and the agencies for which he is responsible in respect of inquiries under the code of practice on access to government.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  In line with guidance on charging produced by the Office of Public Service and Science, which recognises the diversity of cost and operational structure across the range of bodies implementing the code, my Department has developed its own scheme of charges for information under the code of practice on access to government information. Generally, no charge will be made for processing a request for information unless it would cost more than £50 to fulfil in terms of additional work. Where a charge is liable, it will cover the whole cost of the work done, including the first £50. My Department made available last July an explanatory leaflet on its charging arrangements. A copy was placed in the Library of the House. A revised leaflet confirming that the arrangements also applied to my Department's agencies was issued earlier this month and a copy placed in the Library.

  Timberwolf Crossbreed Dogs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to list timberwolf crossbreeds under the provisions of the Dangerous Animals Act 1976; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Wolves and wolf hybrids are already listed on the schedule to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. A licence is required to keep any animal of a species listed on the schedule.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many timberwolf crossbreed dogs there are in England.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is not held centrally since licensing under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 is the responsibility of district councils in England.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what powers are available to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to require electricity generating plant fitted with flue gas desulphurisation to be operated in preference to more polluting plant;

  (2) what assumptions are now made by his Department about (a) the total electricity generating capacity fitted with flue gas desulphurisation, (b) the average load factor of plant fitted with FGD and (c) which plant will be so fitted;
  67
  (3) what assumptions were made by his Department about (a) the total electricity generating capacity fitted with flue gas desulphurisation and (b) the average load factor of plant fitted with FGD, in calculating the United Kingdom's ability to meet the terms of (i) the EC large combustion plants directive during negotiations on the directive and (ii) the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe sulphur protocol during negotiations on the protocol.

  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom's programme and national plan for the implementation of the EC large combustion plants directive, published in 1990, assumed the fitting of FGD to 8GW of generating capacity. At present, 4 GW of FGD are operating or under construction at Drax power station and 2 GW at Ratcliffe. The 1993 emissions inventory under the LCPD showed that National Power and PowerGen together emitted less than 80 per cent. of their national plan allocation of sulphur dioxide emissions for that year.

  In negotiating and assessing the feasibility of the agreed reduction target of 80 per cent. by 2010, against 1980 figures, under the UNECE sulphur protocol, the Government took account of a variety of possible abatement options, including the fitting of FGD. The Government will be consulting in due course on the national strategy required to give effect to the sulphur protocol. That strategy will reflect assessment at the time of the most cost-effective measures to deliver our environmental targets, and will take into account such developments as the industry's significant investment in cleaner combined cycle gas turbines to replace older plant.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is currently in discussion with the generators both about the operation of their FGD-equipped plant in the context of each company's overall generating operations and more generally about improvement programmes for all of the companies' stations. Decisions on those questions will be taken in the light of an assessment of what constitutes BATNEEC—"best available techniques not entailing excessive costs".

  Packaging
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what discussions his Department has had with the food packaging industry as to a possible levy on packaging; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has to introduce a packaging levy on produce that generates waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government have no plans to introduce a statutory levy to finance the recovery of value from packaging waste. However, after extensive consultation with the packaging industry and users of packaging, the Government have announced that they are prepared to respond to requests from industry to legislate at the earliest opportunity. They propose to create a statutory framework within which industry-led schemes may operate in order to achieve increased recovery and recycling of packaging waste.

  Recycling
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance his Department gives to help the disposal of recycled material.
  68
  Mr. Atkins
  The creation of markets for recycled materials is primarily a matter for industry. The Government's producer responsibility initiative provides incentives to this end by requiring companies to bear the extra cost of making greater productive use of waste. However, the Government also play their part—for example, through the implementation of departmental "green housekeeping" strategies; through a current review of British standards with a view to removing discrimination against the use of recycled materials; and through direct support to industry research into new uses for recycled materials.

  Housing Safety
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the consultation paper on licensing of houses in multiple occupation announced by the then Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction, the right hon. Member for Ealing, Acton, (Sir G. Young) 8 July,Official Report, column 327; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I have today placed copies of my Department's publication "Houses in Multiple Occupation—A consultation Paper on the Case for Licensing" in the Library. It has also been circulated to all local authorities in England and to other interested parties. Additional copies can be obtained from my Department. The period for comments will close on 18 February 1995.

  I share the widespread concern about the poor conditions and fire risks in some houses in multiple occupation. However, I have an open mind about whether licensing of all HMOs is the most effective way forward, and before contemplating legislation we need to consider the cost implications for both landlords and tenants and be convinced that licensing is both essential and practical. Alternatives to full-scale licensing, including the tightening of existing fire safety regulations for HMOs, are also considered in the consultation paper.

  The issue of hostels in resort areas catering mainly for benefit recipients is covered largely as a separate issue in the paper. They are already subject to additional planning controls but it is for consideration whether these powers should be replaced by an HMO licensing system which would also cover these hostels.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been paid or will be paid to landowners and occupiers under the countryside stewardship scheme for(a) linear access and (b) open access in each year from 1991–92 to 1994–95.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 21 November 1994]: Total commitments for annual access payments agreed as a consequence of agreements are given in the table below. Payments are made annually in arrears.

  Financial year when payments to be made

  Commitments for Open access (£ cumulative)

  Linear Access (£cumulative)

  1991–92

  —

  n/a

  1992–93

  337,250

  —

  1993–94

  575,200

  32,267

  1994–95

  646,250

  62,954

  69
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was or will be the total cost of all operations, except payments to landowners and occupiers, under the countryside stewardship scheme in each of the years 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95; and, in each of the four years, how much of this was connected with the additional public access component of the scheme.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer Monday 21 November 1994]: The total management cost of the scheme including administration, provision of advice and monitoring and evaluation, but excluding payments to agreement holders for each of the financial years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 was £1 million, £1.8 million and £2.15 million respectively. The projected cost on the same basis for 1994–95 is £2.1 million. The cost of managing the access element is not accounted for separately because many of the costs incurred are an integral part of overall scheme management.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much of the land which was subject to additional access payments under the countryside stewardship scheme took the form of linear access and how much took the form of open access in each of the years 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer Monday 21 November 1994]: The information requested is given in the table below. Linear access payments were not available in 1991–92. Payments are made annually in arrears. Figures for 1994–95 are not yet available as some contracts remain under offer.

  Financial Year

  Amount of land subject to open access payments (hectares) agreed in that financial year

  Length of linear routes subject to access payments (km) agreed in that financial year

  1991–92

  6,745

  n/a

  1992–93

  4,759

  188.6

  1993–94

  1,421

  155

  1994–95

  n/a

  n/a

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the successful applications made under the countryside stewardship scheme involved additional payments for access in each year since 1991–92.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer Monday 21 November 1994]: The information requested is given in the table below. Payments are made annually in arrears. Figures for contracts for 1994–95 are not yet available as some remain under offer.

  Financial Year

  Number of Countryside Stewardship contracts entered into which involved payments for access

  1991–92

  320

  1992–93

  373

  1993–94

  197

  1994–95

  n/a

  AIDS HIV
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department will publish the research it has jointly funded with the Department of Health on the housing aspects of AIDS and HIV infection.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer Monday 21 November 1994]: I hope to publish the results of the research shortly.

  Directorships
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many officials in his Department have to his knowledge had over the past 10 years directorships in public limited companies while at the same time continuing in post in the civil service.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer Monday 21 November 1994]: Some 30 serving officials have held company directorships over the past 10 years as part of the Government's programmes for developing senior staff through contact between Whitehall and business. Records are not kept of which directorships are of public limited companies.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Fees
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Lord President of the Council in how many cases of employees of right hon. and hon. Members paid via the Fees Office the employer has failed to deposit a contract of employment at the Fees Office.

  Mr. Newton
  There are currently 312 employees of right hon. and hon. Members who do not have a contract of employment lodged with the Fees Office—that figure includes part-time and other staff who are not required to have a contract.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many right hon. and hon. Members take advantage of the payroll giving scheme by deduction from their parliamentary salaries.

  Mr. Newton
  There are 43 Members who have authorised deductions from their parliamentary salaries under the payroll giving scheme.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Nuclear Energy Research
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the individual Overseas Development Administration contributions to the nature and locations of each of the 23 Overseas Development Administration-funded research projects into nuclear energy to which he refers in his answer of 2 November,Official Report, column 1182.

  Mr. Baldry
  A list of those projects, with 1992 calendar year expenditure figures, has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

TREASURY

  Public Borrowing
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what definition he currently uses for public borrowing.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government's fiscal policy objective is expressed in terms of the public sector borrowing requirement. Forecasts of the PSBR are presented twice yearly, and outturns are published monthly.

  The Government also look at other measures of fiscal stance, including the current balance and the general Government financial deficit, the measure which is used to compare budget deficits throughout the EU.

  VAT (Sports Clubs)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the value of payments made to sports clubs since 1 April for value added tax refunds.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Payments of £47 million had been made to non-profit making organisations supplying sporting services by the end of September 1994.

  Economy
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the overall effects on the non-oil United Kingdom economy of sterling leaving the European exchange rate mechanism in 1992.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not possible to assess the precise effects of sterling's departure from the ERM, but during sterling's membership of the ERM inflation fell sharply and the economy began to recover from recession. The Government's policies of securing sustainable growth based on low inflation have built on this foundation, and the economy is now showing strong well-balanced growth, falling unemployment, the lowest inflation for 27 years and a better balance of payments.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to graduate vehicle excise duty for cars, based on the certified fuel efficiency of a car when new.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will announce any decisions on vehicle excise duty, as with other taxes, in his Budget next week.

  Document (Disclosure)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what inquiries he has made about unauthorised disclosure of a Treasury document on 16 November.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I assume that the hon. Member is alluding to the "confidential Treasury papers" mentioned in The Daily Telegraph article of 16 November on the financing of the European Community budget. There was no unauthorised disclosure of any such document. The figure of about £800 million for the increase in the United Kingdom net contribution to the end of the century, quoted in the article, was provided as a normal response to a routine inquiry by an official Treasury press officer. It was wholly consistent with
  72
  everything that Treasury Ministers have ever said on the subject.

  There has never been any secret that the United Kingdom's net contribution to the Community budget is going to rise in cash terms between now and the end of the century, whether or not the Edinburgh settlement is ratified. Growth is shown in the figures in table 11.1 of the Treasury's last departmental report. The trend is, however, obscured by the large annual variations in our net contribution, which make the precise figures for any one year difficult to predict.

  Our latest estimate is that the increase in the underlying level of the United Kingdom public sector net contribution—that is, after smoothing out the annual fluctuations—will be about £850 million between 1995 and 1999, from about £2,700 million in 1995 to about £3,550 million in 1999.

  This growth is nominal—that is, not real, terms—and results mainly from the effects of (i) inflation, and (ii) real GNP growth. On the assumption that annual inflation and GNP growth will each be 2 ½ per cent. a year on average over this period, the existing own resources ceiling—1.20 per cent. of GNP—would have allowed an increase in own resources of about 22 per cent. in nominal terms between 1995 and 1999, implying an increase of around £600 million in our net contribution. The effect of the Edinburgh future financing settlement, and the EC (Finance) Bill, will be to increase nominal growth in the own resources ceiling to about 29 per cent. over this period.

  The cost in cash terms to the United Kingdom of the change resulting from the Edinburgh settlement and the EC (Finance) Bill is estimated to be 175 million in 1995–96 and 1250 million in 1999–2000.

  Those figures still look large because they are presented in cash terms for consistency with the rest of our public expenditure arithmetic. But the real scale of the Edinburgh settlement can be seen in the fact that it increased the own resources ceiling, over seven years, by only 7/10.000ths of Community GNP.

  Milk Quotas
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he agreed to back date to 1991 Italy's milk quota increase which was agreed in December 1993 to take effect in 1993–94.

  Mr. Heathcoat Amory
  [holding answer 21 November 1994): I have nothing to add to the reply that my right hon. and learned Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), 25 October 1994, Official Report, columns 510–11.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the proportion of child support cases involving absent parents who are self-employed for which a maintenance assessment is(a) calculated and (b) paid regularly for at least three months;

  (2) what is the proportion of child support cases involving absent parents who are paying income tax under

  73
  PAYE for which a maintenance assessment is (a) calculated and (b) paid regularly for at least three months.

  Mr. Burt
  There is no business need for the CSA to collect such specific information on the number of absent parents who are self-employed or paying income tax under PAYE, and those details could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the rules under which the Child Support Agency operates in respect of employees of that agency representing their own partners at tribunal hearings, where the former spouse of the partner is seeking redress under the appeal process; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. David Blunkett, dated 21 November 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency's rules about members of staff representing their own partners at tribunal hearings.
  Under the terms of their employment, all employees of the Agency are bound to comply with the Department of Social Security Staff Rules. Under these rules, employees are required to obtain permission from a member of senior management before they can represent a person in the course of an appeal at a tribunal hearing or application concerning any matter for which the Department is responsible. Permission would be granted only where the representation would not be open to misunderstanding on the part of the public and there is no conflict of interests within the Agency.

  Open Government
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the charging policy of his Department and the agencies for which he is responsible in respect of inquiries under the code of practice on access to Government.

  Mr. Hague
  No charge is made for simple requests for information, where the information can be collected within half a day or less. For more detailed requests which would take more than half a day to process, a charge may be made to recover the actual cost of collecting the information in staff time, photocopying costs and so on. The charges are based on the hourly rate for the grade of staff engaged in retrieving the information.

  The Department has always, and continues, to provide information free of charge on benefit entitlements and the standards and availability of services.

  Social Fund
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further allocation of funds to the discretionary social fund budget.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  As a result of the improved recoveries of social fund loans, I am pleased to announce that a further £13 million, funded from these additional recoveries, will be made available to the Benefits Agency's district offices on 23 November 1994.

  The whole of the additional allocation will be devoted to social fund loans. We believe that social fund loans offer excellent value for money. They enable us to target available resources on those in most need and to recycle funds to help more applicants.

  Since the scheme started, we have been able to make £1.2 billion worth of loans for an outlay of only £280
  74
  million. This expansion of the social fund loans budget will ensure that more people receive help and that the fund continues to play a valuable role in complementing mainstream social security provision.

  Details of individual district allocations have been placed in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Dystonia
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons in Northern Ireland suffer from(a) dystonia and (b) the form of dystonia known as spasmodic torticollis.

  Mr. Moss
  This information is not available.

  Open Government
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the charging policy of his Department and the agencies for which he is responsible in respect of inquiries under the code of practice on access to government.

  Sir John Wheeler
  In line with guidance on charging produced by the Office of Public Service and Science, which recognises the diversity of cost and operational structure across the range of bodies implementing the code, the Northern Ireland Office, Northern Ireland Departments and agencies have developed the following schemes for charging for information under the code of practice on access to government information:

  Department/Agency

  Scheme

  Agriculture

  First five hours free. Charges above that on ready reckoner basis.

  Economic Development including Training and Employment Agency

  First five hours free. In excess of five hours £20 per hour for the full number of hours taken.

  Education

  First five hours free. £20 per hour after that.

  Environment including Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  Requests costing under £100 free. Full additional cost after that.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  Rate Collection Agency

  Finance and Personnel including Valuation and Lands Agency

  First five hours free. Charges above that will be determined by Accountant.

  Health and Social Services including Child Support Agency

  First five hours free; above that, marginal cost.

  Social Security Agency

  Northern Ireland Office including Compensation Agency

  First five hours free. £20 per hour or part thereof after that.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Copyright Tribunal
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes he proposes to make to the procedures of the copyright tribunal.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Earlier this year, my Department consulted users of the copyright tribunal on how far they were satisfied with its performance and on how its proceedings might be improved. Around 40 per cent. of those consulted responded and, of those, the overwhelming majority considered that the tribunal proceedings were fair, flexible, unintimidating and thorough. However, concerns were expressed as to the cost and speed of the proceedings and some suggestions for improvement in these and other respects were made. My Department is currently analysing those suggestions, and will consult tribunal users further on any changes which appear desirable.

  Net Book Agreement
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the net book agreement.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The net book agreement is a voluntary agreement between publishers. It was considered by the restrictive practices court in 1962. The court declared that the restrictions in it were not contrary to the public interest and the agreement was permitted to continue. The Director General of Fair Trading announced in August that he would be asking the court to consider the agreement again.

  Post Office
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to alter the arrangements governing the borrowing by the Post Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am considering whether any changes in the arrangements governing the relationship with the Post Office may be possible. However, I have no immediate plans to change the current arrangements governing borrowing.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Post Office to discuss proposals for the commercial freedom of the Post Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have regular meetings with the chairman of the Post Office.

  British Coal
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is his intention that the final price received for British Coal's regional packages and former collieries should match the bids made by the preferred buyers.

  Mr. Eggar
  The precise amounts bid for regional coal companies and care and maintenance collieries are commercially confidential and subject to further discussions with bidders. Proceeds will be announced when the sales are completed.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each occasion involving travel abroad at public expense mentioned in his answer of 2 November,Official Report, columns 1131–32, (i) the Minister whose spouse attended, (ii) the location abroad, (iii) the purpose of the Minister's visit and the activities taken part in by the spouse and (iv) the total cost of each trip.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The occasions on which DTI Minister's spouses travelled abroad at public expense during the past year are listed. Ministerial trips were undertaken for trade promotion and trade relations purposes. All accompanying spouses were involved in the official programmes as well as undertaking separate engagements.

  Minister

  Country

  Cost for Minister and Spouse £

  Mrs. Hamilton accompanied Mr. Hamilton, Minister for Corporate Affairs

  Romania

  2,004.20

  Lady Ferrers accompanied Earl Ferrers, Minister for Small Firms and Consumer Affairs

  Singapore/Australia/New Zealand

  12,037.08

  Mrs. Taylor accompanied Mr. Taylor, PUSS for Trade and Technology

  Germany

  726.68

  Mrs. Eggar accompanied Mr. Eggar, Minister for Industry and Energy

  South America

  11,319.38

  Mrs. Heseltine accompanied Mr. Heseltine, President of the Board of Trade

  Australia/ Japan

  12,010.00

  Mrs Heseltine accompanied Mr. Heseltine, President of the Board of Trade

  South Africa

  7,900.00

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to make available departmental publications on Internet; and if he will state the Internet address of such documents.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Broadband Communications Command Paper published today is the first Command paper to be made available on Internet. The Internet address is URL:http://www.open.gov.uk/dti/broadband__comms.htm.

  The CCTA recently announced an initiative on the wider use of Internet in Government. Departmental officials are in discussion with a number of institutions to establish how effective Internet would be for the distribution of departmental information.

  Nuclear Installations (Former Soviet Union)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contribution is being made by Her Majesty's Government towards the cleaning up, and making safe, of nuclear installations in the former Soviet Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  At the Economic Summit in Munich, 1992, G7 heads of Government endorsed a multilateral programme of action to help improve the safety of Soviet-designed nuclear reactors in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. For the latter, the Government's main contribution to this international effort is being channelled through the European Union's technology assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States programme, to which we contribute around 16 per cent. of the total budget. Over the past four years, around 280 million ECU has been allocated by the EC for nuclear safety related projects in the FSU. Priorities are set in consultation with recipient countries. So far, the main emphasis has been on reactor safety, although a number of projects relating to waste management and clean-up operations have either been carried out or are under-way.

  The United Kingdom has also contributed 11.5 mecu to the European bank for reconstruction and development—managed nuclear safety account, which was established last year to fund urgent safety upgrades at the higher risk reactors.

  On a bilateral basis, the Government have supported a range of technical assistance projects in the FSU including a number under the know-how fund. Russia, Ukraine, Belarus Kazakhstan and Lithuania have been amongst the beneficiary countries. Projects include help to Ukraine for land remediation and measurement of radioactive contamination post-Chernobyl; DTI-funded collaboration on RBMK reactor safety between the Atomic Energy Authority and Russia's Research and Development Institute of Power Engineering; and training seminars on radioactive waste management regulation, the safeguarding of nuclear materials and nuclear site inspection techniques.

  At the Naples Summit in July, G7 Governments pledged support for an action plan to ensure early closure of the remaining units at Chernobyl within the framework of an energy sector strategy for Ukraine. The Government will make a contribution through the EU, which has pledged up to 100 mecu of grant finance for technical assistance through the TACIS programme and up to 400 million ECU thorough EURATOM loans. The Government will decide their bilateral contribution when detailed arrangements have been agreed with Ukraine.

  British Coal
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice has been given to the unsuccessful bidders for British Coal's regional packages about the need to keep their financing in place to enable them to make a further bid.

  Mr. Eggar
  Discussions with bidders are commercially confidential.

  British Telecom
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in each of the last five years(a) how many
  78
  people were employed full-time by British Telecom, (b) how many of these have been disabled, by number and as a percentage of the work force, (c) how many existing staff have become registered disabled, (d) how many disabled persons were recruited by number and as a percentage of all recruits, (e) how many disabled persons took early voluntary redundancy terms and (f) what is the current percentage of disabled employees of British Telecom.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  These are matters for British Telecom.

  British Gas
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he plans to take to maintain the levels of research carried out by British Gas; and if he will investigate the effect on research of the proposed closure of the engineering research station at Killingworth.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  That is a matter for the board of British Gas.

  Multimedia
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for further work on multimedia.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I have been asked to take responsibility for co-ordinating the DTI's interests in broadband communications and multimedia for the information society. I aim to encourage the public and private sectors to exploit the technology available and to take full advantage of the opportunities emerging. By spreading the benefits to businesses and households, we can boost our international competitiveness and improve the quality of life in the United Kingdom.

  In taking this forward, I want to be able to draw on the best expert opinion from the private sector. My new role will require me to get to grips with the powerful technological and commercial changes now affecting the media, communications, information technology, and publishing industries. I have therefore asked a number of senior figures from those industries to join a group which will advise me on such matters. The group also includes individuals with experience in education and health-care, since these are two of the most important application areas for multimedia.

  I see the group as a collection of expert individuals rather than a representative body. I envisage it acting both as a source of ideas and as a sounding-board for some of our own thinking.

  The members of this Multimedia Industry Advisory Group are:

  Mr. Hayden Abbott

  Managing Director, Sony Professional Products,

  Europe

  Professor John Arbuthnott

  Principal and Vice-Chancellor, University of Strathclyde

  Mr. Mark Burrell

  Group Strategy Director, Pearson

  Mr. David Clementi

  Group Chief Executive, Kleinwort Benson

  79

  Mr. Don Cruickshank

  Director General, Office of Telecommunications

  Mr. Robert Devereux

  Chairman, Virgin Communications

  Mr. David Elstein

  Director of Programming, BSkyB

  Mr. John Greetham, CBE

  Chairman, Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  Dr. Peter Home

  Managing Director, Apricot Computers

  Mr. Peter Job

  Chief Executive, Reuters

  Mr. Tim Jones

  Chief Executive, Mondex

  Mr. Nick Kane

  Group Managing Director, Videotron

  Mr. Robert Phillis

  Chairman, BBC Worldwide

  Mr. Giles Pugh

  Director, Corporate Strategy, W H Smith

  Dr. Alan Rudge, OBE

  Managing Director, Development and Procurement, BT.

  Lord Astor, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department of National Heritage, and Robert Hughes MP, Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science have agreed to join the group. The membership of the group may be altered from time to time.

  Separately, I will be receiving advice on multimedia and information highways from Mr. Peter Bonfield and Mr. Peter Davies, who were members of the High-Level Group formed by European Commissioner Martin Bangemann at the end of last year. I will also continue to benefit from the views of the many other individuals and organisations with which the DTI has contacts.

  Within the DTI, a multimedia steering group has been established to bring together the wide range of multimedia interests inside the Department. This is chaired by Alistair Macdonald, the Deputy Secretary in charge of the DTI's industry command. Mr. Macdonald will be assisted by a new multimedia unit in telecommunications division of the DTI.

  These various initiatives are referred to in the command paper, "Creating the Superhighways of the Future: Developing Broadband Communications in the United Kingdom", published today.

  Optical Fibres
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Government will respond to the Trade and Industry Select Committee report on optical fibres.

  Mr. Heseltine
  In the Command Paper, "Creating the Superhighways of the Future: Developing Broadband Communications in the United Kingdom", published today, I have set out the Government's vision for creating information super-highways in the United Kingdom. We need to build on the substantial investment in telecommunications networks and infrastructure which has been made by the private sector in recent years. Greater emphasis is now required in this country on developing a wide range of applications to be used on the super-highways. The opportunities—particularly in multimedia—are vast, and they need to be better appreciated if the United Kingdom is to gain maximum advantage.

  The Command Paper incorporates the Government's response to the Trade and Industry Select Committee report on optical fibre networks and copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Internet.

  Thanks to privatisation and deregulation, the United Kingdom is already a world leader in these new information infrastructures, which gives us an excellent platform to build on the earlier liberalisation of the telecommunications sector. The Government want to see the development of competitive and commercially successful broadband communications networks to bring new opportunities and benefits to business, individuals, and users of public services.

  Competition in telecommunications since 1991 has been the engine of rapid progress in both infrastructure and telecommunications services. Industry has responded to the challenge and has innovated to deliver new technologies and services. Customers now enjoy not only considerably more choice but significantly lower prices and better quality services.

  In the future, the success of the digital super-highway will be even more customer driven. The winners will be the companies that deliver services and products that customers want, at a price they will pay.

  The Government remain committed to the regulatory framework established in 1991. That framework has already provided an important foundation for substantial investment in infrastructure, leading to the creation of truly interactive broadband communications networks. As competition grows and technology advances, the broad regulatory framework is expected to evolve. The existing policy on national public telecommunications operators providing and conveying entertainment services over their national networks remains as set out in the 1991 telecommunications White Paper, and will not be reviewed prematurely.

  The Government want to encourage all operators, including national PTOs like British Telecom and Mercury, to gain experience in offering a full range of new interactive services. All operators may do this by applying for new local delivery operator franchises, and the Government hope that this opportunity will be taken up. The intention is to seek to allow national PTOs who acquire such franchises to test new technologies alongside their existing services, making use of the same infrastructure where possible.
  81
  Investment in the development of information super-highways, both in terms of infrastructure and the services and applications they will carry, will be led by the private sector. The Government are, nevertheless, committed to being more proactive and innovative in offering public services by these means. The command paper underlines the importance for education and healthcare of developing interactive broadband technologies. As an important beginning, the Command Paper published today is the first ever to be made available electronically on the Internet. In the future, the Government will make an increasingly wide rang of information available in a similar fashion.

  It will be vital to match the emerging broadband technologies with the content being developed for the super-highways. My Department will be encouraging the growing convergence of telecommunications, information technology and broadcasting. Building the super-highways and exploiting the whole range of multimedia services that they can deliver is essential for both the economic and cultural development of the United Kingdom into the next century. To drive this work forward, I have asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology to take responsibility for co-ordinating the DTI's multimedia interests for the information society.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what plans he has for transferring all British Coal land and property to the Coal Authority; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if it is his intention to create British Coal Property plc;

  (3) if he will ensure that the disposal of British Coal land which has job creation potential is transferred to local authorities for regeneration use.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 21 November 1994]: The various options for the future of British Coal's non-operational property portfolio are being considered by British Coal in consultation with the Government. No decisions have been taken.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade during how many of the overseas visits made by Ministers in his Department between 1 January and 30 June those Ministers participated in fund-raising activities for the Conservative party; and if he will list the Ministers and the countries in which those activities took place.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 21 November 1994]: Between 1 January and 30 June 1994, Ministers in my Department made 28 overseas visits in their official capacity. Fundraising activities for the Conservative party are not part of our official duties.

  Offshore Oil and Gas Licences
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will announce the blocks to be offered in the 16th round of offshore oil and gas licensing on the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 November 1994]: I have decided to offer 164 blocks for
  82
  licensing, an optimum number to enable companies to consider all options in a wide range of different areas.

  I expect applicants to be committed to the future of the United Kingdom continental shelf by being competitive, innovative and continuing to cut costs.

  The largest proportion of the blocks—over 60—are to the west of the Shetlands, where I want to encourage companies to build on the impetus of the Foinaven announcement earlier this month. This area has the potential for further significant discoveries and to develop into an exciting new oil province.

  Following that announcement and the success of the "fast-track" 15th round in August, I intend to "fast-track" applications for west of Shetlands blocks so that those can be awarded in advance of the other areas and work can start in the summer of 1995.

  The objective of this round, as of previous rounds, is to encourage exploration—particularly in new areas where there has been little drilling to date—and to continue the development of our oil and gas resources well into the next century.

  I want the present momentum to be maintained, so I am calling for nominations from companies for the next round, the 17th, which will cover frontier areas to the far west of Britain where there has been little exploration so far.

  Blocks offered in the 16th round include relatively new basins such as Cardigan bay and the East Irish sea, and in the English channel, as well as on the fringes of the more established areas of the North sea. The range of blocks offered illustrates the diversity of opportunities available on the UKCS.

  A number of the blocks are in areas where there are particular environmental concerns. Special conditions will be attached to the award of licences in those areas in order to safeguard the environment. Those conditions have been agreed following consultation with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and also cover restrictions to protect the interests of other users of the sea such as fishing, transport and defence.

  We have conducted a wide-ranging consultation exercise on the 329 blocks which were nominated, involving other Government Departments, local authorities and environmental groups. In all, over 100 organisations have advised us.

  It is vital that oil and gas exploration activities take account of environment concerns. In July, the Minister for Industry and Energy launched a joint initiative between JNCC and the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association. UKOOA is making a major contribution to the funding of a series of United Kingdom coastal directories and regional reports setting out the environmental resources of each coastal area. I expect companies applying for blocks in sensitive areas to demonstrate that they have taken the draft reports into account when preparing their applications and environmental management systems.

  I am committed to protecting the environment, but this does not mean that there are "no go areas" where oil and gas activity is excluded for ever. As information on environmental resources improves and oil and gas technology develops, there may be increased scope for exploring areas in sensitive areas while still protecting the environment. The main factor in determining the selection

  83
  of blocks in the 16th round is that of perceived prospectivity.

  Applications for the 16th round are required by noon on 22 March, while nominations for the 17th round are required by 8 March 1995. Except for the west of Shetlands blocks, I expect to announce licence awards for the 16th round during the summer, and the blocks nominated under the 17th round shortly after the March deadline.

  I will publish tomorrow in the London Gazette and on Friday in the Edinburgh Gazette and the Belfast Gazette, a formal announcement giving the detailed financial terms for the 16th round, including the format of applications, the information required and the basis on which awards will be made. I will place in the Libraries of both Houses copies of that announcement.

HEALTH

  Homicides Inquiry
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether discussions have taken place between the confidential inquiry into homicides by mentally ill people and her Department to ensure that professionals in the health and social services are better informed about the inquiry's work.

  Mr. Bowis
  Yes.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy that her Department or the confidential inquiry into homicides by mentally ill people should summarise and publish annually the findings and recommendations of independent inquiries into homicides by people with a psychiatric illness.

  Mr. Bowis
  No. Decisions about the publication of the findings and recommendations of an independent inquiry into a homicide by a mentally ill person are taken by the health authority or social services authority which commissioned the inquiry. Departmental guidance in circular HSG(94)27, copies of which are available in the Library, makes it clear that an undertaking should be given at the start of the inquiry that its main findings will be made available to interested parties.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the questionnaire sent to consultant psychiatrists by the confidential inquiry into homicides by mentally ill people.

  Mr. Bowis
  I understand that the questionannaire will be included in the confidential inquiry's substantive report on homicides and suicides, to be published in 1995.

  Blood Transfusion Centres
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration she has given to(a) transportation time and motorway congestion, (b) the future for local blood transfusion centres donor registries and (c) the working relationship between blood transfusion centres and local hospitals and community groups of blood donors when restructuring the blood transfusion centres.

  Mr. Sackville
  Those matters are the responsibility of the National Blood Authority, which was set up to manage the blood service. I understand that all these 84
  issues were carefully considered by officials at the National Blood Authority in the process of drawing up their proposals.

  Orthodontic Treatment
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health are the waiting times for specialist orthodontic treatment in west Oxfordshire.

  Mr. Malone
  Information on waiting times by specialty, district health authority and national health service trust is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Private Patient Facilities
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much income has been generated by NHS hospitals, private patient facilities in each of the last five years, by region.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer to the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolc,) on 31 January,Official Report, columns 533–34, for the latest available information.

  NHS Travel Costs
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total travel costs for NHS staff between Leeds and London in 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr Milburn) on 21 July,Official Report, column 608.

  Regional Headquarters
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the total employment cost of relocating regional headquarter staff to Durham.

  Mr. Malone
  Relocation costs, excess travel expenses and additional redundancy costs resulting from the relocation of the regional headquarters to Durham are estimated to total £694,875 over 10 years. The relocation is expected to yield an annual saving on staff business travel of approximately £90,000 per year. In addition, the running costs of accommodation will be reduced by £438,000 per year, compared with the current two sites, and the reduction in staff numbers to around 135 will save £4.7 million a year in employment costs.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the capital expenditure on the northern regional headquarters in Newcastle in each of the last five financial years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. John Greetham CBE, chairman of Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority, for details.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the total cost of relocating staff to Quarry house, Leeds and (b) the total cost of relocation.

  Mr. Sackville
  The total cost of relocating national health service executive and NHS Estates staff to Leeds was £11.76 million. The total cost of relocation was £74.02 million.
  85
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the estimated employment costs of reducing 200 jobs at Quarry house, Leeds.

  Mr. Sackville
  Costs will depend on the level of staff turnover over the next two and a half years and on the number and characteristics—age, grade, length of service—of staff who volunteer to take early retirement or early severance. They will be more than offset by the resulting savings.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate her Department has made of the likely costs of the new regional head office in Durham; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  The precise cost of a new office in Durham for Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority is currently under negotiation. The regional health authority expects this to be more than offset by the sale of the existing headquarters building in Harrogate.

  Open Government
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the charging policy of her Department and the agencies for which she is responsible in respect of inquiries under the code of practice on access to Government.

  Mr. Sackville
  No charge has been made so far for requests under the code of practice. Where a charge is made, this will be currently based on the formula of one hour free and £20 per hour thereafter. People will be given an estimate before work begins. They can ask for this to be reviewed. They can also complain about charges to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. We have aimed to strike a reasonable balance between the interests of taxpayers and the interests of people seeking information under the code of practice.

  The Medical Devices Agency, NHS Estates and the NHS Pensions Agency have the same policy. The Medicines Control Agency is currently considering its arrangements for charging.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to make public the recent report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Air Pollution Episodes; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  A report covering the work of the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants and the advisory group on the medical aspects of air pollutions episodes is to be published in December.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the incidence of salmonella in each county in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  For information on the number of cases of reported salmonellosis by national health service region in England and Wales for 1992 and 1993, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 25 April, Official Report columns, 61–64.
  86
  In 1992 there were 31,355 cases of human salmonellosis confirmed by the Public Health Laboratory Service and in 1993, 30,653. This represents a decrease of over 2 per cent. Figures to September 1994 compared to the same period in 1993 show a further decrease of nearly 3 per cent. Figures for 1993 and 1994 are provisional.

  Deaths
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures she has on the numbers of deaths from suicide and undetermined injury in each county among(a) men and (b) women in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information will be placed in the Library.

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures are available on the incidence of tranquilliser prescribing among(a) men, and (b) women in each county in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Herbal Remedies
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health upon what basis she established her policy that herbal remedies are manufactured other than by an industrial process; upon what legal arguments she reached the conclusion that such a policy would protect the continued availability of herbal remedies; what assessment she has made of legal protection which would prevent future court decisions, both domestic and European, or future European directives from establishing a definition for the term industrial process which threatened the continued availability of such products; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  European Community legislation requires herbal medicines to be licensed if they are industrially produced. Certain herbal medicines, which are currently exempt from product licensing requirements under section 12 of the Medicines Act 1968, are produced by a number of traditional processes. While courts of law are independent bodies, whose decisions cannot be fully predicted, we have concluded that the traditional processes in question fall outside the meaning of "industrially produced". The position of herbal medicines in the United Kingdom is therefore safeguarded under EC law.

  We will continue to work with other EC member states and the European Commission to ensure that herbal medicines remain available to the many people in the Community who use them and to maintain existing public health safeguards.

  Patient Lists
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the number of patients removed from general practitioners' lists in 1992–93 and 1993–94, by family health service authority.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. member to the reply I gave him on 3 November,Official Report, column 1269.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistical information her Department maintains
  87
  about the reasons for patients being removed from general practitioners' lists.

  Mr. Malone
  We maintain statistical information under the following headings:

  Patients who opt to register with another doctor

  Bulk transfers on resignation or death of doctor

  Patients who die or emigrate

  Patients removed at request of doctor

  Other causes

  Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation she has had with the World Health Organisation concerning the acceptance or rejection of the term Munchausen's syndrome by proxy to refer to induced illness, fabricated illness stories in children, non-accidental injury to children or suffocation of children by parents.

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations she has had in relation to medical research work carried out in Cardiff and Leeds studying information provided by the British paediatric surveillance unit on the epidemiology of induced illness and fabricated illness stories of children; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department is contributing to the funding of this study of incidence and outcome of Munchausen syndrome by proxy which is due for completion in September 1995.

  Health Authorities (Staff)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many managers and administrative staff were employed by each regional health authority in 1993–94.

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table. Figures given here for Northern, Yorkshire and South Western regional health authorities differ from those given in the Official Report, 24 October, column 452. A processing error, now corrected, affected the earlier figures.

  Administrative and clerical staff and general and senior managers within regional health authority headquarters or headquarters units—30 September 1993

  Whole-time equivalents

  Administrative and Clerical

  General and Senior Managers

  Northern

  210

  60

  Yorkshire

  380

  190

  Trent

  300

  90

  East Anglian

  480

  70

  North West Thames

  380

  1—

  North East Thames

  320

  170

  South East Thames

  310

  110

  South West Thames

  410

  110

  Wessex

  260

  120

  Oxford

  500

  150

  South Western

  490

  70

  West Midlands

  340

  70

  Mersey

  300

  60

  North Western

  650

  130

  Total

  5,330

  1,400

  1 An estimated 90 managers in North West Thames RHA HQ are employed on administrative and clerical terms and conditions, and are therefore classified as administrative and clerical staff.

  Note:

  1 Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  Teaching and Research
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will announce the outcome of her Department's analysis of hospital costs associated with teaching and research; and how she intends to bring about the separation of the research element of service increment for teaching and research recommended in the Culyer report.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A statistical analysis of hospital costs found that national health service spending in association with teaching and research is higher than the service increment for teaching and research. The excess costs which SIFTR does not cover are in general indirectly funded through contracts for health care.

  To address this, in 1995–96, as an interim measure, the SIFTR allocation will be increased by £40 million in 1995–96 by transferring funds from the purchasers of hospitals receiving SIFI'R. I have also said that I will look sympathetically at ring-fencing more money in subsequent financial years to help build up the new funding system for research.

  For 1995–96, the whole SIFTR amount will be allocated on the same principles as in 1994–95. The increased allocation will enable hospitals receiving SIFTR to reduce their contract prices for health care, while overall levels of activity remain the same. That will help put teaching and research hospitals on a level playing field with other hospitals and help purchasers make sound decisions about the use of their funds.

  The analysis of hospitals costs did not find a convincing basis for separating the NHS costs associated with teaching and research by statistical methods. Previous studies have suggested the research element is about 25 per cent. From 1995–96, the NHS costs associated with teaching and research in England will nationally be attributed 75 per cent. to teaching and 25 per cent. to research.

  The separation of the research element of SIFTR helps prepare the way for an improved system for supporting research in the NHS. When the Culyer report was published in September, I welcomed the proposal for a single funding stream for research—one of Culyer's key recommendations. This means that it would be possible to target more precisely the money available for research to support high-quality projects.

  We are working in partnership with the universities, the research councils, charities and other organisations which support research in the NHS to take this forward. Work is in hand on the future arrangements for allocating funds and contracting for NHS support and facilities for undergraduate teaching.

  Family Health Services Appeals Unit
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for the family health services appeals unit.

  Mr. Malone
  Arrangements are to be made for a special health authority to be created to undertake the functions of the family health services appeals unit. Further details of the unit's location and new members will be announced in due course.

PRIME MINISTER

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Prime Minister how much public money will be spent on entertaining, Christmas decorations and other festive activities this Christmas season by his Office and Government agencies answerable to his Office; and of this sum how much will be spent in his private office and official residences including No.10 Downing street and Chequers.

  The Prime Minister
  Disaggregated information of this nature is not available. However, entertainment figures for my office are included in the running costs figures which appear in the Government's Expenditure Plans 1994–95 to 1996–97 for the Cabinet Office (Cmd. 2518), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Prime Minister how many official Christmas cards he intends to send in 1994; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he intends to send this year.

  The Prime Minister
  The information as requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost. It is not my intention to place a sample Christmas card in the Library.

  A1-Yamamah Military Sales Agreement
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will examine the allegations made in a document, a copy of which has been sent to him, on the use to which commissions paid in respect to the Al-Yamamah military sales agreement with Saudi Arabia were put.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the letter I sent to the hon. Member on 15 November, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent evidence he has received on Libya's responsibility for the Lockerbie crime; and if he will now seek to remove United Nations sanctions against Libya.

  The Prime Minister
  We have received no recent evidence on Libya's involvement in the Lockerbie bombing. My right hon. and learned Friend, the Lord Advocate, continues to believe that the evidence supports the charges against the two accused, who are Libyan nationals. In order for sanctions against Libya to be lifted, the Libyan Government must first comply in full with the United Nations Security Council resolutions.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 November.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 November.

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

  Cabinet Committees
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish an updated list of the ministerial Committees of the Cabinet.

  The Prime Minister
  An updated list of the ministerial committees of the cabinet, giving their composition and terms of reference, is given below. Copies of this list are available in the Library of the House.

  Ministerial Committee on Economic and Domestic Policy (EDP)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Minister without Portfolio

  Other Ministers are invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest.

  Terms of reference
  "To consider strategic issues relating to the Government's economic and domestic policies"

  Ministerial Committee on Science and Technology (EDS)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Health

  Secretary of State for Education

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  The Chief Scientific Adviser is in attendance. The Minister without Portfolio also receives papers.

  Terms of reference
  "To review science and technology policy".

  Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy (OPD)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Attorney General

  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Lord Privy Seal also receive papers and may be invited to attend as necessary.

  The Chief of Defence Staff will attend as required, as will the Chiefs of Staff when necessary.

  Terms of reference
  "To keep under review the Government's Defence and Overseas policy."

  Ministerial Committee on Hong Kong and Other Dependent Territories (OPDK)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Lord President of the Council

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  91

  Others, including the Attorney General, the Governor of Hong Kong and the British Ambassador in Peking may be invited to attend as appropriate. The Minister without Portfolio also receives papers.

  Terms of Reference
  "To keep under review the implementation of the agreement with the Chinese on the future of Hong Kong and the implications of that agreement for the Government of Hong Kong and the wellbeing of its people; and to keep under review as necessary the Government's policy towards other Dependent Territories."

  Ministerial Committee on Nuclear Defence Policy (OPDN)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Terms of Reference
  "To keep under review the Government's policy on nuclear defence."

  Ministerial Committee on Northern Ireland (NI)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Lord Privy Seal

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Attorney General

  Other Ministers are invited to attend as the nature of the business requires.

  Terms of Reference
  "To oversee the Government's policy on Northern Ireland issues and relations with the Republic of Ireland on these matters."

  Ministerial Committee on the Intelligence Services (IS)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Defence

  The Lord President of the Council and the Attorney General may be invited to attend as appropriate.

  Terms of Reference
  "To keep under review policy on the security and intelligence services."

  Ministerial Committee on the Environment (EDE)

  Composition

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  President of the Board of Trade

  Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Lord Privy Seal

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  The Minister without Portfolio also receives papers.

  Terms of reference
  "To consider questions of environmental policy"

  Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs (EDH)

  Composition

  Lord President of the Council (chairman)

  Lord Chancellor

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Health

  Secretary of State for Education

  92

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Lord Privy Seal

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Minister without Portfolio

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  The Attorney General, the Lord Advocate and the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms also receive papers and are invited to attend as necessary.

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider home and social policy issues"

  Ministerial Committee on Industrial, Commercial and Consumer Affairs (EDI)

  Composition

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Lord Privy Seal

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Minister without Portfolio

  The Attorney General also receives papers and may be invited to attend as necessary.

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider industrial, commercial, and consumer issues including questions of competition and deregulation"

  Ministerial Committee on Local Government (EDL)

  Composition

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Health

  Secretary of State for Education

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Lord Privy Seal

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Minister without Portfolio

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration)

  Terms of reference
  "To consider issues affecting local government, including the annual allocation of resources"

  Ministerial Committee on Regeneration (EDR)

  Composition

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Chairman)

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Education

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Minister without Portfolio

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Minister for Local Government, Housing, and Urban Regeneration)

  The Secretaries of State for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are invited to attend as appropriate.

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider regeneration policies and their coordination".
  93
  Ministerial Committee on Public Expenditure (EDX)

  Composition

  Chancellor of the Exchequer (chairman)

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Lord President of the Council

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  The Minister without Portfolio also receives papers.

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider the allocation of the public expenditure control totals and make recommendations to the Cabinet"

  Ministerial Committee on the Queen's Speeches and Future Legislation (FLG)

  Composition

  Lord President of the Council (chairman)

  Lord Chancellor

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Lord Privy Seal

  Minister without Portfolio

  Attorney General

  Lord Advocate

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  Financial Secretary, Treasury

  Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms

  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs may be invited to attend or be represented for discussion of The Queen's Speeches.

  Terms of reference
  "To prepare and submit to the Cabinet drafts of the Queen's Speeches to Parliament, and proposals for the Government's legislative programme for each Session of Parliament".

  Ministerial Committee on Legislation (LG)

  Composition

  Lord President of the Council (chairman)

  Lord Chancellor

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Lord Privy Seal

  Attorney General

  Lord Advocate

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Financial Secretary, Treasury

  Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland also receives papers and is invited to attend as necessary.

  Terms of reference
  "To examine all draft Bills; to consider the Parliamentary handling of Government Bills, European Community documents and Private Members' business, and such other related matters as may be necessary; and to keep under review the Government's policy in relation to issues of Parliamentary procedures".

  Ministerial Sub-committee on Health Strategy (EDH(H))

  Composition

  Lord President of the Council (chairman)

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Health

  Secretary of State for Education

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Paymaster General

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage

  94
  The Chief Medical Officer is in attendance. The Minister without Portfolio also receives papers.

  Terms of reference
  "To oversee the development, implementation and monitoring of the Government's health strategy, to coordinate the Government's policies on United Kingdom-wide issues affecting health, and report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs"

  Ministerial Sub-committee on Public Sector Pay (EDI (P))

  Composition

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Health

  Secretary of State for Education

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science

  The Lord Chancellor also receives papers and may be invited to attend as necessary. The Minister without Portfolio also receives papers.

  Terms of reference
  "To coordinate the handling of pay issues in the public sector, and report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Industrial, Commercial and Consumer Affairs"

  Ministerial Sub-committee on European Questions (OPD(E)

  Composition

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Minister without Portfolio

  Attorney General

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  The Lord Advocate also receives papers. He and other Ministers will be invited to attend as the nature of the business requires.

  The United Kingdom's Permanent Representatives to the European Union is also in attendance.

  Terms of reference
  "To consider questions relating to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy"

  Ministerial Sub-committee on Terrorism (OPD(T))

  Composition

  Secretary of State for the Home Department (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Attorney General

  Terms of reference
  "To keep under review the arrangements for countering terrorism and for dealing with terrorist incidents and their consequences and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee of Defence and Overseas Policy".

  Ministerial Sub-committee on Drug Misuse (EDH(D))

  Composition

  Lord President of the Council (chairman)

  Solicitor General

  95

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Paymaster General

  Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Ministry of Defence

  Minister of State, Scottish Office

  Minister of State, Department for Education

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  Others, including the Minister for Overseas Development and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State from the Departments of the Environment and Employment, may be invited to attend as appropriate and receive all papers.

  Terms of reference
  "To coordinate the Government's national and international policies for tackling drugs misuse, and report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs"

  Ministerial Sub-committee on Women's Issues (EDH (W))

  Composition

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Education

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Paymaster General

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Minister for Construction and Planning)

  Minister of State, Scottish Office

  Minister of State, Department of Employment

  Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office

  Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Ministry of Defence, and Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, also receive papers and may be invited to attend as necessary. The Minister without Portfolio also receives papers.

  Terms of reference
  "To review and develop the Government's policy and strategy on issues of special concern to women: to oversee their implementation; and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs".

  Ministerial Sub-committee on London (EDL(L))

  Composition

  Secretary of State for the Environment (chairman)

  Minister without Portfolio

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Financial Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Minister for Industry and Energy)

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration)

  Minister of State, Department of Health (Minister for Health)

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage

  Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Minister for Transport in London)

  Terms of reference
  "To coordinate the Government's policies on London"

  Ministerial Group on Sanctions Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Gen 27)

  Composition

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (chairman) Paymaster General

  Minister of State, Treasury

  Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Minister for Trade)

  Minister of State for Defence Procurement, Ministry of Defence

  Minister of State, Department of Transport

  96
  Terms of Reference
  "To keep under review the implementation of the sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia imposed under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 757, 787 and 820, and to report to the Ministerial Committee on Overseas and Defence Policy as necessary."

  Ministerial Group on Competitiveness (GEN 29)

  Composition

  President of the Board of Trade (chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  State for Education

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Representatives of other Departments may be invited to attend as necessary. The Minister without Portfolio also receives papers.

  Terms of Reference
  "To keep issues affecting the United Kingdom's competitiveness under review; and to update, in whole or part, as appropriate, from time to time the White Paper on Competitiveness for consideration by the Ministerial Committee on Economic and Domestic Policy."

  Ministerial Group on Card Technology (GEN 34)

  Composition

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Health

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science

  The Minister without Portfolio also receives papers.

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider the developing technology of card systems, and the potential demand for such systems from Government Departments, to ensure a co-ordinated approach across the Government taking account of the impact on the individual citizen".

  Hillsborough Castle
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he, or the Cabinet Secretary, was consulted and gave prior approval to the making available of Hillsborough castle for an event organised by the Conservative Political Centre on 4 November.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 21 November 1994]: Advice from officials is confidential. The use of Hillsborough castle for this event was in accordance with the conventions governing the use of ministerial residences.

  Student Maintenance Awards
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the latest available figure for the total assessed parental contribution to student maintenance awards.

  Mr. Boswell
  The total assessed parental contribution to mandatory awards made by local education authorities in England and Wales for the academic year 1992–93 was £208 million in respect of partial maintenance grants and £392 million in respect of nil maintenance grants.

  Access Funds
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will publish the results of the monitoring returns from higher education institutions on their use of discretionary access funds in 1993–94.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. However, if the hon. Member has particular questions about the returns, I shall see whether we can answer them.

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what guidelines her Department issues to institutions of higher education regarding their responsibility to notify the Students Loans Company Ltd. of students who have ceased attendance on a course;

  (2) what provisions exist for notifying the Student Loans Company of the circumstances of students who have temporarily withdrawn or deferred attendance on a higher education course but who have not permanently ceased to attend.

  Mr. Boswell
  Under the Education (Student Loans) (No.2) Regulations 1993, higher education institutions have a duty to notify the Student Loans Company promptly if a borrower ceases to be an eligible student before the end of his course. The guidelines issued to institutions state that when considering whether a student has ceased to attend a course, an institution should have regard to any internal regulations governing attendance. Institutions therefore have discretion to decide when a student has permanently ceased to attend.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action she is taking to ensure the ongoing educational value of section 11 activity now that much of the funding is contained within the single regeneration budget.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend will continue to monitor, through Ofsted, the standard of educational provision in all maintained schools, including provision for those pupils for whom English is not their first language. Additional support for the latter category through section 11 and single regeneration budget grants is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, respectively.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what moneys are allocated within grants for education support and training to provide for the needs of those teaching bilingual pupils from ethnic minority backgrounds; and what monitoring is planned on how it is spent.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The size of the grants for education support and training—GEST—programme for 1995–96, and the grants within it, will be considered in the light of decisions on education standard spending generally following the unified budget on 29 November. The GEST programme will include a new grant to provide in-service training for mainstream teachers of bilingual pupils from minority ethnic backgrounds. LEAs will be required to report by 30 June 1996 on the training provided under this activity. In addition, Ofsted will be invited to inspect a sample of courses and report to the Department.

  Higher Education Review
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the terms of reference of her Department's review of higher education.

  Mr. Boswell
  The review of higher education is part of the normal programme of reviews which the Department undertakes from time to time. It has no formal terms of reference, but will begin by looking at the aims and purposes of higher education with a view to determining its appropriate size and shape at the turn of the century and beyond. Later on, the review will address the appropriate funding and student support arrangements.

  Officials wrote last week to invite views on the first of those matters from organisations with an interest in the development of higher education. I am arranging for the text of the letter and the list of bodies formally consulted to be placed in the Library.

  Funding Bids
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what input she has had with regard to the bidding guidance issued for single regeneration budget bids concerning existing educational initiatives.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The bidding guidance for the single regeneration budget, which was issued in April, took account of advice from the Department. Education figures prominently among the objectives.

  Further Education
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will publish a table showing the number of students in each local education authority in England undertaking courses of further education(a) aged 16 to 18 years and (b) 19 years and over; and what proportion of each of these age groups was not in receipt of any discretionary award.

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of students in each LEA in England who are undertaking further education(a) aged 16 to 18 years and (b) 19 years and over and the estimated proportion of each of these age groups who do not receive an award under section 2 of the Education Act 1962, are shown in the following table.

  Numbers of FE students by home LEA showing proportion of students not receiving grants under section 2 of the 1962 Education Act(England 1992–93)

  Total numbers of FE students by

  FE students not in receipt of section 2 discretionary awards

  LEA of domicile

  Percentage of age group

  LEA

  Aged 16–18

  Aged 19+

  Aged 16–18

  Aged 19+

  Corporation of London

  24

  147

  96

  99

  Camden

  1,051

  7,494

  100

  100

  Greenwich

  1,812

  2,751

  76

  93

  Hackney

  2,228

  4,325

  69

  98

  Hammersmith

  1,093

  3,712

  68

  97

  Islington

  1,224

  3,487

  47

  98

  Kensington

  694

  6,346

  100

  98

  Lambeth

  2,493

  6,811

  100

  99

  Lewisham

  2,157

  4,690

  85

  100

  Southwark

  2,082

  4,393

  98

  99

  Tower Hamlets

  2,583

  3,981

  100

  98

  Wandsworth

  2,245

  5,794

  48

  100

  Westminster

  1,028

  3,897

  100

  100

  99

  Numbers of students by home LEA showing proportion of students not receiving grants under section 2 of the 1962 Education Act (England 1992–93)

  Total numbers of FE students by

  FE students not in receipt of section 2 discretionary awards

  LEA of domicile

  Percentage of age group

  LEA

  Aged 16–18

  Aged 19+

  Aged 16–18

  Aged 19+

  Barking

  1,344

  1,657

  71

  97

  Barnet

  2,736

  12,827

  85

  97

  Bexley

  2,258

  2,247

  90

  86

  Brent

  2,519

  7,642

  99

  98

  Bromley

  2,228

  2,768

  91

  98

  Croydon

  2,893

  4,271

  72

  98

  Ealing

  3,894

  5,942

  93

  95

  Enfield

  2,695

  9,830

  91

  98

  Haringey

  2,052

  7,338

  100

  100

  Harrow

  3,628

  8,749

  100

  100

  Havering

  2,724

  3,215

  65

  93

  Hillingdon

  2,379

  3,842

  100

  100

  Hounslow

  2,041

  3,282

  76

  100

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,123

  1,868

  84

  99

  Merton

  1,584

  3,041

  75

  96

  Newham

  2,738

  6,119

  100

  100

  Redbridge

  2,207

  4,257

  100

  99

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,154

  12,901

  86

  100

  Sutton

  1,684

  9,227

  84

  98

  Waltham Forest

  2,065

  4,733

  83

  94

  Birmingham

  10,133

  22,910

  100

  92

  Coventry

  3,381

  7,820

  83

  98

  Dudley

  4,752

  12,614

  72

  99

  Sandwell

  3,221

  5,931

  97

  95

  Solihull

  2,240

  5,434

  100

  95

  Walsall

  2,569

  5,238

  63

  89

  Wolverhampton

  2,716

  6,878

  100

  100

  Knowsley

  1,965

  3,581

  40

  85

  Liverpool

  3,954

  14,704

  79

  93

  St Helens

  2,231

  5,803

  57

  96

  Sefton

  3,411

  8,690

  84

  99

  Wirral

  3,068

  11,676

  80

  95

  Bolton

  2,723

  4,257

  61

  88

  Bury

  2,715

  3,095

  62

  82

  Manchester

  3,787

  9,922

  56

  87

  Oldham

  2,313

  2,460

  70

  87

  Rochdale

  2,903

  4,776

  71

  76

  Salford

  1,633

  7,030

  83

  97

  Stockport

  2,200

  4,159

  64

  81

  Tameside

  2,350

  6,446

  82

  95

  Trafford

  2,760

  9,393

  76

  97

  Wigan

  4,541

  6,715

  46

  97

  Barnsley

  3,372

  4,961

  32

  65

  Doncaster

  2,827

  12,114

  72

  94

  Rotherham

  2,954

  11,039

  62

  95

  Sheffield

  6,806

  21,729

  79

  97

  Bradford

  4,786

  21,092

  100

  95

  Calderdale

  2,148

  4,103

  95

  97

  Kirklees

  4,931

  15,486

  43

  94

  Leeds

  7,530

  19,318

  98

  91

  Wakefield

  3,313

  9,803

  29

  99

  Gateshead

  2.107

  4,515

  97

  97

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,079

  4,428

  77

  93

  North Tyneside

  1,726

  3,456

  68

  85

  South Tyneside

  2,325

  3,660

  100

  95

  Sunderland

  4,290

  7,076

  100

  100

  Avon

  9,994

  28,355

  72

  94

  Bedfordshire

  5,980

  13,260

  93

  92

  Berkshire

  8,060

  23,794

  99

  99

  Bucking hamshire

  6,627

  9,960

  96

  98

  Cambridgeshire

  7,234

  12,063

  100

  97

  Cheshire

  11,094

  29,702

  90

  91

  100

  Numbers of FE students by home LEA showing proportion of students not receiving grants under section 2 of the 1962 Education Act (England 1992–93)

  Total numbers of FE students by

  FE students not in receipt of section 2 discretionary awards

  LEA of domicile

  Percentage of age group

  LEA

  Aged 16–18

  Aged 19+

  Aged 16–18

  Aged 19+

  Cleveland

  6,743

  16,134

  84

  98

  Cornwall and IoS

  6,040

  4,919

  71

  85

  Cumbria

  5,117

  8,794

  82

  100

  Derbyshire

  12,438

  20,284

  33

  93

  Devon

  11,989

  16,421

  100

  68

  Dorset

  7,131

  9,763

  78

  84

  Durham

  6,803

  15,031

  100

  89

  East Sussex

  5,922

  22,689

  63

  94

  Essex

  15,906

  24,038

  64

  91

  Gloucestershire

  6,495

  19,123

  80

  95

  Hampshire

  18,111

  30,650

  100

  94

  Hereford and Worcester

  7,597

  23,326

  100

  98

  Hertfordshire

  11,032

  40,626

  98

  99

  Humberside

  9,856

  21,461

  72

  87

  Isle of Wight

  1,467

  4,268

  85

  95

  Kent

  15,611

  14,574

  59

  78

  Lancashire

  21,166

  60,468

  100

  86

  Leicestershire

  8,313

  17,532

  80

  79

  Lincolnshire

  7,255

  8,579

  94

  87

  Norfolk

  7,460

  8,537

  77

  86

  North Yorkshire

  7,617

  22,480

  59

  89

  Northamptonshire

  6,689

  17,099

  100

  98

  Northumberland

  2,419

  3,666

  69

  72

  Nottinghamshire

  11,265

  42,538

  87

  89

  Oxfordshire

  6,282

  13,752

  100

  98

  Shropshire

  5,178

  15,328

  92

  96

  Somerset

  6,708

  13,801

  88

  93

  Staffordshire

  12,731

  27,327

  87

  98

  Suffolk

  6,270

  18,242

  90

  96

  Surrey

  8,710

  10,137

  95

  92

  Warwickshire

  6,479

  16,441

  100

  100

  West Sussex

  6,458

  7,602

  71

  81

  Wiltshire

  7,932

  22,567

  85

  96

  Student Loans Scheme
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she now expects total levels of borrowing and repayments under the student loans scheme to be brought into balance.

  Mr. Boswell
  It has been understood from the outset that repayments will never equal loan outgoings. That would assume no deferment of repayments or cancellation of debt, as concessions allowed under the scheme, and no default.

  The loans scheme produced public expenditure savings, when compared with previous policies, in the first full financial year of its operation. On present estimates, the effect of the loan scheme will be to produce public expenditure savings again as from the academic year 2001–02 and annually thereafter.

  Open Government
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the charging policy of her Department and the agencies for which she is responsible in respect of inquires under the code of practice on access to Government.
  101
  Mr. Forth
  In line with guidance on charging produced by the Office of Public Service and Science, which recognises the diversity of cost and operational structure across the range of bodies implementing the code, the Department for Education and the Teachers Pensions Agency are operating the following scheme of charges for information under the code of practice on access to government information:

  no charge for requests estimated to take up to three hours work

  a flat rate of £50 for requests estimated to need from three to eight hours work

  a flat rate of £150 for requests estimated to take from eight to 13 hours work

  any request requiring more than 13 hours work to be charged at a further £20 for every additional hour worked.

  No charge is made for information which was previously provided free or for the categories of information listed in paragraph 71 of the OPSS guidance on the interpretation of the code.

  School Performance Tables
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will place in the Library copies of the school performance tables, grant-maintained schools, further and higher education charters, educational provision for under fives and updated parents charter surveys referred to in her answer of 25 October,Official Report, column 525.

  Mr. Forth
  I will arrange for copies of the titles listed by the hon. Member to be placed in the Library where available, along with a summary of the updated parents charters pre and post-campaign public opinion surveys.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the amount spent in each of his Department's regions on training in each of the last 10 years; and what that figure represents per unemployed person.

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is not available at a regional level.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what plans he has for restructuring the composition of industrial tribunals;

  (2) what discussions or consultations he has had (a) within and (b) outside his Department about the size and composition of industrial tribunals.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Employment announced on 29 April that she had asked officials to review the operation of the industrial tribunals. Ministers are considering the recommendations arising from the review, and hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans or proposals he has for restructuring or otherwise altering the system of expense allowances available to members of industrial tribunals.
  102
  Mr. Oppenheim
  None.

  Occupational Accidents
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he has taken to monitor the effects on both the numbers and the levels of occupational accident compensation awards of the decision of the Association of British Insurers to recommend a standard maximum of £10 million cover as announced on 5 September; what representations he has received on this matter and from whom; and what discussions about this matter he has had or is planning to have with the ABI.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Officials from the Department recently met representatives of the Association of British Insurers to discuss the implications of the decision by the United Kingdom insurance market to cease issuing policies on an unlimited liability basis from 1 January 1995. I understand that policies will normally provide cover of at least £10 million per event, and that higher levels of cover will still be available for those employers who need it. Officials will continue to keep in contact with the insurance industry to monitor developments.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to encourage the Association of British Insurers to establish a parallel scheme for occupational accidents to that already in operation under the auspices of the Motors' Insurers Bureau for motor accidents where the party liable for injury is either uninsured or inadequately insured.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have no plans to encourage the establishment of such a scheme.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what total resources have been provided to each TEC in(a) the current year and (b) the last year; and how much has been allocated for next year.

  Mr. Paice
  Total 1993–94 and 1994–95 budgets for each training and enterprise council are shown in the following table. Budgets for 1995–96 will be negotiated with TECs after the outcome of the public expenditure survey is known.

  TEC Budgets—1993–94 and 1994–95

  1993–94 Total

  1994–95 Total

  Hampshire

  37,183,108

  35,514,386

  Heart of England

  12,889,535

  13,328,501

  Isle of Wight

  4,794,027

  4,547,500

  Kent

  41,172,116

  37,302,093

  Milton Keynes and N. Bucks

  10,737,441

  10,536,159

  Surrey

  15,177,344

  14,716,308

  Sussex

  28,518,637

  28,400,387

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  29,216,940

  31,902,455

  Aztec

  15,757,575

  13,926,782

  Centec

  31,301,452

  28,362,483

  Cilntec

  29,243,921

  24,776,751

  London East

  47,730,672

  42,697,819

  North London

  23,954,675

  22,538,039

  North West London

  14,816,505

  13,547,054

  Solotec

  24,119,939

  20,718,815

  South Thames

  47,259,640

  41,801,662

  West London

  21,708,398

  20,393,169

  Bedfordshire

  14,373,960

  14,885,900

  Cambstec

  8,659,944

  10,234,756

  Essex

  37,650,059

  36,135,275

  103

  TEC Budgets—1993–94 and 1994–95

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Total

  Total

  Greater Peterborough

  12,009,480

  12,651,573

  Hertfordshire

  27,975,122

  27,596,617

  Norfolk and Waveney

  27,480,024

  27,008,834

  Suffolk

  18,153,786

  20,133,763

  Avon

  34,261,426

  32,835,172

  Devon and Cornwall

  63,142,291

  52,270,158

  Dorset

  20,714,700

  17,865,216

  Gloucestershire

  16,491,120

  14,640,405

  Somerset

  15,355,040

  14,522,239

  Wiltshire

  17,216,049

  14,747,808

  Birmingham

  51,892,786

  41,561,980

  Central England

  12,900,634

  12,352,083

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  32,875,066

  29,881,193

  Dudley

  13,965,570

  12,122,013

  Hawtec

  14,656,120

  13,614,301

  Sandwell

  14,521,215

  14,035,745

  Shropshire

  16,037,663

  13,827,392

  Staffordshire

  40,036,710

  33,065,880

  Walsall

  11,487,834

  9,371,849

  Wolverhampton

  13,592,895

  11,677,769

  Greater Nottingham

  25,639,731

  22,420,148

  Leicester

  28,836,939

  25,268,893

  Lincolnshire

  28,458,098

  25,756,946

  North Derbyshire

  12,922,903

  11,905,576

  North Nottinghamshire

  18,739,393

  18,002,803

  Northamptonshire

  15,535,089

  14,453,531

  Southern Derbyshire

  20,496,766

  18,680,189

  Barnsley and Doncaster

  33,008,794

  27,576,617

  Bradford and District

  23,766,641

  19,207,246

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  30,746,002

  23,311,143

  Humberside

  42,395,837

  37,282,628

  Leeds

  27,475,716

  22,408,167

  North Yorkshire

  20,211,490

  17,959,338

  Rotherham

  15,112,558

  12,371,627

  Sheffield

  30,897,859

  25,346,791

  Wakefield

  15,392,939

  12,719,996

  Bolton and Bury

  16,895,173

  15,311,817

  Cumbria

  20,332,946

  19,129,895

  Eltec (East Lancs)

  23,182,628

  20,941,866

  Lawtec (Lancs West)

  33,693,134

  30,759,096

  Manchester

  45,995,812

  41,373,910

  Metrotec Ltd (Wigan)

  13,010,667

  12,411,609

  Normidtec

  17,627,457

  15,907,805

  Oldham

  10,595,828

  9,620,658

  Rochdale

  11,087,880

  10,335,677

  South and East Cheshire

  16,118,001

  14,857,176

  Stockport/High Peak

  12,822,480

  11,515,242

  Cewtec

  26,452,409

  22,854,525

  Merseyside

  68,487,846

  53,286,232

  Qualitec

  12,714,419

  9,375,979

  County Durham

  36,032,589

  29,223,002

  Northumberland

  18,084,128

  15,133,832

  Sunderland City

  24,225,705

  20,024,174

  Teesside

  40,997,285

  34,502,405

  Tyneside

  52,458,903

  45,189,731

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) which training and enterprise councils assist childminders undertaking the national vocational qualification course in child care and education at(a) level 2 and (b) level 3;

  (2) what guidance is issued by his Department to training and enterprise councils about grant aid for childminders undertaking the national vocational qualification course in child care and education at level 2 and level 3;
  104
  (3) if he will list, by training and enterprise council, the amount of funding allocated to childminders undertaking the national vocational qualification course in child care and education.

  Mr. Paice
  The Employment Department does not fund training and enterprise councils specifically for training childminders, but TECs may provide childcare training through Government-funded training programmes. No information is held centrally on which TECs choose to do so.

  Gas (Safety)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects an interim British Standard, in the absence of European Union standards, to be introduced for carbon monoxide detectors in respect of domestic gas appliances.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  A draft British standard is currently being developed. This is being considered for possible adoption as a European standard. Discussions will take place between the Health and Safety Executive, the British Standards Institution and United Kingdom manufacturers to consider whether an interim British standard is desirable.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many Health and Safety Executive enforcement officers have as their specific responsibility the enforcement of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  There are approximately 150 inspectors in the Health and Safety Executive whose duties include enforcement of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, when he will introduce the regulations covering health and safety conditions in the construction industry.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I hope to announce the final content and timetable for these regulations shortly.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, what assessment he has made of the effect on construction costs of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Taking into account both quantifiable and unquantifiable benefits, it is estimated that there will be a net benefit of around £580 million per year.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the need for additional training in the construction industry to enable people to fulfil the responsibilities of the new health and safety supervisors; and what estimate he has made of the cost of that training.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The assessment of the effect of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations has shown that there will be training needs of those likely to fulfil the role of planning supervisor. It is estimated that there will be a one-off cost of up to £150 million in the first year and up to £7.5 million per year thereafter.

  Open Government
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the charging policy of his Department and the agencies for which he is responsible in respect of inquiries under the code of practice on access to government.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In line with guidance on charging produced by the Office of Public Service and Science, which recognises the diversity of cost and operational structures across the range of bodies implementing the code, the Employment Department group has developed a number of schemes of charges for information under the code of practice on access to Government information. I will write to the hon. Member shortly with details.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on support for self-determination of western Saharans.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We fully support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General and his staff to bring about an early referendum on the future of western Sahara.

  Ukraine
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the Ukraine; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our policy is to promote Ukraine's development as a stable, independent, democratic, market-orientated, non-nuclear weapons state of undisputed territorial integrity, having good relations with its neighbours and the west, and playing a full part in the international community.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those developing countries that are signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. David Davis
  There are 165 states party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. A list of these has been placed in the Library.

  V-4 Group
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on whether applications for EU membership from the V-4 group of central European nations would be considered by the Union simultaneously.

  Mr. David Davis
  The Copenhagen European council—June 1993—agreed that associated countries of central and eastern Europe that so desired shall join the European Union when they are ready to assume the obligations of membership. We expect applications for European Union membership to be considered on their merits. So far, only Poland and Hungary have formally applied to join the European Union.

  Panama
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards Panama; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Davis
  We have excellent diplomatic and trade relations with Panama which we aim to develop. We will support President Perez Balladares's policies to consolidate democracy and to tackle social and economic problems.

  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to promote inward investment to the Turks and Caicos islands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Inward investment in the Turks and Caicos islands is the responsibility of a newly created statutory body, TCInvest, whose chief executive officer has just been appointed. It is hoped that TCInvest, which has been supported by the United Nations development programme as well as by Her Majesty's Government, will be the catalyst in attracting substantial private and corporate investment into the territory.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to promote economic self-sufficiency in the Turks and Caicos islands; over what time-scale; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  In October 1994, Her Majesty's Government and the Turks and Caicos islands Government signed a country policy plan. The country policy plan is designed to set a number of objectives for the TCIG to meet in terms of economic management, good government practice and administrative reforms. It is linked to an aid programme funded by Her Majesty's Government.

  Part of the country policy plan deals with the need to set reasonable economic targets. Combining these targets with inward investment and an expanding service and offshore finance industry based on sound regulation, should produce substantial progress towards economic self-reliance over the three-year period of the country policy plan.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes he plans to the present powers and the role of the Governor of the Turks and Caicos islands.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are no changes planned to the present powers and role of the Governor of the Turks and Caicos islands.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response Her Majesty's Government's ambassador to the United Nations made to the resolution A/C.1/49/L.25 of 2 November on a step-by-step reduction of the threat from nuclear weapons tabled by Brazil and eight other nations at the UN General Assembly.

  Mr. David Davis
  Her Majesty's ambassador to the United Kingdom delegation to the conference on disarmament joined other European Union and western states in voting against the resolution.
  107
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange for publication in the Official Report of a copy of the letter on Pakistan's nuclear weapons status, sent to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, referred to in his answer of 3 November 1994, Official Report, column 1383.

  Mr. David Davis
  The text of the letter is as follows:"You ask about Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme. We have no independent evidence that Pakistan possesses a nuclear weapons capability. We share the concerns of others on this matter however, and continue to lobby Pakistan and India to engage in dialogue on regional security which we hope will enable both countries to allay international concern by acceding to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as non-nuclear weapons states."

  Syria
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy regarding the export of military equipment to Syria.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We observe the arms embargo imposed by the European Union on Syria.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a copy of the letter on the Foreign Affairs Council paper on plutonium sent to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, referred to in his answer of 3 November 1994, Official Report, column 1383.

  Mr. David Davis
  Yes, the text of the letter was as follows:There has already been extensive consultation between government departments and with European and other partners over the issues of Nuclear Smuggling. Work on the report to be presented to the Foreign Affairs Council is now well advanced. The Foreign Affairs Council is, of course, an inter governmental body and we have no specific plans to consult non-governmental organisations on the question of nuclear smuggling in preparing our contribution to the report. However, while we know of no non-governmental bodies working specifically on this issue, we would naturally consider any views that were put to us.
  It has been agreed that the Foreign Affairs Council will present its report to the European Council to be held in Essen in December. The Council's conclusion will be deposited in the Library.

  Applications for Residence
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many outstanding applications for leave to reside in the United Kingdom there are at each of the British high commissions and embassies overseas.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to my written answer to him of 17 October in which I said that I would arrange for the information required to be placed in the Library of the House shortly, in view of its length. I can now confirm that the information requested has indeed been placed in the Library of the House.

  Asil Nadir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had, and with whom, as to the possible extradition of Asil Nadir.

  Mr. David Davis
  I have had no recent discussions about the possible extradition of Asil Nadir.

  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the United Kingdom voted at the United Nations on resolution A/C.1/49/L22 of 1 November calling for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty; and what discussions the British ambassador had with his counterparts from the signatory nations.

  Mr. David Davis
  The United Kingdom co-sponsored the resolution, which was passed by consensus. 'The British ambassador was in close contact throughout with his counterparts, including the sponsors of the resolution.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government policy as to the future of Gibraltar airport after 1997.

  Mr. David Davis
  The policy of Her Majesty's Government on Gibraltar airport remains unchanged. Once the 1987 airport agreement is implemented, the European Community single market in air transport will apply to Gibraltar.

  Burma
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the EC is following a common policy towards human rights in Burma; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Yes. The situation in Burma remains of great concern to the European Union.

  Together with our European Union partners we continue to press the ruling military regime in Burma, the state law and order restoration council—SLORC—to improve its human rights record and institute democratic and economic reforms. Progress in these areas will help the resumption of normal relations between the European union and Burma.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are to hold a conference to try and make progress on an agreement over the Cyprus situation.

  Mr. David Davis
  The focus of the international community's efforts to resolve the Cyprus dispute is the UN Secretary-General's good offices mission. He currently has no plans to hold an international conference.

  Drugs
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will put in the Library written and oral warnings relating to controlled drug delivery channels transiting the United Kingdom's airports received by his Department from September to December 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No such warnings were received.

  Open Government
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the charging policy of his Department and the agencies
  109
  for which he is responsible in respect of inquiries under the code of practice on access to Government.

  Mr. Baldry
  In line with guidance on charging produced by the Office of Public Service and Science, which recognises the diversity of cost and operational structure across the range of bodies implementing the code, my Department has adopted the following policy on charging for information under the code of practice on access to government information.

  Straightforward inquiries made to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office under the code of practice may attract a flat rate fee of £15. If extensive work which would not otherwise be done is necessary to provide the information required, a higher charge would be made, but an estimate of the cost would be given before any work was undertaken. Practically all enquiries received by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration are made without reference to the code and continue to be answered free of charge.

  In cases where the Overseas Development Administration—including the Natural Resources Institute—make a charge, it did so on the basis of an individual assessment, in which cases an estimate of the cost would be provided in advance.

  Departmental Wine Expenditure
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much each Government Department consumed in wine purchases made as a result of recommendations from the Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Government hospitality fund provides official ministerial hospitality centrally for all Ministers irrespective of Departmental portfolio. Purchases of wine are made in response to the needs of official ministerial hospitality as a whole and not on behalf of Departments. Stocks are issued as necessary for each function. There is no relationship between the Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine and Departments.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total wine bill for Foreign Office events(a) in the United kingdom and (b) abroad in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Goodlad
  This information is not available and cannot be extracted without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average price of a bottle of wine purchased on the recommendation of the Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The average price of a bottle of wine purchased on the recommendation of the Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine as at 31 July 1994 was £5.93.

  Government Hospitality Fund
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the annual budget and staffing levels of the Government hospitality fund.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Government hospitality fund employs 24 staff. The operational budget to cover the cost 110
  of guest of government visits and ministerial hospitality is £1.5 million.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the members of the Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine are selected; and by whom.

  Mr. Goodlad
  All members of the Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine are masters of wine—a qualification to which only 160 people world wide are entitled.

  New members would be expected to have similar qualifications and to be senior and respected doyens of the wine trade.

  When a vacancy occurs potential new members are identified from the small number of those qualified by other members of the committee and a recommendation for appointment is made to the Minister by the Secretary of the GHF.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide a breakdown of expenditure incurred by the Government hospitality fund for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The expenditure incurred by the Government hospitality fund falls broadly into two headings: hospitality, being the cost of all official lunches, dinners and receptions hosted by Ministers anywhere in the United Kingdom, and visits, being the cost of all state and guest of government visits made to the United Kingdom. The cost of visits in 1993–94 rose as a consequence of visits made by Ministers from the new nations emerging in the former Soviet Union.

  Year

  Hospitality £

  Visits £

  Total £

  1989–90

  437,635

  652,761

  1,090,396

  1990–91

  363,825

  593,862

  957,687

  1991–92

  321,527

  718,410

  1,039,937

  1992–93

  428,125

  635,168

  1,063,293

  1993–94

  395,545

  1,014,795

  1,410,340

  Consular Fees
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase any of the consular fees.

  Mr. Baldry
  An Order in Council—the Consular Fees Order 1994—was made on 2 November which provides for increases of around 50 per cent. in certain consular fees with effect from 24 November 1994. Passport—save for emergency passports—and visa fees are not included. It is Government policy that the cost of consular services should be borne by the users as far as possible.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration he has given to the awarding of charitable status to voluntary sports clubs as part of his review of sport for the 21st century.

  Mr. Sproat
  The granting of charitable status is a matter for the Charity Commissioners and was not
  111
  therefore covered by my review. However, my Department was closely involved in the preparation of a Sports Council leaflet last year, which stresses the benefits of charitable status for voluntary sports clubs and offers advice on achieving this status.

  Quangos
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which quangos his Department has abolished since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department, which was established in April 1992, has not yet abolished any public bodies.

  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many quangos his Department was responsible for(a) on 1992 and (b) in the latest year for which a number is available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department was established in 1992 and took on responsibility for 53 non-departmental public bodies and four public corporations. Channel 4 became a public corporation on 1 January 1993 and the Millennium Commission was created earlier this year. The Department is therefore now responsible for 54 NDPBs and five public corporations.

  Internet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National heritage (1) how many people in his Department are working on the Internet pilot information service.

  (2) what kind of official information he contemplates will be available to citizens through the pilot information project over the Internet;

  (3) what discussions his Department has had with the private sector in relation to the Internet pilot information service;

  (4) what studies his Department has conducted into the Internet pilot information service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am aware of the Internet pilot information service. My staff are monitoring its development with interest, and considering using it to disseminate information, such as press notices and public inquiry points. They are also exploring the issues surrounding information provision on the Internet with a number of organisations, both private and public sector. A broad cross-section of people from across the Department contribute to this work, but it does not constitute the main work of any of them.

  Sports Council Funds
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what funds have been made available from the Sports Council to the English karate board of control since 1991; and what assessment he has made as to the adequacy of accounting for these funds.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Sports Council provides grant aid to karate in England through the English Karate Governing Body. The EKGB was established in 1991 by merger of the two then governing bodies—the English Karate Council and the English Karate Board. Since its inception, the EKGB has received the following grant aid:

  1991–92: £6,900 for international competition

  1992–93: £5,000 for administration and equipment costs

  1993–94: £90,000 based on its four year development plan.

  112
  The EKGB has so far received £45,000 of the grant towards its development plan, and an additional grant of £40,000 towards the cost of staging the European championships.

  Each grant has been subject to conditions which are consistent with the requirements of the financial memorandum between my Department and the Sports Council, which governs the terms of Government grant in aid. These conditions include the provision by the EKGB of audited accounts and balance sheets and certified statements of income and expenditure. Payment of further instalments of the EKGB's planned 1994–95 grant will continue to be dependent on its compliance with the grant conditions.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) during how many of the overseas visits made by Ministers in his Department between 1 January and 30 June those Ministers participated in fund-raising activities for the Conservative party; and if he will list the Ministers and the countries in which those activities took place;

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 21 November 1994]: Between 1 January and 30 June, Ministers in my Department made seven overseas visits in their official capacity. Fundraising activities for the Conservative party are not part of our official duties.

  Arts Sponsorship, Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will set up an inquiry into the grant from his Department under the business sponsorship of the arts scheme to the Welsh Rock and Folk Music Council, matching the grant from the Pengwyn Pinc Cyf Company and the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority, S4C; what consultation with the chairman of S4C and the director of the Association of Business Sponsorship of the Arts he has had concerning this grant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 21 November 1994]: In response to recent media reports, and having consulted my Department, the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts, which administers the business sponsorship incentive scheme on my behalf, is undertaking an urgent review of the circumstances in which an award was made to the Welsh Rock and Folk Music Council. I will consider what further action my Department might take in the light of the outcome of that review. I will also be taking account of the findings of an inquiry that is being conducted by S4C.

SCOTLAND

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names for the 72 Scottish parliamentary constituencies as proposed by the Boundary Commission and the names of the new local authority areas which each constituency will be part of from April 1996.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has not yet received the report from the Boundary
  113
  Commission for Scotland containing its final recommendations for parliamentary constituency boundaries in Scotland.

  Open Government
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the charging policy of his Department and the agencies for which he is responsible in respect of inquiries under the code of practice on access to Government.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department charges for information only in cases where a request received under the code of practice causes additional work which it would not have been necessary to undertake if the request had not been made. The charges are based on the actual cost of the extra work carried out but are levied only when the cost of such work exceeds £100. There is no charge where provision of information is necessary to the fair and accountable performance of the Department's functions. Most information is, therefore, provided free of charge. The agencies for which I am responsible operate similar schemes of charging to that of my Department.

  Disport Monkland
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Strathclyde regional council concerning the reduction in funding for Disport Monkland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Following notification of approved urban programme expenditure of £25,900 for the Disport project in 1994–95, Strathclyde regional council submitted a written appeal on 27 September 1994. The council had sought £49,000 but the approved expenditure was reduced to reflect the extent to which the project was targeted on the residents of areas eligible for urban programme support. The points made in the letter of appeal were fully considered but the original decision was upheld.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to fulfil the undertakings in "The Structure of Local Government: Shaping the Future—The New Councils" to consult on the future structure of lieutenancies in Scotland after 1 April 1996.

  Mr. Lang
  I intend to consult Lord-Lieutenants and other interested parties on the proposals for lieutenancies in Scotland after 1 April 1996 which are set out in a consultation paper being published today. Copies of the consultations document are available in the Library.

  Forestry Authority
  Mr. Kynoch
  : To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the review of the Forestry Authority.

  Mr. Lang
  I announced on 19 July,Official Report, column 185, that I was asking the director-general of the Forestry Commission to look at all aspects of the work carried out by the Forestry Authority with a view to improving the performance and efficiency of the organisation. This will involve a "prior options" study. I would welcome comments from interested parties. Those
  114
  should be sent to "The Director-General, Forestry Commission, 231 Corstorphine road, Edinburgh, EH12 7AT", by 21 January 1995.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fisheries
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what fisheries protection cover operates in the North sea normally to assist British fishing vessels; what was in operation on the night of 10–11 November; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  British sea fishery limits adjacent to England and Wales are patrolled by vessels from the Royal Navy's fishery protection squadron. At any one time there will be between two and four vessels on task to this Ministry.

  On 10 to 11 November, four vessels were on patrol, in the North sea, the East English channel, the Bristol channel area and in the south-west approaches.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the number and scale of incidents between British fishing vessels and French vessels in each of the last five years in(a) the North sea and (b) other British waters; and what action the Government took in each case.

  Mr. Jack
  The Ministry does not keep comprehensive records of incidents involving gear disputes either between United Kingdom fishing vessels or between United Kingdom fishing vessels and those from other countries. Any action taken by the Ministry would depend on the particular circumstances of the incident.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement about the incident between the fishing vessel Breydon Warrior and a French trawler on the night of 10 to 11 November in the North sea when fishing gear was damaged;

  (2) if he will make a statement on what compensation is available to British fishing vessel owners who have fishing equipment damaged by French vessels; and what are the procedures for addressing compensation claims.

  Mr. Jack
  The Ministry has not received any detailed account of the incident from the owners of the Breydon Warrior. I understand, however, from local press reports and a summary report provided by the coastguard that the Breydon Warrior's fishing gear was lost following an incident involving a French trawler. Incidents of this sort are regrettable and the Ministry encourages those concerned to co-operate and to reach agreements aimed at minimising conflict between different methods of fishing. Compensation is normally a civil matter for resolution between the parties concerned but, if requested, the Ministry is prepared to advise on the procedures to be followed.

  Open Government
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the charging policy of his Department and the agencies for which he is responsible in respect of inquiries under the code of practice on access to Government.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In line with guidance on charging produced by the Office of Public Service and Science,
  115
  which recognises the diversity of cost and operational structure across the range of bodies implementing the code, the charging arrangements developed by my Department can be summarised as follows:

  (i) there will continue to be no charge for the provision of information necessary to the fair and accountable performance of the Ministry's functions;

  (ii) a standard charge of £15 will be made for additional work needed to provide information over and above (i) in the case of simple requests, defined as those requiring less than two hours work at higher executive officer grade or below. This sum equates to about half the marginal cost of two hours work;

  (iii) an additional charge will be made, above the standard charge, for the provision of information in response to more complex requests. This will be calculated at marginal costs and will be related to the amount of time needed to complete the tasks.

  The Ministry has always made a great deal of information available to the public on all aspects of its policies and procedures. No charges have yet been raised by the Department or its executive agencies for information requested under the code of practice. That is not expected to change significantly in the future.

  A copy of MAFF's explanatory leaflet on charging for information provided under the code has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Milk
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage milk production in the EU now exceeds consumption; and how the surplus is disposed of.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 21 November 1994]: According to the European Court of Auditors' Report for 1993 surpluses of milk products amount to the equivalent of approximately 10 per cent. of Community consumption.

  Community intervention stocks of butter have been reduced from 1,283,303 tonnes in 1986 to 81,249 tonnes now. Over the same period, intervention stocks of skimmed milk powder have been reduced from 959,865 tonnes to 82,942 tonnes now.

  The Government have pressed successfully for reductions in support prices. For example, since 1989 the intervention price for butter has been reduced from 306.94 per 100 kg to 265.17 per 100 kg for 1994.

  There are several subsidised disposal schemes for surplus dairy products. For butter they include sales at a reduced price for the manufacture of bakery products, sugar confectionery and ice cream and the subsidised use of butter in the manufacture of concentrated butter for cooking. There are also subsidies for the use of skimmed milk in the manufacture of animal feed and for processing into casein and caseinates. In addition, subsidies are available for the consumption of milk and certain milk products in schools.

WALES

  Industrial and Commercial Projects
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list new industrial and commercial 116
  projects in Wales since May 1992, indicating the number of jobs promised and safeguarded and the kind of Government assistance given when appropriate.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information in the form requested is not available centrally. However, details of companies receiving regional selective assistance offers of £75,000 or more are published quarterly in the Employment Gazette, while summarised information relating to regional assistance is published each year in the Industrial Development Act 1982 annual reports. Summary information on all Welsh Office assistance is contained in the Department's annual reports—"The Government Expenditure Plans: A Report by the Welsh Office". Copies of those publications are available in the Library of the House.

  University Hospital of Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the terms of reference of the post-implementation review into the £5 million expansion project of the adult cardiac surgery unit at the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff; when he expects the review will be completed; if he will then place a copy in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I expect the post-implementation review of the expansion of adult cardiac services at the University Hospital of Wales to report in January 1995. I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the report in the Library of the House when it has been finalised. The terms of reference for the review are set cut as follows:

  Terms of reference
  In respect of the first year of full operation of the expanded capacity of specialist adult cardiac services at the University Hospital of Wales described in the Coopers and Lybrand, Deloitte and South Glamorgan Health Authority reports of June and July, 1991:

  A. Planning

  (i) to describe how the project was planned and implemented and explore any difficulties:

  (ii) to consider whether the project was implemented within the parameters identified in the 1991 reports and, in particular, to report on the effect of the expansion on the cardiac services unit and on other hospital services and any unforeseen external influences affecting the expansion, including new developments in clinical practice.

  B. Operational

  (i) to establish the effective capacity of the Unit;

  (ii) to identify any service developments—physical or operational—introduced in parallel with the expansion programme;

  (iii) to establish current quality levels and monitoring arrangements, taking into account quality standards obtaining in other comparable centres;

  (iv) to review and report on changes in waiting times pre and post-implementation.

  C. Lessons for the Future

  (i) to identify the lessons to be learnt from the planning and implementation process.

  Open Government
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the charging policy of his Department and the agencies for which he is responsible
  117
  in respect of inquiries under the code of practice on access to Government.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 21 November 1994.

  National Blood Transfusion Service
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he is undertaking in relation to the future status and management of the National Blood Transfusion Service, Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The National Blood Transfusion Service Wales is currently preparing a report on the future management arrangements. The question of consultation will be considered when the report is received.

  Health Promotion Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to transfer resources from the Health Promotion Authority for Wales to the health promotion units of the Welsh health authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I will decide about any transfer of money once the present review of health promotion has been completed.

TRANSPORT

  Traffic Director
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the annual cost to public funds of the Traffic Director and his office.

  Mr. Norris
  Around £1.6 million for the current financial year.

  Smoky Vehicles Telephone Hotline
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the annual cost of promoting the smoky vehicle telephone hotline.

  Mr. Norris
  The cost of printing and distributing leaflets informing members of the public about how to report smoky vehicles through the telephone hotline has been £13,771 to date. The annual cost of operating the hotline is in the region of £5,500.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many calls have been made to date to the smoky vehicles hotline; how many resulted in action being taken against the operator concerned; and what has been the total cost to public funds to date of the hotline.

  Mr. Norris
  Since 1 April 1991, a total of 8,258 reports of excessively smoky vehicles have been received by the Vehicle Inspectorate.

  Action is taken in all cases where sufficient information is reported, about 75 per cent. Operators are asked to have their vehicle checked and are warned that continued use of an excessively smoky vehicle could be in contravention of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.
  118
  Since 1 April 1991, the total cost of operating the hotline and of printing and distributing promotional leaflets has been in the region of £30,000.

  Tolls
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to submit any proposals for introducing or varying tolls for a road, bridge or tunnel to an environmental assessment.

  Mr. Watts
  Proposals for new tolled trunk roads, bridges and tunnels are already subject to environmental assessment. Variations in toll are covered by the relevant legislation.

  Learning to Drive
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he is giving to the planned revisions to the driving test to establish appropriate links with the Department for Education and Department of Employment in order to incorporate learning to drive in the GNVQ programme.

  Mr. Norris
  We are currently discussing with the Department for Education how best to incorporate road safety, including aspects relating to new drivers, into the GNVQ programme.

  Cycling
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what performance indicators are being used to measure the success of the blueprint for cycling set out in the June cycling statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The statement aims to create the conditions in which more people will choose to cycle. Increases in cycling will be monitored through the national travel survey and the national traffic census. We are considering with other organisations whether this could usefully be augmented by more detailed information on the characteristics of cycle journeys.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what extra resources he has given to the Vehicle Inspectorate to increase the number of vehicle smoke emission tests.

  Mr. Norris
  The level of resources devoted to emission checks has been steadily increased over the past few years. We have asked the Vehicle Inspectorate to use excessive smoke emission as one of the main indicators for targeting vehicles for roadside enforcement checks and to concentrate on emissions standards in its enforcement on private vehicles.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to study which categories of vehicles not designed to the latest standards justify retrofitting with catalysts or particulate traps.

  Mr. Norris
  Research undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory on behalf of the Department has supported similar conclusions reached in the USA that retrofitting catalysts or particulate traps is not feasible on many types of vehicle. The environmental benefits are difficult to assess, and the costs, given their present state of the development are high. However, as the technology develops, especially that for controlling particulate
  119
  emissions, this is an area which I intend to keep under review.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to introduce an obligatory emissions test for all cars a year after registration, as part of the annual MOT test.

  Mr. Norris
  No. Such a measure would be unjustified. Most new cars are covered by manufacturers' warranties until they are two or three years old and excessive emissions should not be a problem.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will support more stringent standards being applied for the emissions element of the annual MOT test.

  Mr. Norris
  More stringent standards will be introduced into the MOT test for existing vehicles from 1996. However, it would be unreasonable to expect a vehicle to comply with more stringent in-service emissions levels than it was originally designed to meet.

  Used Tyres
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that used tyres are subjected to safety testing before re-sale;

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that suppliers of used tyres can be readily identified in cases of tyre failure.

  (3) what additional measures he is considering to protect motorists from the sale of unmarked, untested and potentially unsafe used tyres.

  Mr. Norris
  On 24 October, the Government went out to consultation on draft safety regulations to be made under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 which will supplement that Act by making it an offence to sell or otherwise supply in the course of business any part-worn tyre that is defective. Enforcement against suppliers will be by trading standards officers at point of sale, and the onus will be on dealers to comply.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take measures to ensure that imported used tyres conform to the appropriate EU safety levels.

  Mr. Norris
  There are no EU standards for part-worn tyres.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice his Department gives to users of lap style seat belts in order to promote their safe utilisation.

  Mr. Norris
  Our advice is contained in the departmental publication "Choosing Safety".

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the figures, for the years since compulsory wearing of rear seat belts was introduced, for the rate of injury to passengers wearing lap style seat belts, where it has been shown that injury was occasioned or worsened by the seat belt.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is not available.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce more bus lanes and to ensure they are policed effectively.
  120
  Mr. Norris
  The implementation of bus lanes is a matter for the local highway authority, and their enforcement is a matter for the police. My Department has issued comprehensive advice to local authorities to encourage them to consider introducing more bus priority measures.

  Clean Fuels
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to co-operate with the oil industry and vehicle manufacturers to develop specifications for cleaner fuels.

  Mr. Norris
  Research on emissions, fuels and engine technologies—the EPEFE programme—is being undertaken by the European oil and motor industries in conjunction with the European Commission. This is looking extensively into the potential benefits that future vehicle and fuel technology can play in reducing vehicle pollution. It includes an examination of a range of different fuel types. The results, which are due in 1995, will provide an authoritative basis for European discussions for determining future EU fuel and engine requirements.

  Portland House
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what facilities for disabled access exist at Portland house; what measures he is taking to improve facilities for disabled access; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Ramps suitable for wheelchairs are available at the Stag place entrance and at changes in floor levels within the building. Suitable parking facilities are also available.

  Blue Circle Industries
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial gain he estimates will accrue to Blue Circle Industries as a result of his decision to locate the intermediate station for the channel tunnel fast rail track at Ebbsfleet.

  Mr. Watts
  I have made no such estimates.

  Staff Dismissals
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the last five years the number of staff dismissed with regard to(a) reason for dismissal, (b) grade, (c) gender and (d) ethnic origin.

  Mr. Norris
  The numbers and grades of staff dismissed, and the reason for dismissal, over the past five years is set out below:

  Year

  Grade

  Inefficiency

  Misconduct

  1990

  AA

  —

  1

  AO

  —

  5

  TE

  1

  —

  DE

  1

  —

  BAND 4

  —

  1

  1991

  AA

  —

  11+1

  AO

  —

  13+1

  DE

  —

  3

  TE

  —

  1

  121

  Year

  Grade

  Inefficiency

  Misconduct

  1991

  SSO

  —

  1

  G7

  1

  —

  SH/SURV

  1

  —

  1992

  AA

  2

  5

  AO

  1

  2

  EO

  1

  1

  PTO

  1

  —

  DE

  —

  1

  SSO

  —

  1

  1993

  AA

  —

  3

  EO

  1

  —

  PTO

  2

  1

  HPTO

  1

  —

  BAND6

  —

  1

  CGWO

  1

  —

  DE

  —

  1

  AVE

  —

  1

  SEN.CRAFT

  1

  —

  1994

  AA

  3

  —

  AO 3

  1

  TYPIST

  —

  1

  DE

  —

  1

  1 Not recorded.

  The further information requested could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Secret Files
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) top secret and (b) secret files his Department holds.

  Mr. Norris
  The answers are:

  (a) 25

  (b) approximately 1,200

  Occupational Health
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the measures he is taking to implement the recommendations given in the occupational health notice received by his Department in respect of the Whitehall II study.

  Mr. Norris
  Occupational health notice 93/3 gave advice on approaches which Departments and agencies might address in dealing with sickness absence. The Department of Transport continues to be committed to the "Look After Your Heart" programme, to which it signed up to 1989. Smoking policy in the Department has recently been reviewed and revised. In addition, the Department has recently offered its staff a free medical examination in a nationwide health screening programme.

  Table 1

  Year

  HGV and PSV roadside spot checks

  Operator licensing fleet check

  Car and LGV spot checks

  Total

  1989–90

  16,296

  9,442

  1—

  25,738

  1990–91

  17,890

  9,671

  1—

  27,561

  1991–92

  21,762

  12,658

  5,680

  40,100

  1992–93

  29,127

  13,852

  5,341

  48,320

  1993–94

  27,919

  13,008

  10,309

  51,236

  1 This information can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Red Routes
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost of introducing the Archway road red route.

  Mr. Norris
  The cost of the eight mile red route pilot scheme was about £5 million.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total cost so far of introducing red routes in London.

  Mr. Norris
  About £16 million including works on the red route pilot scheme and preparation for the introduction of red routes elsewhere.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to introduce design standards for the construction of new bypasses that provide only for the traffic flows which will be diverted from the town or village bypassed, not for further large growth of traffic.

  Mr. Watts
  To achieve the planned environmental benefits, bypasses must be designed in accordance with the best available assessment of future traffic flows.

  Vehicle Spot Checks
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many spot checks have been carried out, how many heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles were inspected and how many defect and prohibition notices were issued in the north-west region in the last two years;

  (2) how many vehicle spot checks were carried out by the Vehicle Inspectorate in (a) the north-west region and (b) the Cheshire region in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Vehicle Inspectorate. The Chief Executive has written to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 21 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about vehicle spot checks in the North West region and in the county of Cheshire. Unfortunately the Inspectorate cannot provide data on a county by county basis because the Road Transport Enforcement division is organised into 23 area groups—these do not correspond with county boundaries. However, regional data is available.
  Table 1 gives a breakdown of the total number of roadworthiness spot checks of heavy goods (HGVs) and public service vehicles (PSVs) in the North West region. Vehicles are subject to spot checks at the roadside and, in the case of HGVs and PSVs, at operators' premises.
  123
  The hon. Lady asked a further question on the total number of spot checks carried out on HGVs and PSVs in the north west region, and the number of prohibition and defect notices issued. The information is summarised in table 2 below.

  Table 2

  Vehicle type and year

  Number of spot checks

  Number of prohibitions

  Number of defect notices

  HGVs

  1992–93

  36,889

  3,902

  7,376

  1993–94

  34,087

  3,634

  7,273

  PSVs

  1992–93

  6,090

  507

  1,289

  1993–94

  6,840

  658

  1,389

  I hope this information is sufficient, but if the hon. Lady has any further questions about the inspectorate's operations please contact me at the above address.

  Health and Safety Committees
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many health and safety committees there are(a) in each executive agency of his Department and (b) the Department as a whole.

  Mr. Norris
  A number of such committees exist; but my Department does not keep a central record of the safety committees in each executive agency or in the Department as a whole. Where requested, safety committees are established in accordance with legislative requirements.

  Cycling
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes there have been over the last 10 years regarding requirements to fit bicycle bells on push bicycles; and what are the current legal requirements.

  Mr. Norris
  None. It is not mandatory to fit bicycle bells at present, but we shall be reviewing the situation shortly when we update the relevant safety and construction and use regulations.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to adopt Sustrans national cycle network as part of the Government's sustainable transport policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I recently attended the launch by Sustrans of its proposals for a network of recreational cycle routes. Routes of this kind will open up opportunities for people to use bicycles both for leisure and to keep fit—as well as for utility journeys. Sustrans has offered me a detailed presentation shortly; I shall then be able to see how its project could help our objectives.

  A1
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has received, and from whom, to increase safety on the A1 southward from Blaydon bridge to the Washington service area.

  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what expenditure his Department has incurred in testing and development on his Department's proposals 124
  to produce a new route for the Al between the Washington service area and Blaydon bridge.

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to the hon. member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. John Mc William, dated 22 November 1994:
  You tabled two questions about the Al between Washington Service Area and Blaydon Bridge.
  As this is an operational matter relating to the Highways Agency I have been asked to reply.
  The Agency constantly monitors conditions on the A1 Trunk Road and improvement schemes are brought forward when necessary in conjunction with the Local Highways Authorities who act as our Agents.
  As part of these procedures our agents Gateshead MBC produced a safety report on the Al in their area. Subsequently a number of short and medium term schemes to improve safety have been completed. These are lane drop/merge signs, temporary warning signs, central safety fence, northbound third lane and a lighting scheme.
  For the longer term schemes under consideration are junction improvements the introduction of a sign gantry at the MetroCentre, the provision of a third lane southbound at Dunston and a queue detection variable message sign system over the route.
  Expenditure incurred to date on the proposed A1 Gateshead Bypass improvement scheme is £2.3 million. This figure includes the costs of working up all the route options taken to public consultation and the suggested alternatives including the Gateshead MBC proposal.

  Petrol
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the difference in benzene emissions between leaded petrol, premium unleaded petrol and super premium unleaded petrol; and what is the source of the figures.

  (2) if he will make a statement on the difference in the aromatics content of leaded petrol, premium unleaded petrol and super premium unleaded petrol; and what is the source of the figures.

  Mr. Norris
  Benzene in petrol is controlled at 5 per cent. maximum by EC directive and data from the Associated Octel Company show that United Kingdom fuels average some 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. with no significant trends between the various grades. The same data show that the average aromatic content of unleaded petrol in the United Kingdom is slightly higher than of leaded petrol although, in many cases, samples of leaded petrol may have a higher armomatic content than samples of unleaded petrol.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department carries out independent analyses of the contents of leaded, unleaded and super premium unleaded petrol.

  Mr. Norris
  No.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what respects the contents of petrol supplied from refineries in different areas of the United Kingdom differ; and what statistics the Government maintain on the source and content of petrol.

  Mr. Norris
  Information regarding the content of petrol from different refineries is not available. The Government do not routinely maintain statistics on the source and content of petrol.

  Pilotage Act 1987
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he or his predecessors have exercised their powers under section 5(8) of the Pilotage Act 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Yes. The Pilotage Act (Cessation of Temporary Arbitration Arrangements) Order and Regulations 1991—SI 1991 No. 1959—was made under section 5(8) of the Pilotage Act 1987, to have effect from 1 October 1991.

  Benzene Emissions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement indicating what is the total annual weight and volume of benzene emissions from petrol-driven vehicles for the latest period for which statistics are available; and what percentage of total atmospheric benzene such emissions represents.

  Mr. Norris
  The latest available figures from 1991 show that benzene emissions from vehicle exhausts account for some 39,250 tonnes per year, or 78 per cent. of total atmospheric emissions. Evaporative emissions of benzene from petrol vehicles accounts for some 3,350 tonnes per year, or 7 per cent. of total atmospheric emissions.

  Open Government
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the charging policy of his Department and the agencies for which he is responsible in respect of inquiries under the code of practice on access to Government.

  Mr. Norris
  In line with guidance on charging produced by the Office of Public Service and Science, which recognises the diversity of cost and operational structure across the range of bodies implementing the code, my Department has developed the following scheme of charges for information under the code of practice on access to Government information.

  Requests which require less than half a day's work to answer are dealt with free of charge. Where a request involves more extensive work, a charge is set based on the hourly rate for the grade of officer responding and the additional time dedicated to the response.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to open a channel tunnel to Scotland route for piggy-back rail freight.

  Mr. Watts
  The development of piggy-back rail freight routes is a matter which potential operators are taking forward with Railtrack.

  Rail Industry
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to ensure that the structure and operation of the privatised rail industry leads to a much greater use of rail by passengers and freight;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that sales of British Rail freight subsidiaries to the private sector take place on terms which create the most favourable prospects for increasing rail's share of the freight market.
  126
  Mr. Watts
  Open access to the rail network for passenger and freight services will enhance competitiveness. Freight facilities grant and track access grant will enhance the competitive position of rail freight over road where environmentally justified. The rail freight businesses will be privatised by means of competitive sale. Privately owned operating companies will have greater financial freedom, more incentive to improve efficiency and respond to passengers' and customers' needs, and greater opportunity to diversify into new markets.

  Transport Modes (Evaluation)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to broaden the role of the standing advisory committee on trunk road assessment to include the development of appropriate appraisal techniques to ensure consistency of evaluation methods as between the different transport modes.

  Mr. Watts
  The standing advisory committee on trunk road assessment's role is reviewed from time to time.

  Electric Vehicles
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to promote the development of electric power for public transport or fleet vehicles which operate in urban areas.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department is leading a collaborative programme of trials involving electricity and other popular alternative fuels as announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 21 March,Official Report, column 9.

  Driving Tests (Accidents)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the information available to him regarding the numbers of accidents involving vehicles during the driving test giving details of vehicles written off, injuries to driving examiners and absence from work of driving examiners as a result of accidents while carrying out a driving test for the latest convenient period.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is not available.

  Urban Road Pricing
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to ensure that any revenue raised from urban road pricing schemes is used to finance the enhancement of public transport.

  Mr. Watts
  This is one of many issues which my right hon. Friend will consider before reaching any conclusions on urban road pricing.

  Post-privatisation Services
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to ensure the continued availability of integrated travel information and timetables after the privatisation of rail and bus services.

  Mr. Watts
  Station operators are required by their station operators licence to provide impartial information about all services using their station. Passenger service operators will be required by their franchise agreements to
  127
  provide information about other operators services which interconnect with theirs.

  Railtrack is responsible for producing a working timetable and to secure the publication of a national timetable.

  The provision of bus timetables and travel information after the privatisation of London Transport's bus operating companies will remain the responsibility of London Transport. Outside London, local authorities have powers to provide co-ordinated timetables.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to ensure the continued availability of through-tickets and travelcards after the privatisation of rail and bus services.

  Mr. Watts
  The continuation of through-ticketing after rail privatisation is ensured through provisions in section 4 of the Railways Act 1993. The Franchising Director will require franchisees to participate in multimodal travel schemes such as travelcard so long as he is satisfied that participation will result in no new net cost falling on his budget.

  The overall structure of fares and ticketing on London's buses will remain the responsibility of London Transport after privatisation, thus ensuring the continued availability of London travelcard. Outside London, bus operators are free to introduce multi-operator tickets so long as they do not amount to anti-competitive price fixing arrangements. Local authorities and passenger transport authorities also have powers to organise multi-operator travelcard.

  High Vehicle-occupancy Lanes
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has made of the desirability of high vehicle-occupancy lanes.

  Mr. Norris
  I have noted experience overseas, including the United States of America and the Netherlands. I am considering the scope for introducing a trial here.

  Catalysts
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to encourage European vehicle and catalyst manufacturers to pool their research on DeNOX—removal of nitrogen oxide—catalysts.

  Mr. Norris
  The development of the DeNOX catalyst, for controlling oxides of nitrogen from diesel engines and lean-burn petrol engines, is a major research project to which United Kingdom and European companies are devoting substantial resources. There are already a number of collaborative programmes between catalyst and vehicle manufacturers. The Government see no need, at present, to encourage further European collaboration.

  Driving Instructors
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to improve the standard of light goods vehicle driving instructors; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will now make it his policy to bring in a registration scheme for light goods vehicle instructors and driving schools similar to that governing car driving instructors; and if he will make a statement.
  128
  Mr. Norris
  The Government have no plans to introduce a statutory register of goods vehicle driving instructors. Industry bodies are, however, considering a voluntary scheme with the Driving Standards Agency, the official body with expertise in driver testing and training matters, offering a standards assurance service on a cost recovery basis. In addition, the agency published earlier this year a comprehensive manual for learning to drive all types of goods vehicles.

  Vehicle Registration Offices
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to reduce the number of vehicle registration offices.

  Mr. Norris
  Fundamental changes to the way in which vehicles are registered and licensed locally by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's vehicle registration offices and the London enforcement office were announced by the DVLA's chief executive on 12 August. These changes mean that the current network would be gradually reduced and eventually closed by 1997. A DVLA press notice—No 23/94—was issued containing the details.

  Ports Office for Scotland
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what annual savings he expects to achieve for his Department if the proposal to close the Ports Office for Scotland and relocate its functions in London is implemented;

  (2) what is the estimated cost of implementing the proposal to close the Ports Office for Scotland in Edinburgh and relocating its functions and staff in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  If the closure takes place we would expect initial annual savings of at least £44,000. The savings could be larger in later years. The total associated costs will depend upon the net costs of redundancies that may result from the closure of the office and consequent changes.

  New Roads
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to confine expenditure on new roads to the construction of new bypasses for local traffic, and on the maintenance of existing roads.

  Mr. Watts
  Expenditure on trunk roads is targeted carefully on maintaining and upgrading the existing network. Urgently needed bypasses for towns and villages are a priority and form about a quarter of the programme. We also encourage local authorities through their investment programmes to provide relief for communities on the more important local roads.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been undertaken for or by his Department on the generation of additional traffic by the construction of new roads.

  Mr. Watts
  The Department commissioned its standing advisory committee on trunk road assessment to report on that issue. The report together with the Department's formal response, will be published in due cause.
  129
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to promote the use of natural gas-powered vehicles in urban areas.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 21 March,Official Report, column 9.

  Air Filtration
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to study the case for requiring filtration of the air supply to vehicle interiors.

  Mr. Norris
  None. In terms of emissions from traffic, there is no evidence to show that filtration devices have any effect on the health of drivers or other vehicle occupants.

  Light-rail Systems
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to encourage the development of new light-rail systems in conurbations.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government have funded the Docklands light railway, the Greater Manchester metrolink and the South Yorkshire supertram and have given development funding to the Midland metro project. We are continuing our discussions with promoters of other light-rail schemes and we will consider funding these projects when resources allow.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase investment in public transport over the next 10 years.

  Mr. Watts
  Details of our plans for investment in all forms of transport will be announced as part of the unified Budget on 29 November.

  A417/A419 Link
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his plans to upgrade the A417/A419 link between Swindon and Gloucester.

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Simon Coombs, dated 22 November 1994:
  I am writing in response to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Transport about the A417/A419 trunk road between Swindon and Gloucester. This is a matter for which the Highways Agency is responsible.
  The A419/417 Swindon to Gloucester road has been named as one of the first four projects to be designed, built, financed and operated (DBFO) by the private sector. This will include the management of the road and the construction of the Latton Bypass, the Cirencester and Stratton Bypass and the north of Stratton to Nettleton Improvement. The Secretary of State announced on 9 November the names of the consortia who are to be invited to bid for the contract.
  On the same route there are three national trunk road schemes which will not initially form part of the DBFO contract: the Blunsdon Bypass, for which the Secretary of State is currently considering the response to public consultation and the next stage will be announcement of the preferred route: the Nettleton to Crickley Hill Improvement—our first task will be to appoint a
  130
  design agent to identify possible routes for an improved road: and Brockworth Bypass, which is under construction and should be completed in autumn 1995. The future progress of the Blunsdon Bypass and Nettleton to Crickley Hill schemes depends no the satisfactory completion of the statutory planning procedures and the continuing availability of funds. If and when these other schemes are completed, the relevant sections of the A419/417 trunk road could be added to the DBFO contract for operational and maintenance purposes.

  National Air Traffic Service
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to proceed with the privatisation of the national air traffic services; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Following consultation earlier this year, the Government continue to favour privatisation of the National Air Traffic Services. Privatisation would provide a number of significant benefits to both National Air Traffic Service and its customers. It would offer the opportunity for improved standards of service and increased efficiency; it would expose National Air Traffic Service to commercial incentives and the prospect of increased competition—especially in the airports sector; it would free National Air Traffic Service's investment and management decisions from the constraints of Government ownership; and it would facilitate greater transparency in charges and the separation of regulation from service provision.

  A number of concerns were expressed by those who responded to the recent public consultation, and I wish these concerns to be properly considered before I put proposals before Parliament. I am today publishing a report on the outcome of the consultation, and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  RAF Runways
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the runways at those Royal Air Force stations scheduled for closure or which have been closed recently will be retained for training or relief landing purposes; and at how many former stations this facility has been retained.

  Mr. Soames
  Of this category of stations, only RAF Church Fenton will be needed for training or relief landing. In addition, four other former stations are currently used as relief landing grounds.

  Army Training Facilities
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had recently concerning training facilities for the Army.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has regular consultation with planning authorities and other statutory bodies in connection with any development proposals for the Army's training facilities.

  On the more significant developments, independent consultants have been appointed to carry out environmental impact assessments during which the view of the local planning authorities, statutory bodies and interested parties are sought.

  VSEL
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessments he has made of the effect on competition in warship building of a successful bid by GEC for VSEL.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has, in the usual way, given and will continue to give views to the regulatory authorities on the competition and any other relevant aspects of the possible takeover on VSEL. These views are confidential.

  Horshoe Barracks
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Horshoe barracks in Shoeburyness.

  Mr. Soames
  This matter is still under consideration.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers.

  Mr. Freeman
  As we have previously made clear, the Royal Navy will maintain three Invincible class aircraft carriers, with two operational at any one time. In accordance with this long standing practice, HMS Ark Royal entered a state of extended readiness in September at Portsmouth.

  Defence Accounts Agency
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when a final decision will be made on the review of technology and staffing in the Defence Accounts Agency.

  Mr. Freeman
  I expect to take a decision on the Defence Accounts Agency mainframes rationalisation project, which will shortly be submitted for MOD and Treasury approval, early in the new year.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which consultants were commissioned to undertake the recent study into the feasibility of rationalising the Defence Accounts Agency's mainframe computers at Cheadle Hulme, Bath and Liverpool; what assessment they made of the suitability of each of those three locations; and which of those three locations, if any, they nominated as a preferred location for the concentration of computing facilities.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 21 November 1994]: The commissioning of this study is within the delegated responsibility of the agency's chief executive and I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from M. Dymond to Mr. Nicholas Winterton, dated 22 November 1994:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence which consultants were commissioned to undertake the recent study into the feasibility of rationalising the Defence Accounts Agency's Mainframe Computers at Cheadle Hulme, Bath and Liverpool; what assessment they made of the suitability of each of those locations' and which of those three locations, if any, they nominated as a preferred location for the concentration of computing facilities. As Chief Executive of the Defence Accounts Agency I have been asked to reply.
  The DAA Mainframes Rationalisation Project was undertaken mainly by an in-house team. Consultancy assistance was obtained
  132
  as required for specific elements of the project, such as communications network design and business risk assessment.
  There was no consultancy assessment of the suitability of the three locations as part of the Project and no nomination by consultants of a preferred location.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role, structure, and current membership of the Defence Accounts Agency information technology board; and what information he has concerning the numbers of the members of the board who reside in or around(a) Bath, (b) Liverpool, or (c) Cheadle Hulme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 21 November 1994]: This is a matter for the agency's chief executive and I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from M. Dymond to Mr. Nicholas Winterton, dated 22 November 1994:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role, structure, and current membership of the Defence Accounts Agency's Information Technology Board; and what information he has concerning the numbers of members of that Board who reside in or around:

  (a) Bath

  (b) Liverpool or

  (c) Cheadle Hulme;

  and if he will make a statement. As Chief Executive of the Defence Accounts Agency I have been asked to reply.
  The DDA's IT Board sets its IT strategy, within MOD's corporate IT strategy, and oversees major IT plans and projects. The Board comprises myself as Chief Executive, my three operational Directors, and my Assistant Directors responsible for Finance and IT at the corporate level, together with a senior representative from the Ministry's central IT support organisation. Apart from one operational Director, based at Liverpool, and the central MOD representative, based at Swindon, all members of the Agency's IT Board are based at the Agency's Corporate headquarters in Bath.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has concerning the potential cost savings offered by the choice of(a) Cheadle Hulme, (b) Liverpool and (c) Bath for the location of Defence Accounts Agency computing facilities.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 21 November 1994j: This is a matter for the agency's chief executive and I have asked him to reply. I understand he has already written to the hon. Member stating that on cost comparison the advantage lay narrowly with Bath.

  Letter from M. Dymond to Mr. Nicholas Winterton, dated 22 November 1994:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has concerning the potential costs and savings offered by the choice of:

  (a) Cheadle Hulme

  (b) Liverpool

  (c) Bath

  for the location of the Defence Accounts Agency's computing facilities. As Chief Executive of the Defence Accounts Agency I have been asked to reply.
  The DRA Mainframes Rationalisation Project has just completed its full study stage and will shortly be submitted for approval. Ultimately the decision on this major project rests with Ministers.
  The project team's assessment showed that compared with separate replacement of the computers the rationalisation approach would save some £3 million per annum. The comparison of costs made in the Agency's study narrowly favoured Bath. The other factors tended to favour either Bath or Cheadle Hulme, the collective balance of these other factors being narrowly with Cheadle Hulme.
  These differences were seen to be too marginal to support a recommendation for a specific choice of site by the study team. The

  133
  decision by the Agency's IT Board to seek approval for the Bath location was based on wider corporate and strategic implications, particularly the Department's IT strategies for Finance and Civilian Pay/Personnel.

  Support Helicopters
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that Britain's need for support helicopters will meet requirements for the year 2000 and beyond.

  Mr. Freeman
  We plan to procure additional medium support helicopters to enhance significantly the RAF's current fleet. As stated in this year's statement on the Defence Estimates, only the Chinook and the Utility EH101 are capable of meeting our particular requirements. We are currently assessing price and performance data received for these helicopters.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice or support he has given to the Government of Indonesia in the last year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Chief of the Defence Staff and the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff have visited Indonesia during the last year to discuss defence matters. The United Kingdom also provides training for Indonesian students.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work is currently being carried out for Indonesia by the Defence Research Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the agency's chief executive and I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Mr. John Chisholm to Mr. Derek Fatchett, dated 22 November 1994:
  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying to your question concerning work being carried out for Indonesia by the Defence Research Agency.
  The Defence Research Agency is not currently undertaking any work for Indonesia.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline the training provided over the last 10 years in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in defence-related matters for Indonesia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The United Kingdom has provided training assistance, including developmental and technical courses, for Indonesia over the past 10 years. Details of training, including the numbers involved, are not normally disclosed as they are regarded as confidential between the Governments concerned.

  Naval Replacement Programmes
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the replacement programmes for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid.

  Mr. Freeman
  Invitations to tender for the design and build for the replacement of the assault ships HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid were issued on 16 August 1994. All United Kingdom warship building yards that have expressed an interest have been invited to compete for this requirement. Tenders are due for return in March 1995 and, subject to a successful competition, we hope to place an order towards the end of next year.

  Service Housing
  Mrs. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with local authorities concerning the transfer of MoD housing stock.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 17 November,Official Report, column 1.

  Warship Construction
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on maintaining a competitive market for warship construction within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department recognises the importance of a healthy and competitive defence industry. The Ministry's procurement policy is based on competition wherever practicable.

  Germany
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on military co-operation with the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Soames
  The United Kingdom attaches great importance to the strong defence links it enjoys with Germany. United Kingdom and German views are close on a range of important issues. We have regular defence contacts with Germany at all levels, and there is an extensive programme of exchanges between the British armed forces and the Bundeswehr. We have also recently exchanged staff officers between the two Ministries of Defence, and are involved in several collaborative equipment projects.

  Defence Cost Study
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the study groups established as part of the defence costs study will continue to meet.

  Mr. Freeman
  All the study teams set up as part of the defence costs study have submitted their final reports, which have been considered by Ministers and decisions taken on recommendations to be pursued. There is no requirement for the teams to continue to meet and they have been disbanded. The proposals being taken forward following the defence costs study are being pursued with vigour by the relevant budget holders. Central arrangements have also been established, with direct ministerial involvement, to oversee the implementation process.

  Defence Industries
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on supporting the actions of local authorities in assisting defence industries to adapt to reduced defence expenditure levels.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department is in close contact with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment, and we participate in local liaison groups which include representatives of local authorities and other Government Departments.

  Air Cadets
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that any further cuts over those already agreed for the Air Cadets budget, with particular reference to cuts which, if implemented, would impact on the number of cadets, cadet activities, including flying and gliding, or the well-being of cadets, will require category 1X ministerial approval.

  Mr. Soames
  I can assure the hon. Member that any such measures would require ministerial approval.

  Overseas Suppliers
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if his Department monitors the observance of DEF 05/21 or equivalent NATO standards by his Department's suppliers from Europe and other overseas countries;

  (2) what procedures his Department follows to ensure that DEF 05/21 or equivalent NATO standards are observed by his Department's suppliers from Europe and other overseas countries.

  Mr. Freeman
  Defence standard 05/21 was superseded by NATO allied quality assurance publications—AQAPs—in 1985.

  My Department checks that contractors, wherever they are based, have appropriate quality assurance procedures in place before we place a contract. In other NATO countries, this may be done under the NATO mutual co-operation agreements; the defence ministry in the country in question is asked to confirm that the company does work to the appropriate standard and that the defence ministry will carry out contract surveillance on my Department's behalf on request. However, the terms of our contracts do allow us to send MOD representatives into suppliers premises—and those of sub-contractors—if we deem it necessary. Similar arrangements exist in memoranda of understanding with a number of countries outside NATO.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the total cost of external consultancy fees incurred by his Department in market testing.

  Mr. Freeman
  The total cost of external consultancy fees incurred by the MOD in support of competing for quality activities during the period April 1992 to June 1994 is £3.5 million. Full details of costs incurred up to September 1994 are not yet available.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) all of his Department's activities which have been contractorised or market tested, (b) the date of contractorisation and market testing and (c) the overall costs.

  Mr. Freeman
  Details of individual contracts remain commercial-in-confidence. However, in the 30-month period since the onset of the competing for quality programme to September 1994, some 82 support activities worth of the order of £600 million were examined, embracing in excess of 13,500 posts. It is anticipated that this exercise will result in gross savings of approximately £104 million.

  European Union Legislation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's efforts to set up a unit to monitor European Union legislation and its implications for his Department.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has a wide range of responsibilities which are affected by a growing range of regulatory legislation. Much of this is driven by European Union directives, particularly on environmental and health and safety issues, and it is clear that we need early information about work in the European Commission and its implications. My Department is therefore setting up this month a co-ordinating unit to monitor such work, which will perform a similar function to the equivalent units in many other Government Departments.

  Dog Handlers
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those countries for which his Department provides specialist dog handler training.

  Mr. Soames
  During the financial year 1993–94 a total of 10 foreign and Commonwealth students attended the defence animal centre at Melton Mowbray for specialist dog handler training from the following countries:

  USA: 7 students

  Hong Kong: 2 students

  Guernsey Customs and Excise: 1 student

  Animal Testing
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any tests are carried out using animals at his Department's Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down—CBDE—under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Derek Fatchett, dated 22 November 1994:
  Question 10, Order Paper Dated 17 November 1994

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence seeking if any tests are carried out using animals at his Department's Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment; and if he will make a statement has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them.

  3. It is an essential but relatively small part of the work of CBDE that a small number of experiments with animals, mainly mice, rats and guinea-pigs are carried out in order to ensure that the protective measures provided to the Armed Forces are effective and are safe. No animals are used to practice surgery or in work to improve weapons or ammunition performance. It should be recognised that the total number of all animal experiments carried out at CBDE in any one year is less than one half of one per cent. of all the animal experiments conducted in the United Kingdom.

  4. The United Kingdom does not possess chemical or biological weapons and abandoned its capability relating to such weapons in the late 1950s. Consequently, there is absolutely no use of animals to develop or improve chemical or biological weapons. We have to recognise, however, that a number of countries do possess such weapons and it is essential that our Armed Forces are provided with adequate protection against their use and against the use of

  137
  biological weapons. There is evidence of proliferation around the world in the availability of such weapons and the recent hostilities in the Gulf have demonstrated the reality of that threat which our Armed Forces have to be prepared to face.

  5. Animal experiments are carried out at CBDE Porton Down only when careful consideration of alternatives to the use of animals has shown that there is no adequate substitute and where it is judged essential to use animals for this purpose. It is, important to recognise that there is no population suffering from chemical or biological warfare agents in the population at large and consequently the effectiveness of medical countermeasures cannot be evaluated, as can drugs developed against naturally occurring illness or disease, using human beings. It is consequently necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of medical countermeasures against chemical and biological weapons using an animal model for man.

  6. The experiments carried out at CBDE involving the use of animals fully meet the spirit and letter of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act of 1986. CBDE is a registered place under the Act and all animal experiments and all the staff involved in them are licensed by the Home Office. Unannounced visits are made by Home Office inspectors to satisfy themselves that the requirements of the Act are met.

  7. All work at CBDE is carefully controlled and monitored and is conducted by appropriately qualified personnel to the highest standards. It is vital that the protection provided for our Service personnel against the threat that they may be exposed to chemical or biological weapons should have been developed and tested to ensure safety and efficacy. Our role is to save the lives of the members of the British Armed Forces and this work is of continuing importance to the nation.

  Animals (Ceremonial Dress)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the items, with costs, of ceremonial dress for animals purchased in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Soames
  Items of ceremonial dress for animals include headpieces, reins and browbands. Many of these items are purchased locally by establishments under delegated financial arrangements. No central record is maintained of this expenditure and the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Items of ceremonial dress for regimental mascots are not purchased from public funds.

  Counselling
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent on counselling for service and ex-service personnel in each year since 1979 in 1994 prices.

  Mr. Soames
  Information on the overall cost of counselling, which in its broadest sense takes many forms, is not held by my Department and could not be determined.

  Lobbying
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his Department's rules in relation to lobby firms.

  Mr. Soames
  Firms and individuals are free to approach my Department with questions, information or opinions at any time. Defence policy and individual decisions are, however, developed in the light of the full range of relevant considerations.

  Army Base Repair Organisation
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who from Coopers and Lybrand visited the Army Base 138
  Repair Organisation Old Dalby site for the purposes of preparing the study to recommend its closure; when they visited; and for how long they visited.

  Mr. Freeman
  Coopers and Lybrand assisted the ABRO rationalisation study team with the investment appraisal element of the study; it was not part of the consultancy contract for it to make recommendations on any closures. During the study, the consultant accountant provided by Coopers and Lybrand made a familiarisation visit to Old Dalby on 26 May 1994 and visited as part of a larger team on 11 June 1994. The latter visit included a lengthy discussion with the ABRO Old Dalby accountant on the requirements for financial information. Once this liaison visit had been made, the detailed investment appraisal information from all workshops was received by fax at HQ ABRO Andover, where the study team was based. It is not departmental policy to release the names of individual consultants employed under contracts with consultancy firms.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the level of expenditure on the Army Base Repair Organisation in Old Dalby, Leicestershire, in each of the last five financial years; what further expenditure is planned; and what was the date and value of the final payment for the work on building No. 1.

  Mr. Freeman
  The level of expenditure at the Army Base Repair Organisation workshops at Old Dalby is given in the attached table. Some £600,000 further expenditure is planned for fire protection work, but this is dependent on the future of the workshop. The final payment on building No. 1 will be made in January 1995 at a value of £85,000. It should be noted that a new repair facility was opened at Old Dalby in 1992. This was originally required to meet a pre-options for change work load; the current and predicted work load is much lower.

  Expenditure at ABRO Old Dalby 1989–90 to 1993–94

  Financial Year

  Major Works £000

  Running Costs £000

  1989–90

  200

  18,377

  1990–91

  23,000

  10,162

  1991–92

  100

  10,202

  1992–93

  571

  12,118

  1993–94

  522

  12,312

  Lockheed
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, by grade, those members of his Department who have left the Ministry of Defence in the last two years to join Lockheed.

  Mr. Freeman
  Applications were approved for the following: two Squadron Leaders, two Wing Commanders and one Air Vice-Marshal; of these the Air Vice-Marshal, at least, did not take up appointment.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list how many officials in his Department have visited the Lockheed base at Georgia, United States of America over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department does not keep a central record of visits made to companies overseas.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the representations which he

  139
  has received and (b) the meetings which he has held with Market Access International regarding the Lockheed C130J.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has neither received representations from Market Access International, nor met any of its personnel in connection with the Hercules rolling replacement programme.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names of suppliers of asbestos and asbestos products, to his Department, between 1964 and 1975.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that this information is not held centrally and cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent by his Department to promote the sale of arms to(a) Indonesia, (b) Nigeria, (c) Malaysia, (d) Saudi Arabia, (e) Jordan (f) the United Arab Emirates, (g) Qatar, (h) Oman and (i) Turkey, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not possible to break down the cost of sales promotion in individual countries. The net cost of the Defence Export Services Organisation in 1993–94 was £16.02 million. Changes in accounting conventions make exact comparison with earlier years difficult.

  Hercules
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the replacement of the Hercules transport plane.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department's policy regarding the Hercules rolling replacement programme is to satisfy the Royal Air Force's operational needs in the most timely and cost-effective way possible.

  Private Firms (Charges)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what charges are made by his Department to private firms for(a) delivery of goods/supplies and (b) stockpiling of goods for sale by private companies.

  Mr. Freeman
  In general, surplus goods are collected from MOD establishments by private companies that have either purchased them outright or that are contracted to sell them on behalf of the MOD. The question of charges does not therefore arise. Exceptions to this general rule may arise from negotiations on particular contracts.

  Leafield Logistics and Technical Services Ltd.
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what charge his Department makes to Leafield Logistics and Technical Services Ltd. for(a) delivery of supplies (b) stockpiling of goods for sale to Leafield Logistics on Government premises.

  Mr. Freeman
  The contract with Leafield Logistics and Technical Services, in its profit-sharing arrangements,140
  encompasses any accumulation of stock and delivery and they are not the subject of a charge.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many bidders Leafield Logistics and Technical Services Ltd, beat to win the contract to dispose of Navy surplus spares in 1992.

  Mr. Freeman
  Sixteen.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost of the spares bought from his Department by Leafield Logistics and Technical Services Ltd; and what is the total income gained by his Department from the sale of spares to Leafield Logistics and Technical Services Ltd.

  Mr. Freeman
  No spares have been sold by my Department to Leafield Logisitcs and Technical Services Ltd. The contract with Leafield Logistics and Technical Services Ltd. is based upon a profit-sharing arrangement.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the net gains or losses, in terms of cost, to his Department, of awarding the contract to supply spares for Oberon submarines and Leader class frigates to Leafield Logistics and Technical Services Ltd.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has gained considerable benefits from the contract with Leafield Logistics and Technical Services Ltd.

  They are described at paragraph 3.25 of the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General—disposal by sale of defence surplus equipment and stores, HC 557 dated 14 March 1993.

  Open Government
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the charging policy of his Department and the agencies for which he is responsible in respect of inquiries under the code of practice on access to Government.

  Mr. Freeman
  In general, my Department's policy is to defray the marginal extra costs of answering inquiries under the code of practice on access to government information. No charge is made if these amount to less than £50. Above that sum charges may be imposed up to a maximum of £200. Agencies with their own budgetary arrangements for which my Department has responsibility generally follow this policy but have freedom to seek my Department's agreement to develop their own charging policies, within the spirit of the code, according to their own particular requirements. A copy of my Department's internal instructions in relation to the open government initiative—including charging policy—was placed in the library of the House when the code of practice came into force.

  King's Royal Horse Artillery
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which hunts the King's Royal Horse Artillery has hunted with in 1992,1993 and to date in 1994; and if he will list the details and dates.
  141
  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon.Member.

  Salisbury Plain
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to mitigate the environmental 142
  impact of increased military activity on the Salisbury Plain training area.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. member to the publication "Army Training and the Natural and Human Environment on and around the Salisbury Plain Training Area", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. This publication explains fully the present position and sets out the measures being implemented by the Army in the light of the environmental impact assessment which was completed last month.

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

Housing Benefit
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the increase in the cost of housing benefit since 1988, and what they consider to be the reasons for that increase.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, expenditure on housing benefit has almost doubled since 1988. The main reasons for this are increases in rents in all sectors and a rise in the number of people claiming housing benefit.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister is doubtless aware that it has been government policy for some while to reduce wage rates. Can he tell us what percentage of housing benefit recipients are in employment above 16 hours a week, and what has been the change in that percentage since 1988? If he cannot give us that information, does he really know what is going on?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as regards the first part of the noble Earl's question, the government's policy is that wage rates in this country should be competitive with our main competitors in the world so that we can sell our goods and services and have more of our people in employment, as we have in fact seen happening in the past two years. As regards the second part of his question, I am sure that the noble Earl will understand that for such detail he should table a specific Question. I shall be happy to answer him then.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, perhaps I may commend the Minister on his honesty in replying that the increase in expenditure is due to an increase in rents and a rise in the number of people claiming benefit. Why does not the Minister claim benefit for both those evils? The fact is that the Government have prevented councils from building affordable rented housing for many years. By pushing people into the private sector, rents have gone through the roof. Is the Minister also aware that that has caused many people hardship and a great many more people to claim the benefit? The noble Lord was quite right in what he said; but he should have also accepted the blame as well for both disasters as part of the Government's policy.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as regards the local authority sector, I am happy to accept what the noble Lord calls the "blame" for our policy. That has been to shift the subsidy given by the taxpayer from a bricks and mortar subsidy to a subsidy on the
142
individuals so that those who need help get it, and that those who can afford to pay proper rents do not receive a subsidy from the rest of the taxpayers.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to disown one proposal put forward by his right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, that the way to cap housing benefit is to try to move council tenants from accommodation which is too large for them? Is the Minister aware that nearly 80 per cent. of those in houses which are too large for them are pensioners who have lived in those homes all their lives? Is he also aware that the average rent this year for a three-bedroomed council house is £36.99; but for a two-bedroomed flat, to which they might move, the rent is £36.95—4p a week less? Would the Minister like to tell us how much housing benefit his right honourable friend believes will be saved by moving people and saving rents of 4p a week?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I should always like to be kind to the noble Baroness; but on this occasion, I shall simply say to her that I shall not respond to press speculation on the subject, because one half of it is unfounded and the other half is usually untrue. As regards council house rents, I cannot confirm her exact figure; but the average council house rent is about £34 a week. I fully accept—as does anyone who knows anything about the world—that there are many elderly people living in houses which were allocated to them when they had a family. Therefore, they are living in houses which, on the face of it, appear to be too large for them. The noble Baroness also knows that over many years we have encouraged the provision of specialised accommodation, like sheltered housing, so that a single person, a widow or widower or elderly people, are accommodated in reasonable and decent accommodation which is designed for their needs. I hope that that is a policy with which the noble Baroness agrees.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may come back on this matter. I am not referring to press speculation. I have a transcript from the BBC Radio 4 interview in which Mr. Aitken said that quite a lot of people on housing benefit are living in houses which are too big for them, and to get them to move is a way to cut housing benefit. I repeat that 80 per cent. of those people are pensioners. Is the Minister really going to require elderly people who have lived in their homes all their lives to move in order to save pennies on the rent?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure what policy the noble Baroness wishes to pursue in this regard. I suggest to her that what my right

143
honourable friend said is the true situation, and that the noble Baroness said that in her original question; namely, there are many elderly people living in family houses which are now too large for them. I believe it is common sense that, if we can possibly do so, we should ensure that there are suitable houses, properly designed, for elderly people in order to encourage them to move out of a house which is too large, often with stairs and with a garden, into accommodation which is more suitable.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the issue is not whether it is desirable that they should move; the issue is whether the Government are going to make them move. Can the Minister deny that intention or not?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am deeply honoured that the Front Bench opposite are taking three bites at this particular cherry. I advise the noble Lord that the situation regarding elderly people is as I explained it to his noble friend. As to what the Government's intentions may or may not be as regards housing benefit, the noble Lord will have to wait and see.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister have any indication that private landlords are exploiting the housing benefit system by charging rents that are too high? If they are doing so, what are the Government going to do about it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, there is of course the danger to which the noble Countess referred. However, where a landlord appears to be charging an excessive rent, the independent rent officer service can come in and fix a reasonable rent for that property. It is on that reasonable rent that housing benefit will be paid.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in a report published last week the Royal College of Physicians estimated that the cost of homelessness to the National Health Service was between £800 million and £2 billion? In the light of that information, will the Government consider whether cutting housing benefit might be as expensive as letting it increase?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I cannot see why cutting housing benefit would be more expensive or less expensive than letting it increase. The noble Earl is trying to ask me far too clever a question. The situation as regards the homeless is simply that over the past few years we have encouraged housing associations, which we believe are a good resource in the community for directing houses at special needs groups, by giving them considerable sums of money. That £9 billion over the past four or five years (added to the £3.5 billion that housing associations have collected from the private sector) has helped them to increase their stock by over 200,000 in that four to five-year period. I am sure that the noble Earl will welcome that.

Road Signs: Theft
2.44 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking, together with local authorities, to prevent the theft of metal road signs.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, there have recently been some well publicised cases of theft on local authority roads, but it does not at present seem to be a problem in national terms. I understand that the authorities concerned are looking at ways of fixing signs more securely, or using different materials.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her Answer and wish her very well in her first appearance at the Dispatch Box answering for the Government. Has the disturbing number of thefts that was reported earlier this year, probably due to the rising scrap value of aluminium, shown any decline? Since the thieves go for every kind of signpost, including warnings or place names, are not those thieves subjecting all road users to considerable danger, as well as inconvenience?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for welcoming me to the Dispatch Box. As a matter of fact, it is a year tomorrow since I first rose in this House to make my maiden speech. Until today, I never thought that anything could be more terrifying than that.
The type of theft to which my noble friend refers tends to come in clusters because it is carried out mainly by organised gangs who attack one area rather than stealing random signs miles apart. While not wishing to tempt fate, I can advise my noble friend that we have made inquiries of West Sussex, which was affected by this plague last summer, but which now reports nothing further untoward. We hope that that is due in part to improved methods of fixing the signs, as well as in part to the activities of the police, who, I understand, have apprehended some suspects and investigated the activities of various scrap metal dealers.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in welcoming the noble Baroness to the Dispatch Box. I wish her well during what may be a relatively short tenure of office because, as I think that the whole House will agree, we have taken to her. Reverting to the Question, which is my job, is there any truth in the speculation that seems to be rife that it is the Government who have been organising gangs of people to go round the country stealing metal signs in order to flog them off to make way for tax cuts as part of their equally burdensome programme in relation to Railtrack?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for welcoming me to the Dispatch Box. Although I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for only a short time, I appreciate that I cannot call the noble Lord "my noble friend" from here although in another theatre I am pleased to do so. The noble Lord's question is interesting, but there is no truth

145
whatsoever in his suggestion that the Government are organising such activities. Indeed, if I were going to be less charitable, I might hazard the guess that there are far fewer "Keep Left" signs being stolen than signs which read "Major road ahead" or even "No U-turns".
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that some of the signs are marked "End of diversion"?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, that may very well be so, but the truth is that the Government issue many regulations to local authorities as to clarity.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to West Sussex, in which I drive fairly frequently. Although many signs there have been missing for a long time, fortunately I know my way so it is no hazard to me. However, can the noble Baroness say whether the local authorities will soon replace such signs and perhaps not only fix them more securely, but have them prepared in some material that will not tempt the robbers?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I understand that West Sussex has replaced the signs that were stolen. I was interested to hear what the noble Lord said, and will obviously bring it to someone's attention. Clearly the Government are concerned that the theft of signs should not result in danger. Highway authorities have a statutory duty to maintain safety on the roads within their jurisdiction.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, perhaps I may join in welcoming the noble Baroness to the Dispatch Box. Does she know whether plastic has any scrap value, and whether there is any reason why plastic should not be used for road signs?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Lady's question is interesting. Aluminium obviously has the highest scrap value, which is why more aluminium signs are stolen. Plastic does not have the same scrap value, but on the other hand it is not suitable for many of the signs.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is to the credit of the people of Wales that signs in Welsh are never stolen?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am very pleased to hear that.

Healthcare International: Clydebank Hospital
2.50 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Under what circumstances the Healthcare International private hospital at Clydebank, built with the assistance of £30 million of public money, has gone into receivership.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, Healthcare
146
International achieved a slower than anticipated build-up of business from its target markets overseas and that impacted on its cash flows. The company's backers called for a restructuring of its finances to see the company through the difficult start-up period and discussions on that had not been concluded when, on 9th November, the company ran out of cash and a receiver was appointed. I naturally hope that the receiver will be successful in finding for the facility a purchaser who will be able to secure the future of the project.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed Answer. We are talking about £30 million, which is a large sum of money. What were the criteria upon which the Secretary of State for Scotland advanced £30 million to something that must have had a dubious future, as against putting the same £30 million into the NHS in Scotland where it could have been well used?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, perhaps I may make it clear that the financial support offered to HCI came from inward investment and not the health budget for Scotland. While the original financial support package amounted to some £30 million, its main component part was regional selective assistance, the offer of which was made originally in April 1988 when the Scottish Office acted upon the independent advice of the Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board. Subsequently, a further sum was advanced with the approval of the Treasury and of the Department of Health and Social Security when there was a European Court of Justice ruling on VAT which resulted in an unbudgeted increase in cost.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, was not the private sector unanimous in its opinion at the time that the project to use foreign capital to build a hospital of up to 500 beds to cater primarily for foreigners who might wish to fly into Glasgow airport and have medical treatment was non-viable right from the very beginning? That proved to be correct—did it not?—because the average occupancy has turned out, I believe, to be about 20 since the hospital was built. Before any public money was invested in that project, were any steps taken to find out what informed opinion was saying about it, and, if not, why not?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I said, independent advice was offered to the Secretary of State. That is a technique that would be applied to any type of inward investment project attracting regional selective assistance. While it is unfortunate that the hospital has not proved, at the present time at any rate, to be viable, it is worth recording that when it was first established the concern in Scotland was not that it would not be viable but that its viability was such that it would attract too many nurses and clinicians from the NHS, and that the resources of the Scottish Blood Transfusion Service would be stretched unhappily. It was against that background that a series of stringent conditions was attached by the department.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is it not the case that Healthcare International applied to the Government of the Republic of Ireland before it applied to Scotland,

147
and that the Republic of Ireland had obviously sensibly done its costings and said no? Will he explain why the Scottish Office decided that the Republic of Ireland was being foolish?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not believe that the Irish Government were being foolish, because in 1983 they said that they were very much in favour of the concept and offered HCI significantly more substantial equity investment if it were to go to Ireland. However, despite that express support for the project in Ireland, the company decided to come to Clydebank in Scotland because it considered that greater advantages were to be secured there, not least the quality of the staff that might be obtained there and its proximity to Glasgow Airport.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does not the hospital's failure to attract patients illustrate the fact that it takes years to build up an international reputation of excellence enjoyed by famous hospitals such as Stoke Mandeville, the Hospital for Nervous Diseases, with its institute, in Queen Square, Great Ormond Street and St. Bartholomew's? Is that not a reason why we should keep our specialising units?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the hospital was established to attract patients from overseas. The circumstances in which any patient coming from the NHS might have finished up there were limited. It is unfortunate that thus far HCI has not managed to secure a viable basis upon which to proceed, but the company's receiver is taking active steps to secure a new purchaser. The quality of the provision there is probably as good as any to be found in the UK. It is a state of the art hospital with a hotel attached to it. It is to be hoped that the receiver will be successful in his task.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, as the advice given by the Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board turned out in the event to have been disastrously wrong, what steps has the Secretary of State for Scotland taken to replace its members with people who will give him better advice in future? What sensitivity analysis was applied to that investment decision to find out what changes might occur which would render it non-viable?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, a clear difficulty for the company has been that while it anticipated that there would be a slow build up before it achieved full occupation of the hospital, the work did not build up as quickly as was expected. Although it has been put about widely in Scotland and elsewhere that some £30 million of taxpayers' money was lost, it needs to be understood that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has written today to the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland spelling out exactly what was offered originally and what was the import of the VAT changes, and reaching the conclusion that at the end of the day any loss to the public purse—it may not even be that —would be something less than
148
£15 million. That was to secure no fewer than 600 jobs in Clydebank over a period of some three to four years during the construction phase.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister said that HCI's target was not met. Originally we were promised 7,000 operations per year. That figure was reduced suddenly to 1,000 operations per year. The discrepancy was serious. We were given no reason for it. We were told also by HCI that the World Health Organisation was supporting its endeavours in Clydebank. The WHO, speaking from Geneva, officially repudiated that suggestion, and said that it wanted such facilities built in developing countries and not in countries already well provided with hospital facilities. How many patients were promised by HCI, from what I understand to be opulent offices in Milan, Boston, London and Athens? What is the hospital's future likely to be, because it is a wonderful complex? It has a wonderful 168-bed four-star hotel within a few miles of Glasgow Airport. It would be a tragedy, and unacceptable to the Scottish public, if any more public money went into it. The only possibility is that by writing off debts the hospital may be able to be used by people from abroad.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the backers of the hospital carried out a number of inquiries using market researchers and they were confident that they would be able to make a success of it. While the total financial support package was some £30 million, the backers put in no less than £150 million of their own money. They calculated that the exercise would be successful. The hospital was not built up fast enough to allow that to proceed and I understand that the receiver is actively pursuing the matter in order to find a purchaser.
I emphasise that, at the time, people in the west of Scotland were worried not that the exercise would not be viable but that it would take too many people from the National Health Service. That certainly has not happened.

Legal Aid: Cost
3 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated cost of legal aid in the current financial year, and what is the comparable figure for the previous year.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, it is estimated that the cost of legal aid in the current financial year will amount to £1.33 billion compared with £1.21 billion last year, an increase of £120 million.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. Are steps being taken to ensure that this large cost figure is reduced, that the practice of providing legal aid for wealthy men such

149
as Mr. Nadir, Mr. Hashim and Mr. Foxley is desisted from, and that legal aid is provided, if at all, only for those who are in need?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have taken, and am taking, a number of steps further to control the legal aid budget. They are in the shape of new systems of payment in relation in particular to legal aid. The important distinction must be made between criminal proceedings, in which the state prosecutes a person, and civil legal aid. As regards criminal legal aid, there are provisions which require the interests of justice to be satisfied in order that legal aid should be granted. There is no upper limit as regards criminal legal aid. An assessment is made by the courts of the amount that the person in question should pay because, in relation to crime, it may well be that even a person with comparatively large assets is not able adequately to meet the cost of some cases. As regards civil proceedings, there is of course an upper limit relating to means.
I must emphasise that the rules applied are the same for everyone. Those who may be regarded by some as apparently wealthy have applied to them exactly the same rules as currently apply to everyone else. It may be that ways of satisfying the rules require further examination. That will be done through a paper which, as I indicated on a previous occasion, I propose to lay before the public for consultation as soon as an adequate analysis of the problem is available to me.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question which I have asked twice in previous Sessions. Can my noble and learned friend say to what extent the legal profession in civil cases is making the fullest possible use of opportunities for the conciliation and settlement of cases instead of bringing them to court?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is not easy to be certain about that. To a great extent such matters are conducted outside the courts. I believe that the possibility of conciliation, mediation or what is generally described under the heading of an alternative dispute resolution is fairly widely used. In particular, I commend the practice of the commercial court which expressly directs the attention of litigants to the opportunities available so that they may consider them before embarking on litigation.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord feel confident that the rate of increase of legal aid expenditure is set to reduce as a result of the substantial cuts he has imposed in rates of pay for civil legal aid work under certificates granted after February this year? Furthermore, as current expenditure on legal aid is well within estimates, is the noble and learned Lord able to make a start on restoring the eligibility limits which, at the time the cuts were made, he indicated he desired to do as soon as circumstances permitted?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as the figures I have given to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter show, the rate of increase in the total amount paid for legal aid remains quite high. It is against that background that I must consider what I can do. I have
150
endeavoured to control the fees paid to the legal profession in relation to civil proceedings, but the cost of civil proceedings is still high. I have invited my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf to examine the underlying procedures in the hope that they too can be simplified so enabling the money which the taxpayer provides for legal aid to be used more widely for the benefit of those who need help.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend tell those of us who are not lawyers what proportion in aggregate of legal fees is derived from legal aid and what proportion is derived from people who are paying for their own defence or prosecution?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is extremely difficult for me to ascertain precisely how much is paid by other than the state. I have given the figures that the state pays. It is a substantial proportion of the total but I do not believe that I have sufficiently good information to base conclusions on the precise amount in aggregate paid for legal fees.

Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to incorporate Section 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950 and the first protocol to that convention into the law of the United Kingdom. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Sustainable Development: Select Committee
3.8 p.m.
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, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee—

L. Barber of Tewkesbury,

L. Beaumont of Whitley,

V. Blakenham,

L. Chapple,

151

L. Chorley,

L. Gregson,

L. Jenkin of Roding,

E. Lindsay,

B. Nicol,

L. Skidelsky,

L. Tombs (Chairman).

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out;
That the Proceedings of the Select Committee on Sustainable Development in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;
That the Committee do meet later this day.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Science and Technology: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Science and Technology and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

L. Craig of Radley,

L. Dainton,

L. Dixon-Smith,

L. Flowers,

L. Gregson,

L. Haskel,

B. Hilton of Eggardon,

L. Howie of Troon,

L. Nathan,

B. Perry of Southwark,

L. Perry of Walton,

L. Redesdale,

L. Renwick,

E. Selborne (Chairman),

L. Walton of Detchant.

That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and that such Sub-Committees have power to appoint their own Chairman;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purposes of serving on the Committee or any Sub-Committee;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee and any Sub-Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out;
152
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Science and Technology Committee or any Sub-Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities: Select Committee
3.9 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Community proposals, whether in draft or otherwise, to obtain all necessary information about them, and to make reports on those which, in the opinion of the Committee, raise important questions of policy or principle, and on other questions to which the Committee considers that the special attention of the House should be drawn;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the Committee:

L. Bancroft,

L. Barnett,

B. Birk,

L. Brain,

L. Bridges,

L. Bruce of Donington,

B. Carnegy of Lour,

L. Dahrendorf,

L. Elibank,

L. Geddes,

L. Hunt of Tanworth,

L. Lewis of Newnham,

L. Middleton,

L. Pearson of Rannoch,

L. Reay,

L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn,

L. Slynn of Hadley,

L. Thomson of Monifieth,

L. Tordoff (Chairman),

L. Varley.

That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the Committee; that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairmen of Sub-Committees, but that such Sub-Committees have power to appoint their own Chairman for the purpose of particular enquiries; that two be the quorum of such Sub-Committees;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a Sub-Committee;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

153
That the Reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee or any Sub-Committee from time to time shall, if the Committee think fit, be printed and delivered out;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the European Communities Committee or any Sub-Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me, as a member of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities and as an acknowledged Euro-sceptic, to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for his chairmanship of the Select Committee. I have served under several chairmen in my time and I would like to record a sincere tribute to his patience, good humour and fairness. In saying that, I feel sure that I am speaking for all other members of the committee.
I do not want to prolong our proceedings this afternoon, still less to say anything inappropriate about the membership of the Select Committee which we are being asked to approve. But I trust that it will be in order if I remind your Lordships that opinions about this country's membership of the European phenomenon do not run along party lines in your Lordships' House. Our various shades of support and antagonism do not therefore find ready representation through the usual channels, because all three of the main political parties show a degree of support for our present and perhaps future involvement in Europe which many of us find disturbing.
Perhaps the best test of opinion in your Lordships' House about Europe generally came on 14th July last year when we had an important vote on whether or not we should have asked the other place to think again and grant the people a referendum before we ratified the Maastricht Treaty. I appreciate that some noble Lords who voted for a referendum approved of the treaty, but it may also be fair to claim that opinion in your Lordships' House has since grown somewhat more sceptical of our further involvement in Europe, perhaps even of the status quo in Europe.
Be that as it may, 176 of your Lordships voted for a referendum and some 445 against. Those who favoured a referendum therefore amounted to around 28 per cent. of the vote. The point I want to make to the usual channels, as politely as I can, is that the composition of our Select Committee and its sub-committees does not reflect that test of opinion. In fact, of the 20 members of the Select Committee, only three voted for a referendum, and two did not vote, so 17 per cent. of the committee is made up of those of us who voted for a referendum, compared to the 28 per cent. who did so on 14th July 1993.
Likewise, in the sub-committees taken as a whole, only eight of the 55 members voted for a referendum and four abstained. That puts the representation of those who favoured a referendum at some 14.5 per cent.,
154
against the 28 per cent. last year. I do not seek to reverse or change the membership proposed by the usual channels. I merely wish to make the point I have made. I hope that some consideration may be given to it when members are appointed to your Lordships' European Committee and its sub-committees in future.
I appreciate that our sub-committees are in theory appointed by the Select Committee as a whole, of which I have the honour to be a member. But in fact my experience indicates to me that the sub-committees are appointed more by the chairman of the Select Committee and the chairmen of our sub-committees. I feel sure that I can rely on the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, whom I congratulate and welcome to his new position as our chairman, to bear what I have said in mind when the time comes.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Leader of the House whether we are now going to have a full-dress debate on the European Union, repeating everything that was said on Thursday? If so, what is the point in having a debate on the Address?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for his kind and generous words at the outset of his remarks. I am grateful to him also for his courtesy in having informed me beforehand that he proposed to raise this matter today. As the noble Lord acknowledged, membership of the European Communities Select Committee is a matter in the first place partly for the usual channels; then for the Committee of Selection; and, finally and decisively, for your Lordships' House. I assure the noble Lord that the customary consultations have taken place and that the terms of the Motion are such that, if your Lordships decide to pass it this afternoon, the membership will be broadly representative of your Lordships' House, as it has been in the past.
Again, as the noble Lord acknowledged, membership of the sub-committees is a matter for the European Communities Select Committee. The noble Lord is a distinguished member of that committee and so, at appropriate times, he has the right to make any observations he chooses about the membership when those matters come before the Select Committee if, as a result of the Motion, it is set up this afternoon.
My noble friend the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, who will, if the Motion is passed, become chairman of the European Communities Select Committee, is in his place and has heard the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I hope that my comments will be acceptable to the noble Lord and to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statutory Instruments: Select Committee
3.15 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

155
Moved, That a Select Committee of seven Lords be appointed to join with any Committee appointed by the Commons to consider—
(1) Every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament; being

(a) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument;

(b) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument;

(c) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution; or

(d) an order subject to special parliamentary procedure; but excluding any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.

(2) Every general statutory instrument not within the foregoing classes, and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only, but not including Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such Measures;
with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds—
(i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any government department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments;
(ii) that it is made in pursuance of any enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specific period;
(iii) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent statute confers no express authority so to provide;
(iv) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;
(v) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification under the proviso to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Statutory Instrument Act 1946, where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;
(vi) that there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which it is made;
(vii) that for any special reasons its form or purport call for elucidation;
(viii) that its drafting appears to be defective; or on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it, and to report their decision with the reasons thereof in any particular case.
156
That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named of the Committee—

V. Addison,

L. Airedale,

L. Brooks of Tremorfa,

V. Oxfuird,

L. Prys-Davies,

L. Shaughnessy,

L. Skelmersdale.

That two be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee have power to agree with any Committee appointed by commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
That the Committee have power to appoint one or more Sub-Committees severally to join with any Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees appointed by any Committee appointed by the Commons; and to refer to such Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.
That it be an instruction to the Committee that they do not consider any instrument which is directed by Act of Parliament to be laid before and to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only; and that the Committee do not join with any Committee appointed by the Commons in considering any such instrument.
That it be a further instruction to the Committee that, before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any instrument, the Committee do afford to any Government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to them or to any Sub-Committee of the Committee such explanations as the department think fit.
That the Joint Committee have leave to report from time to time.
That the Committee do meet with any Committee appointed by the Commons at a quarter-past four o'clock this day.—(The Chairman of Committees.).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.16 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by Lord Wade of Chorlton—namely, That a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the gracious Speech contains many Bills, covering a wide range of activities and issues. In the field of home and social affairs, there are no fewer than 10. Clearly, in the time available today, I will be unable to say more than a few words about them. I would, however, make the point that the legislative programme before your Lordships today, although disparate in subject, is very much homogenous in aim.

157
The measures will touch upon, to a greater or lesser extent, many aspects of life affecting all of us—health, pensions, and the criminal justice system. They will also directly affect the lives of specific groups. In that regard I am thinking, in particular, of the disabled and the mentally ill. I think it true to say that the legislative proposals we are debating today fall into two broad groups: those concerning social welfare reform and those concerning law reform.
In the field of social welfare we will be proposing changes in a number of areas. First, legislation covering both state and non-state pensions will be introduced in this Session. The main proposals for legislation were set out in two Government White Papers—Equality in State Pension Age, which was published in December 1993, and Security, Equality, Choice: The Future for Pensions, which was published in June of this year.
The legislation will also implement all of the main recommendations of the Pension Law Review Committee by bringing the management of pension schemes up to the level of best practice, giving members more influence in the running of their schemes, introducing a minimum solvency requirement to ensure the adequacy of pension fund assets, appointing a new regulatory authority, and setting up a compensation scheme.
Having listened carefully to the many different opinions on state pension age, last November the Government announced their plans to equalise at age 65, phased in between 2010 and 2020. Sixty-five is the right choice for four main reasons: it recognises women's changed role in the work place; people are living longer, healthier lives; the international trend certainly supports this; and the importance of the interaction between state and occupational provision. The age of 65 is, we believe, the only responsible choice.
The Bill will also give effect in domestic legislation to rulings of the European Court of Justice requiring equal treatment between men and women in occupational pensions and it will simplify the arrangements for contracting-out of the state earnings-related pension scheme to make it easier for contracted-out schemes to provide equal treatment.
The Pensions Bill will balance the interests of members, employers, and existing pensioners. We will be improving the security of pension funds without unduly burdening employers and fund managers. Our reforms will, I believe, strengthen the whole system of pensions provision.
Another aspect of state provision which is to be improved during this Session is the payment of benefits related to unemployment. The Jobseeker's Allowance Bill will replace the two existing benefits—unemployment benefit and income support for unemployed people—with a new single benefit; namely, the jobseeker's allowance. It will be a modern benefit designed specifically to help meet the needs of unemployed people and get them back into jobs. In introducing the jobseeker's allowance, the Government have three main aims: to improve the operation of the labour market by helping people in their search for work while ensuring they understand and fulfil the conditions for receipt of benefit; to secure better value for money
158
for the taxpayer by streamlining administration and closer targeting on those who need financial support; and to improve the service to unemployed people themselves through a clearer, simpler benefit structure and by better service delivery. The change represents a further step towards the reform of the benefit system and continues the successful progress made in the Government's wide-ranging labour market reforms.
The gracious Speech also contains proposals for legislation to continue our programme of improvements to the management of the National Health Service and to strengthen community care for seriously mentally disordered people.
The Health Authorities Bill will sweep away the current regional health authorities. They will be replaced with a much smaller, integrated central management structure of regional offices which will be part of the National Health Service executive within the Department of Health. Regional health authorities had nearly 3,900 staff in 1993 before those changes began; the new regional offices will have a total of 1,100 staff. The Bill also provides for the merger of district health authorities and family health service authorities.
The measures represent a significant cut in bureaucracy which I know will be welcomed on all sides of the House. Central management of the National Health Service in England will be simpler, sharper and more efficient. As a result of those and other changes, management costs will be cut and substantial savings will be available to go back into patient care. That will mean still shorter waiting times and more improvements in the quality of care; and a more efficient, more responsive National Health Service which is fit for the next century.
Your Lordships will be all too well aware of those tragic cases in which mentally ill people have fallen through the net of community care and have gone on sometimes to commit terrible offences. That was most vividly documented in the report of the inquiry into the case of Christopher Clunis, chaired by Miss Jean Ritchie QC.
Those problems cannot be solved by legislation alone. The 10 point plan announced by my right honourable friend last year represents a broad approach to tackling them. But legislation is needed to strengthen the hand of the caring agencies in dealing with seriously mentally disordered people. We shall bring forward a Bill to implement a new power of supervised discharge for patients who have been detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983. That will implement a key element of my right honourable friend's 10 point plan to ensure the safe and successful care of mentally ill people in the community.
The new power provided by the Bill will play a very important part in underpinning community care by ensuring effective supervision for some of the most vulnerable people, and better protection of the public.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has also announced proposals for a Bill to enable the General Medical Council to deal with the very small minority of doctors whose professional performance is found to be seriously deficient. Those powers have been sought by the GMC. They are in the interests of patients

159
and the profession and will help raise the standard of health care even further. The proposals have been widely welcomed.
The Government have made clear their intention to work towards eliminating discrimination against disabled people. We published a consultation document earlier this year covering a number of measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people. As a result, we intend to bring forward a package of legislative measures in the area. The details of the Government's proposals will be announced shortly. The Bills that I have outlined will contribute greatly to the health and social welfare of the nation. More, I know, will be said from all Benches on those issues during the debate and as the Bills are considered in this Chamber.
I turn now to law and order. I should like to begin, first, with the changes which are proposed north of the Border. I am sure that that will meet with the approval of certain noble Lords on all sides of the House. A prime example of the Government's commitment to law and order is the announcement in the gracious Speech of legislation to reform the Scottish criminal justice system. The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, introduced into the House on Thursday, makes a number of important reforms to the Scottish criminal justice system. The provisions of the Bill are designed to strengthen the police, the prosecutors and the courts in the fight against crime. The Bill will also streamline the operation of the system, and will make it more accessible and responsive to all those who come into contact with it. Its provisions will build on the improvements set out in the justice charter for Scotland, while reaffirming the Government's firm and fair approach to law and order in Scotland.
Another aspect of law reform north of the Border is the Children (Scotland) Bill. I know that many noble Lords will welcome the opportunity to debate it in due course. In the White Paper, Scotland's Children, published in August 1993, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland set out the Government's intention for the reform of child care law and policy in Scotland. Widespread support has since been expressed for the promised legislation. The Bill will be a major reform of the law relating to children in Scotland and will embrace both public and private law, the latter based on the child-related aspects of the Scottish Law Commission's report on family law.
Returning south, I know that a general welcome will be given to the Bill, which introduces the setting up of a new body to investigate possible miscarriages of justice and to refer appropriate cases to the courts. The Bill will also propose changes to ensure that the Court of Appeal has the full powers that it needs in order to remedy wrongful convictions at the earliest opportunity.
Those important changes were among the main recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and the Government had no hesitation in accepting them. We set out our detailed proposals for implementation in a discussion paper issued in March. That exercise revealed wide support for legislation of the kind that we are now proposing, and has enabled us
160
to benefit from the observations of many experienced people, including the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues.
Our criminal justice system in all its operations must enjoy the full confidence of the public. It must ensure the conviction of the guilty, but only the guilty. We are confident that this Bill, which aims to strengthen appeals procedures and to create an independent body dedicated to the task of investigating cases where things may have gone wrong, will make a substantial and lasting contribution to the quality of justice.
Finally, in relation to the legislative programme, I should mention the implementation of Law Commission reports. The Government recognise the value of the Law Commission's work and, accordingly, welcomed the recommendation of the Select Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, that there should be an experiment in the use of Special Public Bill Committees for considering and enabling the passage of uncontroversial law reform measures such as those regularly produced by the commission.
The procedure was used in the last Session and it is, I think, generally agreed that it was a success. The Government intend to continue its use in the new Session for Law Commission recommendations which have been accepted, are ready for enactment and are not considered to be controversial. I should like to think that the reference of law reform Bills to Special Public Bill Committees might become a regular feature of the parliamentary landscape.
An example of the sort of measure which should be well suited to consideration in that way is a Private International Law Bill, which implements three short and technical, but useful, Law Commission reports. There are several other measures which we would also hope to introduce, given agreement as to their suitability for the new procedure. They would cover such matters as the civil remedies for domestic violence, the hearsay rule in civil proceedings and the effect of divorce on wills.
I hope that I have managed to give your Lordships at least a flavour of what the Bills outlined in the gracious Speech will achieve. Before finishing, however, I should like to say something about some of the many areas in the field of home and social affairs in which the Government are taking forward non-legislative initiatives, all intended to improve the lives of the people of this country; for example, the misuse of drugs, the tackling of which the Government see as a very high priority. Last month's Green Paper, Tackling Drugs Together, set out the most comprehensive action plan yet to tackle the drugs problem in this country.
We recognise that enforcement by itself is not enough to tackle drugs. Therefore, the strategy places a new emphasis on prevention and education to reduce the demand for drugs, especially from young people. In particular, the Government are launching an information and education campaign to give young people the knowledge and skills to resist drugs. My department will continue the funding of the Home Office drugs prevention initiative for a further period of four years. From 1st April 1995 there will be 12 teams which will

161
cover a wider area and a larger population than ever before, stimulating community resistance to drug misuse.
An area in which we are actively seeking the views of the public and interested bodies on possible action is that of identity cards. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 13th October the Government's intention to publish a consultation paper in spring next year on the question of a national identity card scheme. I am well aware that there is a wide range of views on identity cards. I want the Government's Green Paper to open up that debate so that more views can be heard and we can consider the way forward in the light of the views expressed in that consultation period.
Turning to a different aspect of national life, I am sure that many of your Lordships will have noticed with some relief that the gracious Speech contains no legislative proposals for education. That does not, however, mean that we have no plans in that area. Far from it. We shall continue the effective implementation of our programme of reforms, which are all directed at further improving the standards of performance of our schools and our children. The key elements of the reforms include slimming down the national curriculum in response to teachers' own concerns about overload; ensuring that parents have the information they need about the performance of their local schools and colleges, so that they can make informed choices about their children's schooling; and continuing to encourage schools to become grant maintained and to promote the advantages of the grant-maintained sector by ensuring that factual information is available to parents and governors. We shall ensure that grant-maintained schools continue to receive the funding to match their additional responsibilities.
Additionally, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has set a target to provide, over time, a pre-school place for all four year-olds whose parents wish them to take it up. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education is now consulting widely with a view to drawing up detailed proposals. New places will have to be of good quality and promote diversity, parental choice and cost-effectiveness.
As my right honourable friend has already announced, in the coming months the Government intend to review the longer-term development of higher education, including its future purpose, size and shape. We shall consult fully with others on that important issue.
Your Lordships have, of course, had a full debate on Northern Ireland since the Summer Recess. I shall not, therefore, go over the ground again in full. However, it is important to look briefly at some of the recent developments. Since he entered Downing Street the Prime Minister has put Northern Ireland at the top of his agenda. He deserves our congratulations and praise for his courage, determination and vision. It is important that I also mention the courage and resolution of the Northern Ireland people, who have suffered with such stoicism the consequences of terrorism for so many years. The lives of us all have been touched by the shadow of terrorism.
162
The Government's policy in Northern Ireland is clear: we want a lasting peace—not peace at any price, but peace properly attained and supported by an agreed political settlement.
There have been no secret deals for peace and nothing has been hidden under the table. We shall continue to watch the words and deeds of Sinn Fein and will expect to see practical evidence of its commitment to the peace process.
It is appropriate that I should say something about the fears, anxieties and suspicions of both communities in Northern Ireland. Those fears are groundless. Underpinning everything we do in Northern Ireland is the cast-iron guarantee that the constitutional future of Northern Ireland will be determined by its people. The Government will continue to work to achieve a widely acceptable political accommodation through its discussions with all the main Northern Ireland parties and the Irish Government. The Prime Minister has made a commitment that the final outcome of the talks process—which will examine relationships within Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and between the two Governments—will be put to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum. That has put it beyond doubt that the people of Northern Ireland will make their own judgment and no settlement will be imposed on them against their will.
Before I close my remarks on Northern Ireland I should like to add my praise for the unstinting work of the security forces in Northern Ireland. Few of us in the House can imagine just how difficult and dangerous their task has been. They have already reacted to the different situation they face with violence having ceased; many measures have been reduced. But they have not dropped their guard; nor will they.
There is much work ahead for the Government, but I know that we have the support of the whole House for our efforts to secure an enduring peace and a lasting political settlement in that land.
The wide range of issues which my speech today has covered, albeit only briefly, and the doubtlessly even wider range in the debate to come, are indicative of the efforts the Government are making to achieve real improvements in services.
The legislative programme which I have set out today, together with the many non-legislative initiatives which are being taken forward, is designed to help improve the quality of people's lives. And it will do so by raising standards in our public services; by providing more help for the disabled; by improving further still the National Health Service for all, and for the mentally ill in particular; by strengthening the Scottish criminal justice system; and by strengthening the appeals procedure in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, to name but a few.
This Government are determined to make a real difference to people's lives. Nowhere is that more true than on law and order. As the Police Federation has said, the measures we brought forward last year,
"will enhance the ability of the criminal justice system to redress crime, bring criminals to justice and significantly reduce the fear of crime, so improving the quality of life for many members of society."

163
They will give the police and the courts the powers they need to catch, convict and punish the guilty. We aim to challenge the politically correct dogma, which too many people in authority have held for far too long, that criminals are not responsible for what they do, but are simply a product of society. It is fashionable to claim to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. My Lords, the main causes of crimes are those who commit them —the criminals—and we intend to be tough on criminals. No matter how difficult that may be, we shall not flinch from our task, because we are determined to provide this country with the criminal justice system it cries out for.
That, then, is a brief resume of the home and social affairs programme. My Lords, I can promise that there will be few idle moments for you in the weeks and months ahead!
3.36 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for her typically down-to-earth and practical approach to the subjects we are to debate this afternoon. I believe that I shall carry all in the House with me when I say how much we look forward to the maiden speeches this afternoon of my noble friends Lord Attenborough and Lord Dubs and the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I am sure that they will make an excellent contribution to our debates, not only today but also in the future.
I said that the Minister was down-to-earth in her approach. However, it is important that we should raise our eyes a little when we consider home and social policy. Unless we ask ourselves what social policy is for, then we are not really asking the question which is the most difficult of all to answer; namely, what is this Government for?
In the debate this afternoon we are concerned, as the Minister rightly said, with many aspects of the quality of life. The quality of life is as important for ordinary people as the quantity of life, which is to be debated on Thursday in the debate on the economy and industry.
In considering social policy, I shall not go back to Beveridge, as my noble friend Lady Hollis and I did last year, but I want to take my text from a more recent and very wise man, John Kenneth Galbraith. He published a book entitled The Culture of Contentment two years ago. He had a powerful insight into the kind of social policy which lies behind the Government's legislative programme over the past 15 years and as announced this afternoon.
Galbraith said:
"Individuals and communities that are favoured in their economic, social and political conditions attribute social virtue and political durability to that which they themselves enjoy".
In other words, if you have something, you do not necessarily want everyone else to have it; and you want to make sure that nothing in social policy takes away from the "haves", even if that is at the expense of the "have nots". Unfortunately, intellectuals throughout history have fallen over themselves to provide justifications (whether or not consciously) for the "haves" rather than the "have-nots".
164
Without going back further than the ancien régime in France, before the French Revolution, the physiocrats—the economists of those days—found excellent justifications in theory for the predominance of a small class, without even realising that their days were numbered by overwhelming protest from the great majority of French people. Nineteenth and 20th century capitalism has had a series of intellectuals justifying its precepts: from Malthus saying that there was no way in which the poor could have their condition made better because there would therefore be more of them and they would be dragged down by that factor, through classical economics to, more recently, monetarism. With Soviet communism—a wonderful theory in many ways—the intellectuals justified the establishment of the elite in the theory of democratic centralism. That tiny elite oppressed the vast majority of other people under Soviet communism. That in the end brought about the downfall of Soviet communism.
We should be aware of the intellectual underpinning of the culture of contentment. It shows itself in the way the Government think about social policy. I wish to identify the three elements: the theory of less government, given most extreme expression to by Mr. Newt Gingrich, the next speaker of Congress in another country; the theory that wealth and indeed greed is good, as expressed by Mr. Ivan Boesky, and many Right-wing politicians in many countries of the world; and the theory that it is desirable and possible for us to have less public responsibility for the poor, as endorsed by Dr. Charles Murray most recently. The problem with those theories is that they can work in electoral terms. What capitalism has succeeded in doing is to secure that the contented are in the majority. Marx identified the oppression of the majority by the minority. We now find possible the oppression of the minority—the poor, the underclass—by the majority, and certainly the electoral majority as expressed in the American mid-term elections at which only 38 per cent. of the population voted.
I have taken that time to introduce what I wish to say about the gracious Speech because it seems to me that the Queen's Speech is very much about that intellectual underpinning of the culture of contentment. Through its social policies, such a culture risks two factors at the core of both law and order policy and policy on the welfare state. Through isolating an underclass, it risks making that class's position more hopeless and moving it further away from the contented majority in our society. It risks the increase in crime which indeed has taken place over the past 15 years under a Conservative Government. By the deliberate destruction of some of the major elements of the welfare state, such a culture further alienates that underclass.
Under the Conservative Government what has happened with regard to the welfare state, even in the past 12 months, is that we pay more in order to get less. For example, employees' national insurance contributions went up on 1st April of this year. Less will be received in respect of incapacity benefits, statutory sick pay, the jobseeker's allowance and the other programmes which the Minister has outlined. I shall wish to say more on a number of those specific aspects.

165
However, before I do so, I wish to say how much we on these Benches welcome the decision of the Government to advance the introduction of the criminal cases review authority. The Minister rightly said that the proposal will achieve support from all corners of the House. Indeed, I so stated from these Benches only a few months ago. I can reassure her that the Bill will receive enthusiastic co-operation from us. A number of issues in the discussion paper issued in April have still to be resolved. For example, who will conduct the investigations? Will it be the police or a dedicated force? With regard to membership of the authority, will it be leavened (if lawyers will forgive my saying so) by the presence of a significant number of non-lawyers? There will be issues regarding powers, for example, to summon witnesses in its procedures. Although we shall not oppose the proposal in principle, there are matters on which we may disagree. I respectfully suggest to the Leader of the House that a special standing committee might consider the Bill in the period of 28 days between the time that it is introduced and Committee stage, with the benefit of expert witnesses assisting your Lordships in their considerations. If the Bill is indeed to be introduced in this House first, I commend that procedure.
The Minister said nothing about prisons or the announcement made recently on home leave. It is interesting that previous Home Secretaries have boasted about having a reduced prison population, whereas this Home Secretary seems to consider it proper to boast about having a larger prison population. Indeed, the prison population has increased under his regime from something like 42,000 to nearly 50,000. However, I was concerned by what has been said about home leave. As noble Lords will know, the present system on home leave was introduced as a result of the inquiry by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, into the riots in Strangeways Prison. I had thought that it was generally agreed that such a pressure valve was desirable in the prison service. Yet in response to questioning from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, it appears that there are no adequate national statistics on the extent of home leave or indeed the extent to which home leave is being abused. On what appears to be a purely arbitrary basis, the Home Secretary proposes to cut 40 per cent. of home leave. I have seen no justification put forward that such a cut is necessary. I regret in particular the proposal that there should be no home leave for education, training and work experience for those serving in Category A and B prisons.
Your Lordships have expressed their opinion on criminal injuries compensation and attempted to press that opinion but were regrettably overturned by Government. That was before we knew that the Government's proposals were illegal. If it is true that the costs of criminal injuries compensation are increasing—there is some doubt that they are increasing as fast as the Government suggest—we have to ask why. The answer can only be that crime is increasing under a Conservative Government. We have to ask about the justice of proposals put forward in that policy's stead, in particular about the abolition of compensation for loss of earnings.
166
Criminal injuries compensation is only one aspect of the vacuity of the Government's claim that they are looking after the victims of crime. The Minister stated that the Government's policy is to be tough on criminals when she opposed Tony Blair's description of being tough on crime and on the causes of crime. It remains to be seen whether a tough policy in dealing with those criminals who have been convicted is the right approach to dealing with law and order problems. What is quite certain is that the Government by their attitude to the criminal injuries compensation legislation, and in other matters, are being tough on the victims of crime.
For example, what are the Government doing to ensure that there are quick payments by criminals charged to compensate victims for the crime? What are the Government doing to ensure that there is proper control of progress payments to victims of crime? What are the Government doing to ensure that victims are consulted on charges? That is a perfectly reasonable reform which has been advocated for a number of years and never adopted. What are the Government doing to ensure that victims are given adequate information about the progress of a case and the dates on which a case comes forward? What is being done to protect victims from intimidation? That is a very topical comment in view of the commitment to prison of an elderly husband and wife who were afraid of being intimidated as potential witnesses. What are the Government doing to ensure that there is secure witness accommodation in courts? All those and many other matters do not give us any assurance that the Government's claims to be concerned with the needs of victims have any real substance.
There are matters on which we strongly agree with the Government. I particularly welcome what the Minister has just said about Law Commission reports. I remind her that there are now, I believe, 32 outstanding Law Commission reports and if we are to deal with them in a reasonable time —say, three years—we ought to be dealing with 10 or more Law Commission reports every single year. Even if—as the Minister suggests—and we support it—we refer them to Special Public Bill Committees, it is quite a programme to be introduced off the Floor of the House.
The Minister spent some time on Scotland, but I shall not follow that because my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar will deal with it. However, before I leave Home Office policy, I wish to extend the argument a little further. Respect for the law and for probity in public life also affects us as Members of this House. I welcome the statement which was recently made by the Leader of the House in favour of consideration of a register of Members' interests. I am glad to know that it will be pursued. However, when we consider it we must also consider whether the declaration of interests by Members of the House is adequate and whether the phrase "direct pecuniary interest" is drawn too tightly. We must consider whether the declaration of interest is adequate in the sense that, having declared an interest, there appears to be no firm prohibition on those who have conflicting interests speaking and voting on legislation.

167
I believe that we ought to consider whether we should look to the rules which Parliament itself has imposed on local government as an example to us in the way we conduct our own affairs. There it is very clear that those who have a pecuniary interest, even of a fairly general kind, are forced not only to declare that interest in advance but are also debarred from speaking and voting. We ought to look to the principle which was established many years ago by a Select Committee on procedures in this House—in a report which was accepted by the House—that we should receive pay for nothing which arises out of our membership of the House. If we receive pay for what we are doing here as Members of the House, we are breaking the fundamental principle that we are an unpaid House. I do not believe that that is sustainable. If any Members think that membership of the House is somehow a bar to introducing stronger procedures for control of our own affairs, I suggest to them that what they are doing is arguing not against stronger principles for the way we conduct ourselves but against our existing membership. The argument will fall inevitably that way if reform is resisted.
I move through other issues of social policy as rapidly as I can because my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden will deal with most of them in her winding-up speech. I wish to say a word in particular about pensions. As the Minister made quite clear, the necessity for a reform of pensions arises from the Maxwell debacle and the Goode Report which followed. If we are to have adequate control of private sector pension schemes, we have to assert some principles about the way they are conducted. That is what the Opposition will do. We shall have to ensure that member trustees, who should really be in the majority, are an essential part of the trustee body. There should be no question of opting out. We should ensure that trustees receive independent training, not simply from the financial advisers to the pension fund.
On the whole issue of the guaranteed minimum pension which has been ensured as not less than the value of SERPS, I am worried about the proposed replacement by a requisite benefit scheme. That seems to us to be fine for the better paid and those in long-term jobs, but it does not seem to provide adequate protection for the large, and increasing, number of people who have many different jobs, some of them low paid, in the course of their working lives. I must remind the Government and the House that the need for this new control over pension schemes arises from deliberate government policy. It was the Government's policy which, with the stick of reducing the benefits from SERPS and the carrot of providing for a short-term bribe from the Department of Social Security, led us into this mess in the first place. We shall have to help them get us out of it, but it will not be an easy problem to solve.
I shall not say much about the Child Support Agency because other noble Lords are much better qualified to talk about it. Nor will I talk about the disabled because my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke will undoubtedly make as powerful a speech as he usually does on the subject. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, intends to speak somewhat in that area too.
168
I thought it was a bit of a nerve for the Minister to say that the jobseeker's allowance would provide an improvement in government policy for the unemployed. What it will do is to reduce the benefits, which have, after all, been paid for and which are not means tested, from 12 months to six months. It is based on the entirely false assumption—which goes back, I think, again to Galbraith—that what deters the unemployed from finding jobs is lack of effort to find them rather than the real problem with which the Government do not propose to deal—the poverty trap.
I shall not say much about the National Health Service, except that to abolish the regional health authorities and turn them into committees of the National Health Service Executive seems to me to be nationalisation to the nth degree. Having created regional and local quangos, we are now to replace them by branches of a central quango. Of course, we welcome any improvement that is proposed in the treatment of those with mental health problems in the community and we shall listen sympathetically to what the Government say in that respect.
I repeat the question: what is social policy for? The Government seem to think that social policy is an instrument of supply side economics, an instrument of the policy which suggests, "Well, there's very little we can do about economic policy other than fiscal and monetary adjustment. So we shall treat social policy as a sub-division of that repudiation of positive government action". We, on the other hand, see social policy and policy on law and order as the means to a civilised society. We want to see the result of government actions, not just this year, not just over the past 15 years, but in the short time which remains to this Government, as helping to create what the next government will create—a society to which we are all proud to belong.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in saying that I too greatly look forward to the maiden speeches which will later grace this debate. I am fortunate in having sufficient knowledge of all three new Members of the House and know the outstanding qualities that they will bring to it. I was fortunate in first meeting my noble friend Lord Tope when for a short while he was a Member of another place. He has gone on to serve with great distinction in local government. I remember also that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, brought integrity and seriousness to the work of the Commons. Since then he has devoted himself to the problems of refugees—a matter that is very appropriate to today's debate and one to which I am sure noble Lords will turn their attention on future occasions. As for the noble Lord, Lord Attenborough, like millions of others I first saw him serving the nation over 50 years ago. I am also fortunate that in more recent times I have had dealings with him personally. I greatly welcome him, too, to our debate today.
Perhaps I should say to the noble Lords who are about to make maiden speeches that I expect to learn more from them than they should expect to learn from me. This is the first occasion on which I have spoken in this

169
House on home and social affairs. I hope that to that extent they will bear with me if my own speech perhaps falls short of what they, as maiden speakers, might expect.
I simply say—and in doing so I endorse a remark made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—that a year ago I spoke in the Queen's Speech debate on another topic. On that occasion I referred to Northern Ireland, which was of course the responsibility—not, perhaps, one of the most successful responsibilities—of the Home Office until 1972. I said then that I thought—I hoped that I spoke for the whole House—that we all wished the Prime Minister well in the endeavour he had set himself. I said that he should be bold and single-minded, but that he should not expect to carry everyone with him. I pay my own unqualified tribute to the Prime Minister for his achievement. He has done rather better than I then anticipated; he has carried, if not everyone, almost everyone with him. It has been very good for Britain abroad as well as good for our nation at home. I hope that the momentum will be continued.
It is normally the case that the main contents of the Queen's Speech are determined as early as July so that the parliamentary draftsman can carry on with his work. It is very seldom that the contents are decided later than September. Indeed, I cannot recall—I would be happy to give way to any noble Lord who can recall—any previous instance of a gaping hole being blown in the Queen's Speech within a fortnight of the opening of Parliament. I make the point not in order to develop my thoughts on the subject but simply to point out that in planning this parliamentary Session, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House must have allocated, let us say, 10 or 12 days to a Bill we no longer have. Although it would be beyond the spirit of our recent discussions for that space to be filled needlessly with legislation that we do not want, there is certainly room—as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, and as the noble Baroness conceded—for important legislation which might otherwise wait in the queue.
I simply say in parenthesis that a further small but useful gap would open in the legislative programme if the Government dropped all their proposals for local government reorganisation. When this House discussed the matter some months ago, opinion was almost unanimous on all sides that there was no merit whatever in the recommendations that were then coming forward. I noticed a powerful letter from the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Gilmour, among others, in The Times last week about reorganisation in the county of Buckinghamshire. I and other noble Lords have been very concerned with the proposals for Cleveland. Now is not the time to pursue the matter. Clearly, it is a subject for tomorrow's debate when local government can mainly be dealt with.
I make the point for two reasons. The first is that there is no merit in pursuing the changes when there are more important matters to which the House could turn. That is particularly the case when, as noble Lords know, we are not to be allowed full debate on the measures but are bound to discuss only statutory instruments. Also, the proposals for reorganisation will be very
170
disruptive indeed of the important responsibilities for social and home affairs which are still carried by local authorities despite the fact that they have far less to do than they had in the past. I do not believe that reorganisation will make services better; I do not believe that they will be cheaper; and we shall not get greater value for money. The changes will certainly be bad for morale. I hope that the Government, in their own discreet way, if they prefer, will find a means of abandoning further discussion of local government reform.
In the Queen's Speech, there is something that at first looked like a manuscript amendment. Indeed, it is an amendment made when the Post Office proposals were dropped. It is a reference to "further measures of law reform". But last Wednesday, in response to representations from my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said that the phrase covered the introduction of a Bill to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on a criminal cases review authority. That was further made plain by the Secretary of State in another place last Friday, and was of course referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, today.
Last week the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal referred to "full and constructive co-operation" with the proposal that the Government would bring forward. That remark put me somewhat on the alert. I see that the Secretary of State used the same words in another place last Friday. I am wondering whether the Government have in mind proposals which they already anticipate will less than satisfy opinion in this House.
The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, who is not with us today, recently gave a talk at Edinburgh University. His remarks are very important. Referring to after-thoughts about the Royal Commission report, the noble Viscount said:
"I wish we had argued more strongly the need to ensure that the new Criminal Cases Review Authority … is properly—which means abundantly—funded".
He went on to refer to the budgetary and investigative resources devoted by the BBC and Granada television to programmes designed to remedy what the courts and the Home Office had got wrong. The noble Viscount made a further comment which perhaps I may read to the House:
"I hope and trust that when the new Review Authority is up and running that conclusion will be recognised and acted upon, and that it will not be undermined by the cases, which there will inevitably be, where detailed and costly investigation serves only to confirm the guilt of an appellant".
Those two points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, are most important. I hope that the Minister, in winding up our debate today, will confirm that he sees the role of the authority very much in those terms.
However, as I say, I am somewhat worried by the terms used by Ministers so far about the authority. The Home Secretary in another place went to considerable

171
length to describe how he thought the new authority might function. He referred in particular to procedures that have been followed in the past, and said:
"When the investigation was originally conducted by the police, the investigation under the supervision of the new body will be carried out by the police, although not necessarily by the same force that carried out the original investigation".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/94; col. 238.]
He went on to refer to an original investigation carried out by customs officers.
What disturbs me is not that that is necessarily the wrong way to proceed but that it seems that the Secretary of State is already laying down the means by which this independent authority should proceed. Prima facie, I believe that to be wrong. The authority must decide to proceed in the best possible way and Parliament, both in this House and in the other place, should give it the proper framework for so doing. Certainly, there will be full and constructive co-operation from these Benches when the Bill comes before the House, provided that it satisfies those very important criteria and is not merely a face-saving device.
There will be full and constructive co-operation from these Benches for the main recommendations of the Law Commission. My noble friend Lord Harris, on 6th June and on other occasions, has drawn attention to the importance of progress in these matters, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, in a debate on the sittings of the House three weeks ago. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, referred to the appalling backlog of unimplemented reports and said, generously, that the problem is one of parliamentary time for the necessary legislation. As the House knows, "when parliamentary time permits" is a wonderful euphemism for every government. It implies powers beyond their reach in determining the parliamentary timetable. What it really means is, "When we, the Government, take it into our heads that we want to give a Bill priority." I hope that what has been said by the Minister today will indeed result in proposals under this heading very shortly.
I believe that a majority in this House would be prepared to cede time for the repeal of some of the legislation on which we spent time last year. There was, for example, the Education Bill. I think there was a sigh of relief from some quarters when the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, indicated that we would not have such a Bill in this Session. There was also the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill and, above all, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.
In all those cases, across all parties and none, this House found important reasons to disagree with parts of the Bills. Despite that, the Government insisted on using their diminishing majority—diminishing loyal majority—in another place to reverse decisions made here.
172
I have referred to the remarks of the Home Secretary in another place. He said the other day about the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill and the rejection of every attempt to amend it:
"All the efforts of the Opposition parties have miserably failed. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act is now on the statute book, entire and intact".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/94; col. 242.]
I want to draw attention to the reference to "all the efforts of the Opposition parties". As your Lordships know, it was opposition across the whole House that was so important. On 25th October we discussed the amendments previously proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Can. He felt, for reasons we fully understand, that he did not wish to table the amendment or push the matter to a Division. But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, chose to do so on the Motion he put before the House. Of the 89 Members who voted for the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, 23 did not take the Whip of any of the Opposition parties. So much for the claim of the Home Secretary that his Bill had succeeded despite the efforts of all the Opposition parties. The plain fact is that if the Home Secretary had more humility he would recognise that on a number of very important issues the views of this House were those he should have fully taken account of and that he should have agreed to the amendments to the Bills which were proposed and carried here.
The office of Home Secretary is one of the great offices of state. It is also a most difficult office in which to succeed. But because of its range of responsibilities—including those for law and order—it is, in a sense, a trust. Of course, the decisions of the Home Secretary will be within the context of the Cabinet of which he is a member, and he will be a party politician; but that is quite a different matter from playing politics with his responsibilities.
Above all, the Home Secretary must take a long view; above all, he must take a considered and mature view; above all, he must take a view based on knowledge and not on prejudice, and, especially on emotive issues, he must lead opinion and seek to persuade. It gives me no pleasure at all to say that by any of those standards the present Home Secretary has singularly failed.
Among the many things which bear reading is what the Home Secretary said in another place last Friday:
"My task is to provide our country with the system of criminal justice for which it yearns."
He also said:
"From the moment when I became Home Secretary, I was determined to challenge the politically correct orthodoxies that too many people in prominent positions have held for far too long".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/94; col. 239.]
One of the most prominent positions—as he surely would agree—is the office of Home Secretary. And yet, over a period of 14 years, there were five Conservative Home Secretaries preceding him. If he is determined to challenge the politically correct orthodoxies that too many people in prominent positions have held for too long, he is indeed challenging the orthodoxies of his five predecessors within this period of government.

173
I do not believe that the Home Secretary has served the nation well. It is with some relief that we have no substantial measures before the House in this parliamentary Session except those with which, on the face of it, your Lordships will be able to agree.
4.16 p.m.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, may I first say how sorry I was to miss the State Opening and the gracious Speech itself because they coincided with my long-planned visit to Ireland. This is my first opportunity to say publicly to the Leader of the House how much we, the Bishops, look forward to working with him in his new role. I look forward to the maiden speeches of three distinguished men later.
The contribution I wish to make relates to the establishment of the Nolan Committee, which I warmly welcome, and its work during this Session of Parliament. I share the Prime Minister's concerns for standards in public life, expressed in his speech last week at the Lord Mayor's Banquet. I have written to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, to assure him that the Church stands ready to assist the deliberations of his committee in any way possible and that we shall be submitting evidence together with our ecumenical partners.
Your Lordships will be well aware that there is plenty of sleaze and corruption in the Bible. We recall that King David, however special his role in the Old Testament, was guilty of lying, murder, adultery and gross favouritism. King Solomon, we are told, had 700 wives and 300 concubines who, we are informed, "turned his heart from the truth". By comparison, the finest scoops of today's tabloid press are very feeble affairs. Moreover, readers of English literature from Geoffrey Chaucer to Anthony Trollope, and indeed to Susan Howatch and Joanna Trollope, will be aware of a rich tradition of sleaze within the Church. So I feel I can speak with a certain authority as well as humility.
The issue before us is quite fundamental: what kind of society do we want to build? Central to any true vision we may have for a good and prosperous country will surely be a law-abiding people who hold in common shared values of honour, justice and integrity. And in building these values, we in this country owe so much to the Judaeo-Christian tradition which has nurtured in successive generations a shared, broad understanding of what is good and honourable behaviour and what is bad. Christianity remains embedded in our society and culture more deeply than many people realise. Nevertheless, there is a real anxiety that our society and its values are becoming more fragmented. The myth is gaining ground that what is good and right is no more than a matter of subjective individual opinion. The impressive essay Values: collapse and cure, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, recently published, tackles this myth with great persuasiveness. But the erosion of shared values which inspired his essay is still in train. That seems to me the backcloth to the Nolan inquiry into standards in public life. How are we to
174
reassert most effectively firm standards of conduct which can help restore people's confidence that our public institutions are working for the common good?
The first key element I believe we should consider is humility. There is nothing wrong with politicians and other public figures such as newspaper editors setting out publicly what they believe to be good, right and true in different areas of life, including morality and ethics. Indeed, it is important that they should do so rather than hide behind the myth that these are simply matters of individual opinion or that they should be left to the Churches. Just as politics is too important to be left to politicians, so morality is too important to be left to the clergy or moralists. What matters is how it is done.
Whoever adopts a self-righteous tone in discussing moral behaviour is highly likely to fall flat on his face because it will not be too long before his own weaknesses are exposed. It is worth noting that in practically every service in the Church of England, all present, whatever their station in life, acknowledge their weaknesses and sins and pray for forgiveness. That is a wise starting point for moralists.
In contemporary culture we have tended to lose that basic insight. Let us therefore bear in mind our imperfections and our constant need for what the Bible calls grace. But it would be quite wrong to draw the conclusion that public figures should prudently regard moral and ethical standards as a no-go area for debate or comment. For example, all Members of this Chamber make implicit moral and ethical judgments each time they vote. There is no good reason to be embarrassed or reticent about that fact.
My second general observation is that indiscriminate cynicism of the kind that treats with disdain an entire class of people, such as politicians, damages our democracy. For me, the death of John Smith was a moment of truth. Right across party lines it was clear that his unshowy integrity and his commitment to serving others were the standard honoured and embraced by a large majority of people in public life. Individual lapses and failures are simply not valid grounds for withholding trust and indeed gratitude from the majority of people who seek to serve the community through politics.
However, the trust of the people in any institution surely depends on the perception that those running it are in fact seeking to serve the good of others, not just themselves, and that they are also telling the truth. That in turn depends on the observance of standards which reflect values of service and honesty. So, from where do those values come and how are they to be nurtured?
At a fundamental level, beliefs about truth and about being here to serve something bigger than ourselves derive historically from religion and, in my view, need continuing nourishment from religion. The replacement of fairly widespread sleaze in the 18th century in both Church and state by the sort of ethical standards we continue to expect today owed a great deal, I suggest, to the surge of nonconformism, the evangelical revival and the Oxford movement in the 19th century. I simply do not believe that the maintenance of those standards would ultimately survive the loss of widespread belief in a meaning and purpose of life bigger than the

175
individual's subjective opinion. That is one reason why religious leaders of all faiths warn of the long-term consequences and effects if belief and morality themselves are relativised and privatised.
But since the right motivation is not enough by itself, all of us need guidelines and codes to help us realise the good intentions in practice. Such codes are vital for institutions as well as individuals, mobilising authority and peer pressure behind ethical norms and translating general values into specific expectations. In such apparently dull documents as Guidance for Ministers, civil servants and the like are the crucial undergirding structures on which public trust can rest. It is most welcome that the Nolan Committee, among others, should consider where the structures may need extension or reinforcement.
However, there is no area of life in which the correct ethical decision can consistently be found by reading from a rule book. Time and again, different ethical considerations pull in different directions and doing the right thing involves the arduous exercise of judgment and conscience. For that reason I can understand why the Nolan Committee comprises practitioners rather than moralists. The values may not need theologians to state them but they certainly need people of experience and integrity in public life to wrestle with the dilemmas of applying them.
I believe that we should also gladly acknowledge that alert public media have an indispensable role in exposing the tendency of all power to corrupt and in investigating cases of dishonesty and self-serving in public life. Without the work of independent journalists, we should all be far more vulnerable to the abuse of power by people in authority. I know many individual journalists of the utmost honesty and scrupulousness as well as ability. But in helping to uphold values such as integrity and honour, the media must also expect to be judged by the same standards. It is a worrying sign of a society's ill health if the trust of people in the integrity and honour of much of the printed media in particular is at such an apparently low ebb. If too many people start to treat newspapers cynically as comics, and as sources of entertainment rather than of fair and reliable reporting and comment, we shall all be the poorer.
In conclusion perhaps I may offer one further reflection as we begin this Session. I think we all agree that one aspect of maintaining public trust is that, when a significant mistake is made, somebody takes clear responsibility for it. The way in which responsibility is properly taken depends on the seriousness and circumstances of each case. But if nobody takes responsibility, public trust is weakened. There is a corollary. In a moral society there must also be the possibility of fresh starts for those who take responsibility for their failures and show penitence. The aim is not to knock as many people as possible off their
176
pedestals and feel good about their downfall. The aim is to help all of us, vulnerable as we all are, to serve the common good as well as we can.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is a rare privilege to follow the most reverend Primate. But it is also rather frightening because my purpose is limited and intensely practical. The purpose is to invite your Lordships on all sides of the House to consider whether the investigations under the War Crimes Act either to inculpate or exculpate should continue and whether the Government should not now intervene to end those investigations.
I have given to my noble friend the Minister due notice of my intention to raise this matter. I should be grateful if we could have her views either today or at least before 7th December when the War Crimes (Supplementary Provisions) Bill, which is concerned with the institution of proceedings, is due to have its Second Reading.
The tentacles of delay have already taken hold, for unless and until these investigations are concluded, the Crown Prosecution Service cannot decide whether or not to seek the consent of Mr. Attorney as to the institution of proceedings. Your Lordships may well ask when the Crown Prosecution Service will seek such consent; when it will be granted or withheld by Mr. Attorney, taking into account wider considerations of public policy such as those referred to by the right reverend prelate the Bishop of St. Albans in a previous debate on the matter in your Lordships' House —the backlash factor— and when those proceedings will be instituted. When, allowing time for the defence to prepare their submissions, will the inevitable applications be made to the court to quash the indictments on grounds of delay and abuse of process? When will the substantive trial start and end? When will the appellate process, which, unlike Scotland, can only operate after conviction, end? Years and years later.
Each year of delay is prejudicial to the defence and affects the prospects of a fair trial. Any scintilla of recollection not already fossilised in reconstruction will continue to suffer that sea change of erosion. There is an inherent hazard of conviction on mistaken identity, as acknowledged by the appellate court in Israel which quashed a conviction when innocence was established by chance on a document being found which was not available at the trial. If delay defeats justice, a delay of upwards of 50 years where the crucial issue is one of identity knows not the name of justice.
The investigations started in 1988 and 1989 under the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry, which was set up as the result of a letter sent by the Wiesenthal Centre to my right honourable friend the then Prime Minister in 1986 containing a list of 17 people. When the inquiry was set up by the Home Office in 1988, 10 of those people were thought to be living in England. A Scottish Television list contained the names of 34 people, seven of whom were thought to be alive in England.
Part I of the Hetherington-Chalmers Report recommended a war crimes Bill on the evidence in Part II. But none of us ever saw that evidence. The report

177
said that the evidence contained 301 case files and other material. That evidence had to be taken for granted. It was not disclosed in either House, as your Lordships know.
In the wake of the 1991 Act the Metropolitan Police War Crimes Unit took over the investigations, which continue. On 11th October 1994 a Question was tabled to ask Her Majesty's Government when the inquiries were expected to be concluded. In a Written Answer of 25th October the Government, with all but Neronic disdain for quotidian circumstance, declined to answer the Question. They said:
"Inquiries are continuing into all 28 cases which are currently under investigation. Completion of the outstanding inquiries is a matter for the police service and I cannot predict when their inquiries will be finalised". —[Official Report, 25/10/94; WA col. 25.]
Is it not apparent that the material upon which that Answer was given emanated from the Home Office, which is responsible for the police? It did not come from the Lord Chancellor's Department, although it was signed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who answers for the Crown Prosecution Service in your Lordships' House. How long ought this symbiotic situation without dichotomy of responsibility that runs itself into stalemate to be countenanced in the conduct of our home affairs? Those 28 persons have been candidates for prosecution since before 27th June 1974—and we know not for how long before. They are the rump remainder of 356 suspects who were interrogated, 229 having been excluded, including all those living in Scotland, and 112 having died before that date. According to the Written Answer, in 10 cases interim reports had been submitted by the police service to the CPS and in seven there were subsequent substantive reports.
It is not understood what is an interim report and what is a substantive report if, after a substantive report, the Crown Prosecution Service sends the whole matter back to the police and says, "Continue with the investigation". That is what happened and that is what is happening today. It is not known whether any of the 28 were on the Wiesanthal list of 10, or in the 301 case files, or for how long they have been under investigation. A Question has been tabled for answer on 28th November.
Have we not crossed the hump-backed bridge where justified inquiry has become an instrument of unjustifiable oppression? How much longer should we scrape the barrel? How much longer should we rout around the stale truffles of evidence on which to seek to put these men on trial? The Official Reports of both Houses—I have been through them —confirm three things. First, the 1990 Bill was tabled on the basis that these trials, as recommended in Part I of the report, should take place on the evidence as it then stood; that is, evidence which neither House had seen. Some noble Lords may remember the speech of my noble friend Lord Waddington, who put the case to the House. Secondly, it was common ground between all Members who spoke in your Lordships' House and in another place—either for or against the Bill —that if there were to be trials they should be fair trials and a fair trial cannot take place when there have been years of delay.
178
Thirdly, no Member of either House could conceivably have envisaged that investigations would not have been concluded by today or that as yet no decision would have been taken by the Crown Prosecution Service to seek the consent of Mr. Attorney. No one could have conceived that that situation would have arisen in respect of all cases. This is the situation and my question to my noble friend the Minister is this: what on earth do the Government propose to do about it?
4.40 p.m.
Lord Attenborough: My Lords, it would perhaps have been more appropriate had I been able to deliver these few words during the arts debate last January when my noble friend Lord Menuhin made his impressive maiden speech but, sadly, a bout of 'flu confined me to my bed. I also wish to apologise to my most kindly sponsors—friends of long standing; the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Walton—for the subsequent delay in making my own maiden speech; a delay occasioned by a lengthy professional commitment in the United States and a tour of South Africa on behalf of the United Nations Children's Fund.
Nevertheless, as possibly noble Lords may have surmised, my subject is the arts—the arts in their broadest sense; the arts as an essential element in what we are pleased to call our civilised society. I have it on the best of authority, from a not too distant relative, that we are related to apes, but it is, surely, not only the ability to stand on our hind legs that sets us so singularly apart from the animal kingdom. The crucial difference must lie in what we call soul and creativity. Our distant ancestors, the first true humans, started to communicate through language some 35,000 years ago and, almost contemporaneously, they began to create pictures on the walls of their caves.
Is it not remarkable that those early hunters, balanced as they were on the very cusp of survival, should need to paint the creatures which surrounded them in their daily lives: that in the bowels of the earth and on bare rock they felt impelled to recreate the colour, form and movement that they witnessed in the forest outside? A cave painting tells us, surely, far more than the simple appearance of a bison or deer. Across untold generations it speaks of the painter, too; of his uniquely personal interpretation. It grants us a window into his mind. President John F. Kennedy once said:
"Art establishes the basic human truths which must serve as the touchstone of our judgement".
From the very earliest of times the arts have been an instinctive essential of our humanity. They are a miraculous sleight of hand which reveal the truth and a glorious passport to greater understanding between the peoples of the world. The arts not only enrich our lives but grant us the opportunity to challenge accepted practices and assumptions. They give us a means of protest against that which we believe to be unjust; a voice to condemn the brute and the bully; a brief to advocate the cause of human dignity and self-respect; a rich and varied language through which we can express our national identity.

179
Today, as a nation, we face daunting problems—problems which are obliging us to examine the very fabric of our society. And the role of the arts in healing a nation divided, a nation in which too many lack work, lack self esteem, lack belief and direction, cannot and must not be underestimated.
This is the first century of mass communication. We have now, as never before, the ability to disseminate the arts in all their forms, cheaply, quickly and qualitatively, to the widest possible audience. But art—any art form—can never rest upon its laurels. It was Winston Churchill who said:
"Without tradition, art is a flock of sheep without a shepherd. Without innovation, it is a corpse".
The arts in this country have a long and enviable tradition. Shepherds there are in abundance. But innovation which must, of necessity, entail the possibility of ridicule, even failure, is the life blood of continuing tradition. For the arts to continue to flourish we must underwrite both innovation and, of course, training.
We have in the United Kingdom some of the finest academies of dance and drama in the entire world. Is it not, then, a supremely tragic irony that many of our most promising students are being denied access to those institutions for lack of a mandatory grant? As a result, hundreds of dedicated and talented young people are now being lost to their chosen professions as dancers, actors and technicians, with their places taken by those who can afford to pay. The loss of their talents, furthermore, is inflicting untold damage on our internationally acclaimed theatre, television and film industries.
Film (the movies) as noble Lords may be aware, has occupied much of my life. It is now more than 50 years since I entered the industry. In that time I have seen it weather many storms and falter repeatedly from lack of concern on the part of far, far too many arts Ministers. Certainly, now that at last every aspect of our cinema industry is under the sole aegis of the Department of National Heritage, such pitiful inactivity can no longer be excused.
Sadly, however, from my own particular viewpoint, cinema was scarcely mentioned during the arts debate to which I referred earlier—a fact I register with regret since I believe the vast majority of the British people generally accept that it is the art form of this century. My belief is borne out by recent figures which indicate that United Kingdom cinema attendances for 1994 will reach 120 million; the 10th successive year of steady increase from a base of less than half that figure. In fact, three times more people go to the movies than all those who attend concerts, opera, ballet and theatre put together and we currently spend, as a nation, nearly £2 billion a year on watching feature films, either at home or in the cinema. However, the sad fact is that only some 4 per cent. of that revenue will accrue to films of British origin.
We, as indigenous film makers, are often accused of special pleading, of extending the perpetual begging bowl. That is not true. The fact is that the making of
180
feature films cannot be compared with any other manufacturing process. Every film made is a prototoype, a one-off original, that must be packaged and marketed in its own distinctive fashion —a procedure that is extremely risky and very expensive.
Since no one film can ever be guaranteed to make a profit, wise investors will spread their risk over 10 or 20 such prototypes in the knowledge that 50 per cent. will fail, 30 per cent. will break even and 20 per cent. will prove immensely profitable. If we in Britain are ever again to have a film industry worthy of the name, we have to persuade government to create conditions that will allow investors to spread their risk in that way.
Some, of course, might argue that our film industry is not worth saving, that it should be allowed to go the way of shipbuilding or the manufacture of motor cycles. But I repeat that the making of feature films cannot be compared with any other industrial process, for they represent, as no other art form, as no other business activity, a crucial definition of our cultural identity, both here at home and throughout the world. Movies are the mirror we hold up to ourselves, the reflection of our codes and practices, our goods and services, our skills and inventions, our architecture and landscapes, our comedy and tragedy, our past and present. And they have the ability to grant us, as no other medium can, a worldwide showcase, generating immense returns—both tangible and intangible, visible and invisible—in every conceivable sphere.
The novelist Julian Barnes wrote a decade ago:
"Do not imagine that Art is something which is designed to give gentle uplift and self-confidence. Art is not a brassière. At least, not in the English sense. But do not forget that brassière is the French for life-jacket".
Today we have need of that life-jacket as never before. The arts are not a luxury. They are as crucial to our well-being, to our very existence, as eating and breathing.
A recent survey, undertaken for the National Campaign for The Arts, revealed that 79 per cent. of the population attend arts or cultural events, that the same high percentage believe that the arts help to bring people together in local communities and almost the same number are prepared to state, without equivocation, that the arts enrich their quality of life. In the face of such cogent endorsement, the role of the arts in all our lives—in health care, in social education and rehabilitation, in business, in the community—is, I profoundly believe, one that we underestimate at our peril.
Some years ago, when I had the privilege of helping to prepare a report concerning the arts and disabled people, I was reminded of Somerset Maugham, who wrote:
"An art is only great and significant if it is one that all may enjoy".
"Exclusive" is a shameful word in the context of the arts. We have, as a nation, excluded far too many for far too long. Whether consciously or unconsciously, we have assumed that certain of our compatriots, most notably the disabled and the disadvantaged, have little to gain and little to contribute. Nothing could be further from the truth. In common, I am certain, with many

181
Members of this noble House, I am encouraged by mention in the gracious Speech of the Government's intention to introduce a new Bill to ameliorate the many inequities which confront the disabled. Mindful of the constraints placed upon those making their maiden speech, I will content myself with adding that I trust their present intention will ultimately result in a more productive and seemly outcome than that which befell the Private Member's Bill earlier this year.
The arts are not a perquisite of the privileged few; nor are they the playground of the intelligentsia. The arts are for everyone—and failure to include everyone diminishes us all.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, it falls to an intermittent attender in your Lordships' House to have the honour of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Attenborough, on his most eloquent maiden speech. It will be seen from what I have to say that I shall be making a very pedestrian speech in contrast to the noble Lord's eloquence. It is very refreshing to me that a Member of your Lordships' House is defending films, because about 50 years ago as, I suppose, an aggressive teenager, I was unwise enough to say to an eminent lady that I preferred films to theatre. About an hour later Dame Sybil Thorndike ceased trying to persuade me that I was wrong. I remain of the same view, however, and I am sure that your Lordships will hear more from the noble Lord, Lord Attenborough, to persuade your Lordships that I was right.
I shall speak mainly about the provision of justice in Scotland, but before doing so I should like to welcome the Government's intention to legislate about children in Scotland. It is now more than five years since the equivalent Act for England was passed. It is unfortunate that there has been that delay of five years, although it occurred for a variety of reasons for which I do not blame the Government entirely.
The new Bill will be supported by all sides of your Lordships' House and by all sides of the Scottish community. However, many aspects of the Bill will be controversial on points of detail. Because so many voluntary and other organisations have had, and will have, helpful contributions to make in any discussion of the provisions of the Bill, it would be most helpful if the Bill were to be published in good time before any debate takes place in either House. I heard a rumour earlier today that it had been suggested that the other place would start to discuss the legislation on 5th December. I hope that that is wrong, because it would not allow sufficient time for discussion. Your Lordships will appreciate that many organisations, including Save the Children and Barnardos, require time to consider the details of such a Bill. It is unproductive if the details of such a Bill are not made available to all the voluntary and other organisations in sufficient time for them to form a view as to what they want to say about it. Many voluntary organisations have a management committee meeting only about once a month, so the Bill must be made available to them about six weeks prior to expecting any reasonable discussion to take place on it.
182
Perhaps I may suggest to the Government that their proceedings on charities in the 1992 legislative programme highlight that difficulty, because the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has distributed to quite a number of us details of its difficulties with the present charities legislation. Those difficulties arose largely because that provision was foisted on us without sufficient prior consultation or notice.
One of the matters which will clearly require consideration in such a Bill on children is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was ratified by the United Kingdom in 1991. It defines a child as being a person under 18 years of age. Our legislation on children's hearings and on criminal law works on the age of 16 as the age of transfer from childhood to adulthood. I find it astonishing that the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which was published last week, takes not the slightest account of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I hope that the new legislation will at least acknowledge its existence, because, if I may say so, if it does not, it will not be for the want of documents advising the Scottish Office on how to proceed.
The 16 to 21 years age group is the group where it is most obvious that the criminal justice system, at any rate in Scotland and I suspect in the rest of the UK, fails to have any real effect. We are forced, as judges, to rely far too heavily on the expensive and usually counter-productive sentence of detention for young people. The convention provides an opportunity, as well as a duty, to do something about the 16 to 18-year olds; to take them out of the adult criminal system, either by extending children's hearings up to 18 years, by having some form of mixed court of panel members and judges, or by having some other system. Something is clearly required, and it is omitted from the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. We must do something to take young people out of the present court system, which is clearly failing society and the young people.
It is principally about justice in Scotland, and civil justice, that I want to speak. Since the major revision of criminal procedure in the 1975 Act, we have had about one Act a year looking at criminal justice. The Bill is supposed, in the words on the radio of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, to be a Bill to "streamline" criminal procedure. The streamlining effect of the previous few dozen Bills is that each criminal trial takes about twice the time it used to do, and more and more judges and more and more courts are required to be provided while there is less and less time to get rid of any of the cases. I hope that the Government are right when they say that the Bill will streamline our procedures.
The confiscation provisions are, in principle, welcomed, but they are far from simple. They take up pages of the Bill, rather like the existing provision for the confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking, and the complication of that is similar, I imagine, to someone being asked to ride a horse around the Grand National course when blindfolded. It is an appalling piece of nonsense.

183
It is most unfortunate that the Government have failed to face up to the need to improve the provision of justice on the civil side. It is the state's duty to provide a system of civil justice under which people can resolve their private disputes at a reasonable cost, both in time and in money, to them and the state. Witnesses complain as much about being brought unnecessarily to civil courts as they complain about being brought unnecessarily to the criminal courts.
There has recently been a radical review of procedure in the sheriff court, including a system under which the sheriff has much more control of the way the case proceeds and the speed at which it proceeds. Unfortunately, none of that applies in the Court of Session, which is the equivalent of the High Court and the Court of Appeal in England.
I am proud to have been appointed a Senator of the College of Justice, but I regret that the court's procedures have become so clearly out of date. That is largely because of a judgment of the Lord Justice-Clerk in 1961, when he said:
Judges sometimes flatter themselves by thinking that their function is the ascertainment of truth. This is so only in a very limited sense …The judge is at the mercy of contending sides whose whole object is not to discover truth but to get his judgment …Like referees at boxing contests, judges see that the rules are kept and count the points".
We have unfortunately suffered under that procedure for too long.
The trouble with that approach is that the public, quite rightly, regard that as nonsense. The public consider that the judge's role is to do justice between the parties and that justice is vitally connected with ascertaining the truth. The result of following the doctrine laid down in 1961 is that the Court of Session practice is out of date, out of step with about every other jurisdiction, is too slow in deciding cases, and far too expensive for the litigant.
In 1985, Parliament gave the court power to remit any case to the sheriff court if the court thought it appropriate. In 1990, a decision of the First Division of the Court of Session decided that that did not negate the pursuer's right to choose the forum. So we have the position that a supreme court judge is asked to hear a case for three or four days when the damages are agreed at about £2,000, and the cost to the state, not to the litigant, is £1,500 a day, according to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. The public regard that as absurd.
Our system of pleading is far too complicated and unnecessary. Thanks to an initiative of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, we now have commercial case rules that allow the speedy resolution of disputes. It is absurd that complicated commercial disputes do not require, by our rules, the complicated pleadings that we require for a road traffic accident.
It is absurd that an employer should be allowed to force the other side to prove the occurrence of an accident at work, or that the employee was injured in that accident, when the employer is the hospital, the person injured is a senior nurse and the injury was
184
treated at the hospital's accident and emergency department. That is an absurd waste of money, and also a question of the integrity of those responsible.
It is absurd to have experts brought to Edinburgh to give evidence when they do not know what other experts are going to say. It is a waste of time and money, and that alleged "justice by ambush" is not the best way of getting at the truth. Expert witnesses are usually people of high qualification and integrity. To ask them to consider a view apparently different from their own, without notice and without an opportunity to look up references, is not the best way to get the considered view of, say, a consultant neurosurgeon.
As another example of how our procedure slows up disposal, we are pleased in Scotland if we can dispose of a child abduction case in the Court of Session in six months. That happens only if the court insists again and again on forcing progress. But we have no right to be pleased about that, because Article 11 of the Hague Convention suggests that the requesting state should complain if the matter is not dealt with within six weeks.
We have an absurd procedure whereby the appeal court listens to counsel reading out solemnly for days on end, to three judges who have read the evidence, the evidence that has been heard previously. The judges can do that quicker before the case even starts. That is an absurd waste of money. We require to change our procedures so that judges have an interventionist role and do not act merely as referees. We should have a procedure that insists upon the fullest possible disclosure of the evidence supporting each side's case so that the real issue in dispute can be identified and decided.
That type of cards-on-the-table approach is, and has been for many years, the English approach. It is now the approach in the sheriff court in Scotland. As a result of the insistence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, it is now the approach for commercial cases in the Court of Session. We must have changes, but unfortunately the only way that I can see we can have changes is by legislation, or, at the very least, by the Lord Advocate securing the appointment of a person or committee to take a radical look at our procedure. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has appointed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to do a similar job for England. We have no equivalent. I urge the Government to consider at least that. It is no pleasure for me to have to suggest that on this issue England and Wales are so far ahead of Scotland. I earnestly hope that steps will be taken to ensure that the College of Justice in Scotland regains its proper standing.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, it is 22 years almost to the day since I made my maiden speech in another place. On that occasion, with more youthful enthusiasm than mature judgment, I agreed to make it on the day I took my seat. That left me with little choice of subject. The result was that I made my first and last speech on the shipbuilding industry. I had to exercise considerable ingenuity in also complying with the customary practice

185
in a maiden speech in the other place of relating my remarks to my south London suburban constituency of Sutton and Cheam.
Twenty-two years on, and even more unexpectedly, I now have an opportunity to make another maiden speech. This time I have waited a little longer before doing so and learnt rather more. I have sat in this Chamber and listened with ever growing respect to the knowledge, experience and wisdom shown during debates in your Lordships' House. It is therefore with great trepidation that I rise today to make some brief remarks. However, I hope to do so on a subject about which I have a little more knowledge, and considerably more experience, than I had on the shipbuilding industry.
For the past 20 years I have been a councillor in the London borough of Sutton and for more than eight years now have had the privilege of leading that council. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to digress for a moment to say how pleased I was that 30 per cent. of the working peers created during the Summer Recess are currently active councillors. Too many times in recent years all of us in local government, regardless of party, have had good reason to be grateful to your Lordships for your stout defence of local government and local democracy.
Since my introduction to your Lordships' House I have received both a warm and friendly welcome and much good advice, for all of which I am deeply grateful. I have been advised that a first speech should not be controversial, so it is with some hesitation that I have chosen to make my few comments on education! Nevertheless, it is an area which alone consumes more than half my council's annual budget and is seldom far from the top of our considerations. It is a high priority for my council and my party. But, most importantly, it is the highest priority for the people of my borough and for the country as a whole.
I have also been advised that, speaking in this debate, I can either attack what was in the gracious Speech or regret what was not in it. In common with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I want to welcome what was not in the Speech! As my colleague in another place, Don Foster, said, after 18 Education Bills in 15 years, for there not to be one seems like a major breach of the constitution. As the leader of a local education authority, a parent and, indeed, the husband of a school teacher, I welcome that absence more than most.
As the Secretary of State recognised so soon after taking up her present office, what the education world needs most now is a period of calm and consolidation. I agree with that. I welcome too the conciliatory approach of the Secretary of State, which is so much in contrast to some of her predecessors. She has shown that she cares for her subject and is willing to listen, if not always to agree. That has already earned her the respect of the education world and of local government generally. I hope that we will respond in a similarly positive fashion.
I cannot promise always to be so complimentary of Government Ministers, or what they do or do not do, but I want to start by paying credit where I think it is due. There is much which the leader of a local education
186
authority could and should say on the subject of education, in particular with the publication of today's league tables, but I know that I must not take too much of your Lordships' time. Most of what I would wish to say must therefore wait until another time and I will confine myself today to just one aspect which I know commands much support in your Lordships' House.
In my first speech, I want to start at the beginning—with nursery education. I am pleased that the noble Baroness made specific reference to that in her opening speech. The future of our country depends on the good education of our children. Perhaps it is not too much of an exaggeration to say that a good education for our children depends on a good start. I believe that the best start can be made with good nursery education. And by that I do not mean just starting primary school a little earlier; I mean high quality nursery education, properly resourced and provided by teachers with expertise in early learning.
This has long been a top priority for my party and I welcome the Prime Minister's statement at the Conservative Party Conference that the expansion of nursery education is to be a top priority for the Government too. But I remember that some 22 years ago when I was in the other place the then Secretary of State for Education made the same pronouncement. What happened?—nothing. The same pronouncement has been made consistently ever since then, but no Government have yet backed their words with the real additional resources needed to make them anything but words.
In his speech, the Prime Minister said that this time he was,
"giving a cast iron commitment that it will happen".
Not only that but that the Government,
"intend that this new provision will begin to come on stream during this Parliament".
That is a clear and unequivocal commitment which I warmly welcome. But there is not yet any indication of how it is to be achieved. Indeed, some subsequent comments from the Government suggest that perhaps the commitment might not have been so clear and unequivocal as it sounded at the party conference.
The Prime Minister will depend largely on local government to deliver his "cast iron commitment". But local government is now dependent on central government for over 80 per cent. of its revenue resources and faces severe capping on the rest. Local authorities' capital expenditure is ever more tightly restricted by central government. For many local education authorities now, new facilities, equipment and materials can be provided only at the expense of much needed and overdue basic building maintenance.
Local authorities are often told that within the overall limits set by central government they can determine their own priorities and decide for themselves how they spend their resources. Up to a point that is true. But it is rather like telling a condemned man that he can choose the hangman or the firing squad. If there really is to be an expansion of nursery education it can only come through the provision of additional resources, not

187
through the re-allocation of existing resources which are already too meagre to meet the many pressing demands upon them.
Many of us in local government share the Prime Minister's commitment to nursery education. For us it really is a case of, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job". Next week in the Budget and in the revenue support grant settlement the Prime Minister has the chance to show local government that he will indeed "give us the tools". Indeed, if the promised expansion in nursery education is,
"to come on stream during this Parliament",
the additional resources for that "stream" will have to start flowing during the next financial year.
Instead we have been told over and over again that next week's revenue support grant settlement will be "the toughest yet". There is no sign that controls on capital expenditure will really be eased, even to allow for the capital work that will be necessary first to provide for an expansion of nursery education in the following financial year, which will be the last of this Parliament.
We want to meet the Prime Minister's objective of accelerating the expansion of nursery education. But we need to know how we are to do so—and when. Central government cannot again raise expectations and then leave local government without adequate resources to fulfil those expectations.
The provision of good quality nursery education must be a top priority for cental and local government. Not only does it provide that all-important "good start" to the education of our children and young people but it can do much to prevent many of the problems in later life which we are discussing today.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord who replies to this debate will be able to give some indication that the Government's commitment to nursery education this time is more than mere words. I hope that he will be able to tell us how and when the Government will be backing those words with real additional resources. That would be a real investment for the future.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, it is my pleasure and privilege to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tope, on his excellent speech. I am sure that we all agree that maiden speeches are very daunting affairs. It may be that the noble Lord has not enjoyed his speech as much as we have; but I hope now that he will be able to enjoy the fact that it has been completed.
As he has told us, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is no stranger to the Palace of Westminster, because he represented Sutton and Cheam for a short time. But since then he has had a distinguished career in local government. I come from the voluntary sector of my party so it was with great interest that I read that he has held high office in his party from the time when he was national president of the League of Young Liberals to his present position today as president of the London Liberal Democrats.
188
We may not always share the noble Lord's views, but I am sure that we shall always listen to him with attention. We look forward to his future contributions and hope that it will not be too long before he makes his next speech in this Chamber.
I welcome the measures outlined in Her Majesty's speech for the legislative programme for the coming year. In particular, I applaud the Government's continued commitment to law and order and the important measure to create a jobseeker's allowance. I support also the proposals to streamline the NHS and to safeguard non-state pensions while ensuring equality and choice.
In practically every survey of people's worries, law and order top the poll. Safety on our streets and in our homes is something that we all cherish and expect. Personal safety affects our whole way of life and so I welcome the Government's determination to intensify the fight against crime.
I am pleased also that there will be a Green Paper setting out the options for the introduction of a national identity card scheme. Legislation in that area would act as a deterrent and would be a valuable aid to the police. I believe also that it would be a very popular measure with the public who, I feel, would prefer an identity card which is obligatory rather than voluntary.
Over recent months it has been extremely heartwarming to witness the decrease in the number on the register of unemployed people. In particular, I welcome the measure to reform their benefits and to give them assistance through individual advice to get back into work. I like the idea of a back-to-work bonus for those willing to take part-time work as a stepping stone. That measure would not only be of benefit to the individual concerned but also to the whole family. The misery which unemployment can bring is well understood. Therefore, I very much welcome incentives of that nature.
I am delighted that the Government are to introduce a Bill to fight discrimination against disabled people. Noble Lords feel particularly strongly on that issue. Much has been done to promote the needs of disabled people and the proposed Bill will build on that. It is always important to introduce measures which are practical and acceptable to those on whom the financial burden will fall. But we all want to find ways in which to give greater independence to disabled people. I hope that the consultation that has taken place during the summer months will result in finding a way in which to give them that independence without imposing excessive burdens on business and industry.
The recent reforms in the National Health Service have concentrated on decentralising decision-making by passing the power to NHS trusts, family doctors and local health authorities. It is vitally important to minimise bureaucracy. That decentralisation has meant that now proposals are made to abolish the regional health authorities and to substitute the district and family health service authorities with all-purpose authorities. I am sure that that will be widely welcomed.
However, some functions will still need to be organised at regional level. The new proposed regional offices will result in a sizeable reduction of nearly 3,000

189
from the number employed nearly two years ago in the regions. Good administration is imperative to maintain the excellence of our National Health Service. But the main aim is always to maximise the amount spent on patient care.
It has always seemed strange to me that women have retired earlier than men as, on average, women live longer than men and because of career breaks, women usually have a shorter time in which to make contributions towards a realistic pension. Therefore, I welcome the equalisation of the state pension age, especially as its implementation in 2020 gives everyone concerned time to prepare.
Following recent problems with regard to pensions, I welcome the introduction of measures to help to increase the security of occupational pensions. It is vital that employees who, through regular payments, prepare for their retirement are safeguarded against fraud and theft. Confidence was shattered by the Maxwell saga, and through the changes proposed, the legislation will restore that necessary confidence.
As chairman of the trustees of a pension scheme, I welcome the measures giving new rights to scheme members and I welcome also the appointment of an occupational pensions' regulator.
I look forward to the Bills which will come before us. I am sure that we shall have strong and informed debate in the months ahead as the Bills progress to the statute book. I believe that the proposed measures will enhance the quality of life; they will be good for the country; and I am sure that they will be widely welcomed.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to make my first contribution to our deliberations here, the more so as there is an agreeable practice of knowing roughly when one is able to make one's contribution, in contrast to the situation in the other place.
I recall an incident which happened to me some years ago when I was in the other place, shortly after I was elected to it. It was one of those occasions when the debate was to go on all night. I believe that it was a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I had been advised that I had no chance of being called to speak until about two o'clock in the morning. Therefore, I returned to the Palace of Westminster at round about midnight feeling slightly self-conscious at going in at such an awful time. The policewoman at the Members' Entrance said, "Good evening, sir". Rather naively, I felt that I had to justify my appearing there at that hour so I said, I fear rather pompously, "Good evening. I am hoping to speak tonight". "Yes, sir", she said. "Will it make any difference?" In fact I was called to speak at about four or five in the morning and I have to say that it made not the slightest difference; my local newspapers did not even publish one word of my press release. I learnt a lesson from that.
I am happy to be here and it is not just because of the more sensible hours that I understand we keep. Despite my earlier experience in the other place, I hope that occasionally, in a small way, I shall be able to make a difference to our deliberations.
190
There is a much greater difference, and here I am going to be partisan but not controversial because I think it is accepted; namely, I hope that within the next two years there will be a change in the seating arrangements here and that my Labour colleagues will be on the government Benches. Anything that I can do to help along that process is something to which I am dedicated.
I should like to thank the many people who have been helpful to me in my few weeks here. I thank the officials of the House who steered me through the rather difficult introduction ceremony. All staff of the House have gone out of their way to be helpful and supportive. I thank all my colleagues and especially those who sponsored me—my noble friends Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Ponsonby.
Of course I realise that I have to unlearn some bad habits which I acquired in the other place. I believe that that is more difficult than learning good new habits. I suppose that I am conditioned to being rather more confrontational than is appropriate in your Lordships' House. I shall do my best to adopt the appropriate style, although I hope that my very firm convictions will remain the same.
I also hope that I can contribute to our debates and that in doing so I shall be helped by the experiences that I had when representing the Battersea constituency until 1987. I have to say that it is a constituency full of wonderful people who, sadly, erred seriously on two occasions; namely, in their voting habits in the last two general elections. However, I am confident that they will see the error of their ways next time.
I am now the director of the Refugee Council. I hope that I will be able to contribute on issues dealing with asylum seekers and refugees. I hope to say a little about that in a moment. I feel that the way we as a country and western Europe generally deal with asylum seekers and refugees will be a real test of our commitment to human rights, not just in the immediate future but well into the next century.
I am pleased that legislation is planned to set up the criminal cases review committee to deal with miscarriages of justice, the more so as I happened a few years ago to serve on a Select Committee which produced a report recommending a procedure not all that different from that which I understand is now being contemplated. But at least that committee will review people who have been charged with criminal offences and then convicted, perhaps wrongly, through a judicial process in the courts.
However, I contend that there are other miscarriages of justice. I have in mind asylum seekers currently being held in detention. I believe that there are between 600 and 700 such people who have not been charged with a criminal offence but have been imprisoned through an administrative rather than a judicial process. I appreciate the fact that if I say much more I risk moving into a controversial area. Perhaps I may merely add that I welcome the Government's commitment to human rights as expressed in the gracious Speech and trust that human rights considerations apply as much within this country as abroad.

191
This is the United Nation's Year of the Family. It is, therefore, disappointing that our immigration policies continue to have the effect in all too many cases of keeping families apart. I refer particularly to asylum seekers who are awaiting a decision about their status and to those people who have been given the status of exceptional leave to remain rather than full refugee status. For those people, the prospects of being reunited with their families are sadly remote, as they may not even apply to be joined by their families for at least four years after they have been given ELR status. I do not believe that any of us can be happy about families who are kept apart in that way.
Perhaps I may now turn to Europe. Increasingly, decisions about asylum and refugee policy are being made in Brussels rather than by the nation states of the European Union. Unfortunately, those decisions are made through the Council of Ministers, with many of the discussions in secret—and sometimes the decisions are kept secret as well. I hope that our Government will feel able to practise a more open approach to those Brussels discussions. Perhaps now is the time to advocate more openness in the study group which will prepare for the 1996 intergovernmental conference.
I welcome the reference in the gracious Speech to weapons of mass destruction, although I appreciate that the subject goes somewhat beyond home affairs. I also welcome the fact that the proliferation of such weapons is to be prevented and that that is to be an important priority. I wonder whether anti-personnel land-mines would be included in weapons of mass destruction. I believe it is generally known that there are about 100 million of those weapons buried in the ground in many developing countries, such as Angola, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Mozambique and others. Every day such weapons blow off the legs of any unfortunate person who happens to step on one of them. The people who are sadly maimed by them are often refugees who want to return to their countries because conditions in other respects make it safer for them to do so. They are farmers who need to sow their corn and to collect water and firewood and whose children need to play. Every one of those activities all too often results in children or adults losing their limbs.
A few days ago I saw some photographs that had been taken a week or so before in Angola. I saw a child with its ankle in shreds because it had stepped on a land-mine and a pregnant woman who had lost a leg through a similar incident. Such weapons take their toll years after the end of the conflict during which they were planted in the ground. I very much hope that our Government will commit themselves to saying that those weapons are dreadful; that they have no part to play in a civilised world; and that they should be banned before any more people are maimed.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on his unpompous, charming and memorable maiden speech. I happen to share keenly several of the noble Lord's interests. For example, his
192
interest in free speech and broadcasting through his membership of the Broadcasting Standards Council, his deep commitment to good race relations and a fair immigration policy and his quite outstanding work as director of the Refugee Council for some six years on behalf of asylum seekers and refugees. If the noble Lord will permit me to say so, he is a champion for the underdog and the underprivileged and for the excluded and dispossessed, not only in this country but also across the world.
It is also a great personal pleasure to be able to congratulate my noble and good friend Lord Tope. We worked closely together as co-chairmen of a troublesome and difficult inquiry into the conduct by some local Liberal Democrats in Tower Hamlets during a notorious by-election in the Isle of Dogs. I learnt a great deal from my noble friend, not only about local government but also about the art of the wise diplomat. He was always good humoured and very effective. I hope that, together, we managed to accomplish a small thing in combating populism in the pursuit of political power.
The third and most memorable maiden speech was made by the noble Lord, Lord Attenborough. The noble Lord has brought more pleasure to our lives, and his speech shows how lucky we are that he will be able to entertain us for the rest of his life and, more than that, to make us think deeply and harder about art and civilisation.
Despite the eloquent speech made by the Minister, I feel bound to observe that the gracious Speech contains meagre fare for those of us who would like to strengthen the constitutional rights and freedoms of the people of this country and to create a more genuinely democratic and accountable system of government.
However, perhaps I may first mention what I regard as being the good news. I believe that it is good news that the Government propose to introduce a Bill to tackle discrimination against the disabled. It is long overdue, but it is good that the measure will now be introduced. I should like to emphasise the need for that measure to treat the disabled no less favourably than others who are protected by anti-discrimination legislation at present. I very much hope that the Bill will protect the disabled against indirect as well as direct discrimination; that its scope will be broad; and that it will form part of a comprehensive anti-discrimination code which already covers ethnic minorities, religious and political groups in Northern Ireland and women and men as regards sex discrimination across the whole country. I trust that we will not have piecemeal and more limited legislation which makes a nonsense of any coherent concept of equality.
I also welcome what I suspect was a last minute decision to include a measure to set up the criminal cases review authority, to expedite, at last, Law Commission recommendations for law reform and to equalise the state pensionable ages for women and men. I hope that when that measure is introduced we shall not find that women are worse off as a result of a proposal to equalise downwards rather than to produce a flexible scheme which ensures equality but enables women to be not worse off but, if possible, better off than at present.

193
I also welcome something which is not in the Queen's Speech. It is excellent that the Government have not introduced anti-press legislation to protect government privacy and the lives of public figures against embarrassment from the press. I very much hope that the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, as chairman of the Press Complaints Commission—and a worthy successor to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor—will cause the Government to listen to his wise advice and that of his council and dissuade them from introducing any measures which will threaten the vital freedom of the press and of the readers of the press in a way which has been hinted at in the past.
I should like to join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the role played by the Government of this country and the Government of the Republic of Ireland in the peace process. However, it is strange that the only part of the constitution of the United Kingdom which the Government propose to reform is the part which covers Northern Ireland.
The gracious Speech refers to the principles of the Citizen's Charter. That is a useful charter for protecting the rights of consumers, but it is not a citizen's charter in the sense of a constitutional charter of the rights and freedoms of the individual. It does nothing and is not intended to replace our over-centralised and autocratic state with a more democratic and plural system of open and accountable government based on a modern concept of citizenship. As my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank suggested, there is a large gap left by the retreat on Post Office privatisation which could be filled by measures of that kind.
In conclusion, perhaps I may suggest some of those measures which could be tackled. There is a gathering consensus across the country, which is not shared by the Government, that what we British citizens urgently need is nothing less than a new constitutional settlement within the wider context of our membership of the European Union. That means a new constitutional scheme which gives the European Convention on Human Rights the same status as European Community law in our legal system; which sets legally enforceable limits on the prerogative powers of the Crown within and outside Parliament; which shifts substantial power from our over-centralised Whitehall departments and what has been called the unelected new magistracy of quangos to a Scottish parliament, a Welsh assembly and, if the people want it, English regional assemblies where there is sufficient regional demand; and which renews our system of local government, thereby translating subsidiarity into practice.
We need measures which make Parliament more effective in controlling the Executive and which create a more democratic and more regionally representative Upper House; which create a voting system better and more fairly reflecting the wishes of the voters; which modernises the machinery of justice and improves access to justice and strengthens judicial independence; and which promotes greater openness and accountability of government at every level through the enactment of freedom of information legislation and, in the light of the Nolan Committee, to promote good standards of ethics in public office.
194
I very much regret that the Government remain unwilling to introduce a citizen's charter of that kind to renew the British constitution and to meet the real needs of our fellow citizens.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I am always glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I am particularly happy to be able to associate myself with everything he said about the three very interesting maiden speeches we have heard.
In previous debates on the Address—last year and in 1992 —I have ventured to argue the case for greater implementation of Law Commission reports. I gave your Lordships—at great length, I fear—particulars of reports and the need for their implementation. Last year, I also suggested that there should be a specific reference in the gracious Speech to law reform in order to draw attention to the importance of the subject. I am very happy that both points have to some extent been met, with the very valuable support of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Five Law Commission reports were implemented last year, and we hear from the noble Baroness that a number of other reports accepted by the Government may be implemented this Session. I was sorry not to hear among those she listed—perhaps my hearing was defective—any mention of offences against the person, on which the Law Commission produced a magnificent report last year. That is a field where reform is urgently necessary. Such reform, says the Law Commission, would save a great deal of judicial time and money. Perhaps there may be second thoughts on the matter.
I was also glad to hear that the Government accept the usefulness of the special procedure of the Public Bill Committee which enables the reports, if technical and uncontroversial, to be implemented rapidly. I was glad too to see the reference at the end of the gracious Speech, in somewhat laconic terms, to further measures on law reform.
I shall not weary the House further with elaboration on particular Law Commission matters which should be taken up. I wish merely to take up two points. The first is that law reform is not limited to Law Commission reports. In my belief, throughout the country there is great pressure from many directions for other measures of law reform going well beyond technical and non-controversial measures such as are suitable for the revised procedure.
I should like to quote two passages. The first is from the Law Commission president in his introduction to the latest report. He says:
"Much of our law is riddled with faults and flaws and it is often only the imagination and ingenuity of our judges which conceals with judicial sticking plaster the depth of the fault lines".
I confess to having used a good deal of sticking plaster in my time.
In its last report the Law Commission says:
"Laws which so many people have to use, often at great personal expense, remain unsimple, unmodern, inaccessible and unreformed".
Those are impressive words. They should remind us of the depth of the need.

195
Our law does indeed require constant attention in the way of active modernising to keep up with technological and social movements in such areas as embryology and information technology, changes in culture and many other areas. That was clear in the debates on the criminal justice Bill last Session. Taking advantage of the very wide terms of the Long Title, a considerable number of amendments for changes to the law having little or no relation to the objectives of the Bill, which were law and order, were nevertheless brought forward by various noble Lords and Members in another place. It was called the "Christmas tree procedure" of hanging packages on the tree but was criticised as being an abuse and for its effect of placing a burden on Ministers. However, it reflected the great pressure brought about by the genuine need for reform.
Apparently we are not to have a criminal justice Bill this Session. We are not to be given our Christmas tree. However, we still want our packages, tree or no tree. If those are brought forward, as they may well be, from whatever source, I hope very much that the Government will give them careful thought and support.
Perhaps I may mention two matters which fall outside the common area of Law Commission reports. One has been mentioned in a number of speeches. I refer to the criminal cases review committee. I swim a little against the popular tide. I am glad that it is being brought forward. I commend the Government, contrary to criticism that they have received, for taking time to produce the Bill. It is one thing to produce a general recommendation by a Royal Commission for procedure to correct miscarriages of justice. It is quite another to set up a careful and workable procedure. That point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He pointed out that we have to get the personnel, procedure, chairmanship, terms of reference, and so on, right. We shall have to consider the matter carefully when it comes before the House.
I hope that the Bill justifies the high hopes put on it. However, surely more important than correction of miscarriages of justice is the avoidance of miscarriage of justice in the first place. That has to be worked on, with careful examination of police procedures, the right to silence, effective confessions, corroboration and the conduct of trials. Those factors are being worked on carefully in existing legislation and procedure. One must hope that such endeavours bear fruit in due course.
The second Bill I wish to suggest for inclusion in the legislative programme concerns arbitration. I argued for it last year and was told that there was no legislative time. The subject is a matter of great importance to trade and commerce. Arbitration procedure is an extremely valuable export industry. A Bill has been drafted and widely circulated. Consultation has taken place; it surely must be ripe for introduction. The Bill should be brought in. It would be a good candidate for filling the Post Office gap.
Secondly, I wish to refer to the form of legislation. I shall refer to only one aspect because I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale will speak later and may make more effective points. Our legislation is far too long. To prove that one has only to
196
look at the shelves in the Library. It seems that our statutes and regulations have got into the wrong compartments. Statutes are now drafted as though they were regulations with all the details that one should have in regulations. Regulations are given the sanctity which should be given only to statutes. We need simple legislation and regulations that we can debate. We are not unique. The Bill which President and Mrs. Clinton drafted on health care and which was presented to Congress contained no fewer than 1,340 pages. That is about the length of Vikram Seth's A Suitable Boy. We cannot live up to that, I am afraid. But we did not do too badly with the Finance Act 1994 which contained 464 pages—about the equivalent of a non-prime ministerial biography. However, 464 pages on a non-controversial Bill is a bit much.
I extend a hearty welcome to an initiative taken outside official circles by a body concerned with fiscal legislation of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, is president. That body has taken up the task of examining fiscal legislation to see whether it cannot be made shorter and more intelligible, in particular in the approaching age of self-assessment. I hope very much that if the Government have the chance they will support that initiative either morally or, if necessary, with finance. I hope that such an initiative may be extended to other areas.
With those brief comments, I am happy to support the Government's programme of legislation and to support the Motion.
5.57 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my few remarks follow rather aptly the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I wish to say a word about possible developments on the devolution of decision-making to Scotland and in particular to draw your Lordships' attention to implications that are emerging for the whole of the United Kingdom.
During the 1992 general election campaign, your Lordships will know that the major issue north of the Border was Scotland's place in the United Kingdom, whether the Union was working as well as it should, and what could or should be done. One important outcome of that vigorous debate was that of the 72 Members of Parliament elected for Scottish constituencies, 69 had fought on manifestos in support of the Union. Only three were for breaking up the Union.
During the campaign my right honourable friend the Prime Minister showed great sensitivity to the strength of feeling in Scotland. He gave an undertaking that, if re-elected, his Government would carry out a review, would take stock of how the 300 year-old Union was in fact operating and would come forward, if possible, with proposals for improvement.
Those proposals were published in March 1993, as Cm 2225, entitled Scotland in the Union, a Partnership for Good. Noble Lords who have had the opportunity to study the document will know that the Government concluded that the working of the Union indeed needs updating. The document makes a number of practical proposals varying from ideas for raising Scotland's profile in Europe, making the Scottish Office more

197
accessible, increasing and clarifying answerability of Scottish Office Ministers to the Scottish people, and improving the handling of Scottish legislation. Under that last heading, one interesting proposal arises now from the gracious Speech. Briefly, the proposal is that the Committee stage of certain Scottish Bills should be taken by a Special Scottish Standing Committee sitting in Scotland under an existing procedure. That existing procedure would allow evidence to be taken from relevant voluntary and other organisations, for example, or from Ministers. Before the Committee examines the Bill, line by line, such evidence would be taken. There is also the possibility that the Second Reading debate might be taken in Scotland by the Scottish Grand Committee which consists of all Scottish MPs, with the Bill returning to Westminster, if necessary, for the formal vote.
I understand that the Children (Scotland) Bill—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, spoke about it—is likely to be published this week. At a conference yesterday, my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie stated that that Bill is a candidate for the new procedure. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish can say whether there is agreement in another place that the new procedure will be used for the Committee stage of that Bill. And what about Second Reading? When replying perhaps he will answer the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, regarding time. The noble and learned Lord thought that six weeks would be required by voluntary organisations between publication of the Bill and the beginning of the Committee stage of the procedure. Will that time period be available? It would be interesting to know that.
The new procedure will need the agreement of the usual channels and all the participants, but, if it can be achieved, it would be the first Bill to be discussed in Scotland since the Scottish Parliament was adjourned in 1707. There would be enormous interest in both the procedure and the Bill.
To return to the general election, your Lordships will remember that the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats had as the centrepiece of their Scottish manifesto the setting up of a Scottish parliament. Two weeks ago Mr. Tony Blair, on his first visit to Scotland as Labour Party leader, reaffirmed his commitment to the Union and pledged that should a Labour Government come to power they would legislate in their very first year of office for a Scottish Parliament which would,
"have control over exclusively Scottish affairs".
But Mr. Blair's plans are not confined to Scotland. He has himself given that indication, and the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, has made it even plainer in this House. Speaking from the Labour Front Bench during the Committee stage of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, he discussed how the Labour Party planned to overcome the so-called West Lothian question which had haunted him and his colleagues in another place during the passage of the doomed 1978 legislation. The question, your Lordships may recollect, is: why should Scottish MPs be entitled to vote at Westminster on exclusively English matters when
198
English MPs would not be entitled to vote on exclusively Scottish matters because those would be dealt with in the Scottish Parliament?
At col. 668 of Hansard for 28th June 1994, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, said:
"The situation now is different. A Labour government intend to establish regional assemblies as well as a Scottish Parliament and a Parliament for Wales. So the West Lothian question will not arise. There is now an answer … which I freely admit did not exist in 1978".
So there we have it. The West Lothian question is to be solved—and it has to be solved—by establishing assemblies all over Great Britain and, by implication, they would have to be assemblies with similar powers to those of the Scottish Parliament. As I asked the noble Lord, Lord Lester, do the English regions want such assemblies? What would happen to the West Lothian question until such bodies were set up? Or is the intention of the Labour Party to legislate for the whole package in a Labour Government's first year?
Likewise, there is the proposed method of funding. Mr. George Robertson, the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, in a speech last Friday said that the current proposals are that Scotland would retain all the income tax and value added tax collected in Scotland, that there would be a grant from Westminster to make up the balance to meet the current need under the so-called Barnett formula which is used at the moment, and a Scottish parliament would be able to add three pence to or reduce by three pence the basic rate of income tax set at Westminster.
Would that be a recipe for the stability of the Union? As Scots found themselves paying three pence above or below the basic rate of income tax which everyone else was paying in the United Kingdom, that would soon be attributed, surely, north and south of the Border, not to the Scottish Parliament's decision-making but to the size of the grant decided at Westminster. Imagine the divisiveness. Or does Mr. Blair have it in mind to use the same funding system for all the assemblies all over Great Britain?
These are important questions and sooner or later they and many more will have to be answered. Opinion far beyond Scotland will have to be tested about many unavoidable implications across the United Kingdom for what is done in Scotland.
In an article in this week's Scotland on Sunday newspaper, under the headline,
"In this battle, don't forget the Tories"
Mr. Kenny Farquharson wrote:
"Of the systems on offer to the people of Scotland the Tories' is the one that has evolved most since the general election".
To an extent, that is true. But it seems to me that the Government are not proposing or implementing any new system. They are simply asking parliamentarians of all parties or none to forgo a few of their traditional habits and procedures, and to join in updating the way we all work within the Union. It seems that happily most people are prepared to co-operate.
Whether, added to that kind of process, there will ever be great changes to structures will depend, I suggest, on the nature of the structures proposed—we still know little about those that are being proposed by the parties

199
opposite —and also how the electorate of the whole United Kingdom sees them, as well as the electorate in Scotland. There is still a long way to go.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, because she was kind enough to refer to me perhaps I may respond to the question which she directed at me. I listened carefully to what she said and agree with her that there is great need for a proper constitutional scheme and that the notion of simply giving home rule to Scotland quickly does not make sense. Indeed, I wrote as much in the Observer on Sunday, and I agree with her on it. However, equally, as someone who cares passionately about the Union, I do not believe that it will be a healthy union which says to the people of Scotland that some minor modifications to our over-centralised system will suffice. I believe that we must learn greater flexibility and produce a more coherent scheme.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I do not recall a sitting of your Lordships' House which has been so rewarding, so deep in content and so high in quality. I have to abandon much that I was going to complain about because there are few parliamentary assemblies in the world that can produce speeches supported by eloquence, experience and wisdom to match those in your Lordships' House. Sometimes the way that people talk about the future of the House of Lords is exasperating because they are quite incapable of comprehending the unique contribution which we can make to parliamentary and public life.
We have listened to several speeches of such inspirational value to me that I feel I must comment upon them. First, I was deeply concerned with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said about the continuing tainted problem of war crimes. I was his supporter and associate in moving to defeat the War Crimes Bill when it came from the House of Commons on two separate occasions. The trail of equivocation and undue delay, the lack of candour about the realities and the problems of the matter that we had to deal with were trying for us to listen to.
When I heard the most moving address of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, I thought: we have certainly come to something when the Archbishop of Canterbury has to come to this House and deliver a sermon on standards of conduct in public life, and show us the gravity of the situation and the extent to which public concern hopes for better things to come.
When I heard the noble Lord, Lord Attenborough, give one of the most enchanting speeches that I have ever heard on the topic that he chose, I could not help feeling personally moved to listen to the grandson of my headmaster at school 84 years ago. Certainly I could not put aside one of the thrills of my life when, as a boy of 14½, I held the hand of the noble Lord's mother of the same age while we took part together in a little French play called "Le Petit Poucet". Those are memories that last forever in a lifetime, however long it may be. The
200
noble Lord's father was a product of the school. I have a deep attachment to the Clegg and Attenborough families and to the educational life of our little town of Long Eaton in Derbyshire.
Then we had a disturbing speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, about Scottish justice.
When I heard the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury talking about standards of conduct, I also recalled my time as a member of the last Royal Commission on standards in public life. For nearly two years we wrestled with the issue. The commission, under Lord Salmon, was split from top to bottom on some of the issues with which it had to deal. The first big division was on whether the commission's writ extended to the privileges of Members of Parliament. Some issues arose that were disturbing but which had to be rationalised to be overcome.
Another matter with which we had to deal and which split the Royal Commission was whether the Inland Revenue should respect the secrets of the personal circumstances of taxpayers and their conduct, when they had to make full and honest revelations of their business activities under the income tax Acts, in the belief that they had to tell the truth there but that it was not to their advantage to tell it anywhere else.
That Royal Commission ended remarkably, with Lord Salmon, the chairman, writing a minority report of his own and gathering together one or two members of the commission to join their signatures with his on that minority report. That was an extraordinary outcome. One felt that the duty of the chairman of a Royal Commission was to get an agreed report—or at least, not to be a member of the minority itself. However, we felt that that was probably something that Members of Parliament ought to regulate for themselves. Now the commitment to look at their privileges and conduct has been passed over to an independent body. That is of very great historic significance.
So many matters for the Committee of Privileges, and the privileges of Parliament—which were of course there to be protect Members of Parliament not to expose them—were getting extremely out of date. That was not a very happy experience—although I must say that I was very surprised indeed when the Minister who read the Prime Minister's Statement in the House of Commons revealed that not a single word about the last Royal Commission on standards in public life was contained in the Government's announcement. There are problems there. It is too early to say what may come out of the inquiry. I wish it well. I believe that it will work in a different atmosphere from the one in which we worked, which was mostly one of local government scandals following the Poulson revelations, the misbehaviour and bribery that were used to get local authority city centre schemes and housing schemes brought within the compass of the biggest architectural business in Britain.
Members of Parliament were not so obviously involved in those scandals as were members of local authorities. But some Members of Parliament were involved. When I questioned one member of the commission as to why he had sided with the chairman in the minority report he said, "Because I wanted to get the word 'shocking' out of his minority report in as

201
many places as possible". It is an extraordinary field of operations that we have passed over to the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan.
I want to conclude on one matter of great importance in relation to the Bill that I introduced earlier this afternoon and its surrounding circumstances. It is no good having standards in public life if you cannot maintain standards in government; and the ethics of government are strongly questionable sometimes. It is too easy to go for the doctrine that was so rife in authoritarian states of the past that "the end justifies the means". The Dangerous Dogs Act does not obsess me because I am unduly considerate in respect of cruelties to dogs, although I am deeply moved by them. That Bill was immoral. It set aside one of the fundamental convictions of British jurisprudence; namely, the discretion allowed to magisterial courts in questions that were within their jurisdiction. That was taken away. We have added a third to our mandatory sentences. There are three mandatory sentences in Britain today: treason, for which people are still hanged; murder, for which life imprisonment is a mandatory sentence, and one to which this House has already objected but with which the Government are afraid to interfere; and the third one was in respect of the Child Support Act. Again, the Government were pursuing the end without full regard to the rigour and injustice of the means. Governments themselves have to find some ethical standards, collectively. Until we achieve those standards, there will not be the confidence in government that there ought to be. When a measure like the Dangerous Dogs Act is put through (in 1991) in eight hours flat in the House of Commons on the ground that there is an emergency, brooking no delay, with the holidays coming in July in the view that the Bill must be put onto the statute book to round up these dangerous things that are abroad, I fear that we are in the grip at the present time of a sensational and emotional arousal of the public by the mass communications of the present century.
Look at the other day. A cross between a Siberian husky and a Canadian timber wolf apparently attacked a child in its own home. Half the children seriously injured by dog bites are attacked by the dog in their own home. That is something very salutary in our consideration of this problem. I thought, "Now what is going to happen—14 stitches in a baby's head? It only takes two more to produce a Dangerous Dogs Act."
On the Monday—or Friday or Saturday—that we had this disclosure, the balloon began to go up. "Pet wolf has bitten a child"; "Ban the wolves", and so on and so forth. We are in danger of falling for that and other things.
What is going to be the public reaction to tomorrow's report of the House of Commons committee on the rabies problem? That will be interesting. We have an obsession about rabies in this country, but how many cases of rabies have been discovered in quarantine kennels in Britain in the last decade? I ask; I do not know. Probably none. But we will not get a discussion in a rational spirit at all, and The Times had a leading article last Saturday about the madness of people who try to tamper with the rabies protection.
202
I deplore—and this is my final word—that we have not got the institutions to absorb this sensational raid on our emotions and our political judgment. We are now too prone to be influenced by the media. A campaign is started in the tabloid press, which rages on, and before we know where we are Ministers are being driven round the bend. I deplore that we do not have a dog control and welfare council, some body of independent judgment to absorb these emotional outbursts, to examine the facts and to foresee the future.
Let us look at the problem of wolves and Siberian huskies in a detached way. Who is bringing them in? Where do they come from? How many are there? We do not know enough about dog breeding—either here or elsewhere—and I think much more information should be sought about what the dog breeders are up to. They may be—especially in conditions of artificial insemination—producing crosses which they would not get by natural means. I think that is also very important.
I have now made the longest speech of the day, and I apologise. I am grateful to your Lordships for listening to me. If you have been moved as deeply as I have by the speeches that have been made today, then you have had a very rewarding day indeed.
6.24 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, paid a great compliment to those who spoke before him. But I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that no one comes up to the standard of the noble Lord himself, who speaks without a note. I notice that he is the only one this afternoon who has spoken without a note, but I am afraid that I cannot rise to that challenge.
The noble Baroness the Minister began her introduction to the debate by stating that there were 10 different aspects of social policy that fell within this afternoon's discussion. She then said that she was very pleased to announce that there was no legislation on education because it had had a surfeit of legislation over the past years. I would have been very pleased if she had said that there was no legislation on the NHS either because in my view we have also had a surfeit of legislation on the NHS.
I became a regional chairman in 1974 during the first reorganisation of the NHS. The NHS managed to survive—I think fairly well—from 1948 to 1974, and I do not believe that a mass of legislation necessarily improves the service that we are all looking for. However, the gracious Speech states that legislation to make further improvements to the management of the National Health Service will be included in this Session. It talks about "further improvements"—once again "further improvements". But when one analyses what I presume will be in this legislation, I doubt whether most of what is proposed will be "improvements".
To start with, the abolition of the regional health authorities and their replacement by eight regional offices under the NHS management executive is claimed to improve the gap between policy and implementation and to offer better knowledge of what is happening on the ground. I am fully aware that we have lost an enormous amount of the local input in all our health

203
authorities, both in districts and in RHAs. But surely local input is more likely to be aware of what is happening on the ground than a group of civil servants from the Department of Health. I am also worried that it is a contradiction of the Government's own policy of decentralisation and their desire for greater devolution. In my view, eight outposts under the NHS management executive is not devolution; it is bringing back more power centrally.
The Minister also stated in her opening remarks when talking about the health service that economically the abolition of the regional health authorities would mean a reduction in the staff employed from 3,900 to 1,100. I understand that the 3,900 staff employed by regional health authorities relates to two years ago. Since then there has been the start of amalgamations with the regional health authorities. Their duties have changed. With only eight instead of 14—and with a different set of duties under the new system of management in the NHS—it would be perfectly easy to reduce the staff of the regional health authorities to 1,100, but we would retain the interest of the local people.
I am also concerned about what will happen to the medical input at the regional office level. I sincerely hope that a medical advisory committee will be retained to advise the regional office on such specific matters as regional specialty strategy and capital improvements.
But, above all, I am nervous about the impact on research and medical education. If the regional health authorities are removed, you also remove the statutory position which universities with medical schools have under the 1990 National Health Service and Community Care Act which enables them to participate in planning and decision-making at that level. I hope that somehow that will be preserved under the new system of regional offices. That is one part of the change to the NHS which is taking place and which will be legislated for in the coming Session.
Secondly, and perhaps even more worrying, are some aspects of the proposed legislation for the treatment of the mentally ill in society. All Members of this House will remember that in 1990 we had a tremendously long debate on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. There was great dissension on the reorganisation of the governance of the NHS, but there was 100 per cent. backing for the propositions put forward in the community care Bill. They were accepted by the whole House. But they were accepted on the basis that the community care Bill should be in position and implemented before proceeding to close the psychiatric beds in the hospitals. That warning was not heeded. In fact, the NHS part of the Bill was implemented a whole year before the community care part was implemented.
So far as I remember, the community care Bill also provided that every psychiatric patient released into the community should be the responsibility of one person in the community care team. That is especially important when dealing with people who are suffering from psychiatric problems such as schizophrenia. But that has not taken place. In my view the Government's main
204
concern has been to speed up the closure of psychiatric beds, without adequate provision being made in the community.
The Government's own task force set up in 1992 to find out why progress on bed closures had been so slow—although none of us would have said that that was the case—reported in 1994 that in places hospital beds had been replaced too fast. The Audit Commission found that no district survey had an adequate range of community services. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has said that advice is urgently needed as to what psychiatric teams are supposed to do when all the beds are occupied. They are now blamed for the discharge of patients too early without adequate community care being available. It is not their fault. There is a revolving door. The patients go out into the community and come back again into hospital because there is no other place for them to go. That is not the care in the community that they should expect to receive.
We have put the cart before the horse and have almost endangered the human rights of psychiatric patients by the proposal to introduce the power to convey without being able to claim the support of a court. Because of the overhanging danger for a psychiatric patient, it will be almost impossible to devise treatment plans to which the patient is supposed to give informed consent. How will the patient give that freely if the alternative is compulsory detention?
I believe that the Government should concentrate on having greater resources placed in the hands of the community services. Until such time as they are in place, no more hospital psychiatric beds should close; we should even open more in some cases. But this particular piece of legislation in itself will not solve anything. In some cases it will be detrimental to the psychiatric patient. Nothing will solve the problem except an increase in community care funding.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this debate covers an enormous area: the whole of home affairs and the whole of social affairs. The noble Baroness spoke mainly on the social aspects, of which she has great experience and knowledge. I hope that she will excuse me if I do not follow her on that path but deal rather with the constitutional matters that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce.
Before I do so, perhaps I may take up the subject of the enormous area that has to be covered today. At the end of the last Session there was a debate on the sittings of the House and vague noises were made from the Treasury Bench, holding out hopes that the sittings would end at a more reasonable hour. It was pointed out from all parts of the House that, your Lordships being an elderly and unsalaried Chamber, it is impossible to expect a reasonable House after 8 p.m. and certainly any reasonable hope of a majority vote after that hour.
How have we started this Session, in view of those hopes? On Thursday we had a debate on the foreign and defence aspects of the gracious Speech. There were 39 speakers. The debate ended just after a quarter to eleven

205
at night. Repeatedly during the debate the plea was made—reasonably and cogently made—that foreign affairs could conveniently be debated separately from defence matters. That was not done. Again, today, there are 38 speakers. It is true that it is one fewer, but in view of the complexity of the debate and the number of matters with which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will have to deal in his reply, I reckon that we shall be very lucky to get away before 11 o'clock tonight. Again, there is no reason why we should not have a whole day for home affairs and a whole day for social affairs. There is more than enough to discuss and ample knowledge and experience in your Lordships' House, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, pointed out, to justify such a course and for the debates to be rewarding.
Having said that, I venture to return to the constitutional issues raised by those to whom I referred earlier. I agree entirely with the identification of the issues that need to be addressed. I hesitate only because my own feeling is that we dare not enter into these inter-related matters without the most careful investigation; indeed, by a Royal Commission on the constitution. I rather think that when the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, replied to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, he was almost prepared to accept that view.
The matters that fall for discussion are devolution, reform of the House of Lords, proportional representation, and several others. I deal with only two in order to emphasise their complexity and the danger of an over-simplistic approach. I turn first to devolution. If one may render a judgment from the Cross-Benches south of the Border, I thought that the noble Baroness was correct to say that the question of the Union was clearly before the electorate and specifically before the electorate of Scotland at the last general election. But, as I understand it, that is not what is now proposed.
The Labour Party seem to be proposing that certain domestic matters of purely Scottish concern should be considered by a Scottish assembly. That comes very close to what was advocated by my noble friend Lord Perth and to which we on the Cross-Benches naturally paid great attention. But even at that stage an enormous number of matters need to be considered. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, mentioned one of the most important; namely, finance. How is finance to be distributed between the devolved functions and the remaining functions? Then there is what the noble Baroness referred to as the "West Lothian factor"; namely, whether it is right that if there is devolution on the lines that I mentioned—that is, to a Scottish assembly—why should Scottish MPs have any concern with English matters of a similar nature? I refer to health, education and so forth. It is difficult to see any answer to that and I do not believe for a moment that the answer lies in saying, "We will have English regional authorities". I see absolutely no call for regional authorities in this country.
The West Lothian factor is therefore the second big question which must be considered. Together with that is the whole question of representation at Westminster. What functions remain at Westminster and who is to
206
represent the various parts of the United Kingdom for their consideration? Even stopping there, there is an urgent call for a Royal Commission on the constitution.
I mention only one other point, and that is the House of Lords reform. As I understand it, the Labour Party will now seek simply to abolish the right of hereditary Peers to vote in your Lordships' Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will correct me if I have that wrong; I see him looking at me and I do not know whether or not it is quizzically. That leaves out entirely the question of who appoints the remaining Life Peers in your Lordships' House. If, as at present, they are to be appointed by the Prime Minister, that gives the potentiality of single-chamber government.
If the Prime Minister, despotising as the Government now do over the other place, appoints the Members of your Lordships' House, we are a big step towards the great constitutional insight of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham; namely, an elected dictatorship. We should not forget that Hitler governed throughout by parliamentary sanction. It was an elected dictatorship. Because we have not got one and seem not to be in sight of one at the moment, we should not lightly disregard the powerful argument of my noble and learned friend.
Each of the points I raised—I noted also the referendum —are immensely complicated and call for investigation by a Royal Commission on the constitution. I gave the noble Lord notice that I intended to raise these points and begged him not to tell your Lordships that everything in the constitutional garden is lovely—it is not; we have heard sufficient today to know that—and not to tell your Lordships that two decades or more ago we had the Crowther-Hunt/Kilbrandon Commission. The terms of reference were very different from what is now required and, in any event, situations have greatly changed since that day.
I want to mention two further points, quite summarily, in view of two matters raised at the end of the last Session. The first is the relationship between the two Houses, mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank and Lord Lester. I refer to the Home Secretary brushing aside amendments passed by your Lordships' House. The most important amendment was proposed by a former Home Secretary and supported by a Conservative Home Secretary, by other former Home Secretaries, by my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale, a former Permanent Secretary of the department, and by a great many junior Ministers from the Home Office who are now in your Lordships' House. Not only was the amendment brushed aside, but it had enormous merit to commend it.
The amendment would have ensured that the security scheme could be brought into force at once instead of having to wait until the first of the specialised prisons in the Bill. It was said that it was essential to get the young tearaways out of circulation, but they have been left in circulation for three unnecessary years because the Home Secretary insisted on having his way. One is bound to ask: is he an oracle that "when he opes his lips let no dog bark", least of all the watchdogs in your Lordships' House?

207
The other point is an argument which was advanced on the same occasion from the Conservative Benches although, I am glad to say, it was not by the Minister. It was to the effect that when your Lordships passed an amendment, if it were rejected by the other place then that was the end of the matter. If that were so it would mean that the Labour Party would not need any scheme such as it proposes. Just for the fun of it, it might well proceed to eliminate the hereditary Members of your Lordships' House, but it would be utterly unnecessary if the noble Lords who propounded that strange constitutional doctrine had their way. I hope that the Minister himself will repudiate such a doctrine and say that it is no part of government policy.
In that connection he might glance at an article written by the political correspondent of the Evening Standard which appeared on 6th July last. He said that senior Conservatives in the other place were urging the Prime Minister to get rid of the leadership in your Lordships' House because of the humiliating and embarrassing defeats that your Lordships had inflicted in the course of the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. Does the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, say that when your Lordships pass an amendment, particularly with the weight of authority which was behind the amendment on that occasion, that that really is an embarrassment to the Government? Is it really a humiliation, or do the Government recognise, as I believed was Conservative doctrine, that we are a two-chamber Parliament and that your Lordships have much to offer in that connection?
My final constitutional point is a very narrow one arising from the deregulation Bill and out of an amendment which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, supported by my noble friend Lord Northbourne. It was to the effect that even the most beneficent law or regulation which does justice generally may, in some particular case, do an injustice. Added to that, even the most beneficent general rule may be harshly, even maliciously, or spitefully applied. It was suggested that we need something equivalent to courts of equity in this country and in Scotland not to invalidate regulations generally, but to relieve against the hardship or the spite.
The Minister who was in charge of that aspect of the deregulation Bill has lately resigned. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will assure your Lordships that that matter is still under consideration and being given weight. As I see it, the main difficulty is that many of the regulations are binding on us because they ultimately come from Brussels. I do not believe that that is an objection which cannot be overcome. What I have suggested should certainly be considered in the light of the run-up to 1996.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I add my warm congratulations to the three maiden speakers. Led by the noble Lord, Lord Attenborough, they have made today a distinctive and even a memorable parliamentary
208
occasion. We are all delighted to hear from them and we certainly look forward to hearing from them on many future occasions.
The gracious Speech is apparently a watershed for disabled people because for the first time ever the Government are making provision for anti-discrimination legislation. I welcome the Government's shift from arguing that there is no evidence of discrimination. They argued that when I brought in the first anti-discrimination Bill 12 years ago. Ministers said that there was no evidence and so there was no point in bringing forward Bills of that kind. Afterwards, they shifted their ground, claiming that education and persuasion were adequate. We all know that education and persuasion are grossly inadequate. Now they have admitted the need for legislation. I welcome the Government's agreement that there is that need.
The impression that this is a watershed is more apparent than real because the Government are offering a mirage if the Bill is on the lines of its consultative document. Disabled people, who are desperate for a comprehensive Bill of human rights, are disappointed and frustrated at the prospect of a fiddling, piddling Bill. That is what it looks like when one reads the consultative document on the Government's legislative intentions. I believe that such a Bill, far from placating understandably angry disabled people, will provoke them. That is because the Government are probably intending to give disabled people not what they want but what Ministers think they should have. That is entirely their own way of going about it.
The main reason why the Government's proposals are hedged, limited and inadequate is the belief that a comprehensive Bill would cost £17 billion. At least, that is what the Government say they believe. But somehow Ministers seem to be winking to each other when they mention £17 billion. They know, and we know, that that estimate includes double counting. It excludes the benefits of employing disabled people and excludes disabled people becoming taxpayers rather than tax users. The figure is based on an implementation timescale which was not in the original Bill proposed in another place and passed by this House.
As usual, it is the attitude to disabled people that counts. The Government's attitude to them is so penny-pinching as to be neglectful. I give one example. In the proposed provisions in the consultation document the Government suggest that a statutory duty not to discriminate should be imposed on employers. That is fine. It seems to be a new right which would afford great protection to disabled people. But the Government say that employers of fewer than 20 employees should be excluded from that duty. At a stroke 35 per cent. of the disabled workforce is excluded. Despite that, the Government create the impression that they are giving new rights to disabled people. How can they justify that exclusion?

209
I should like to tell the House not what I feel but what the Employers Forum on Disability has said about the exclusion:
"Given that no exemptions according to size or industry type are permitted under race and gender legislation, it is difficult to justify exclusions for small employers".
That is a clear invitation to the Government to change their attitude.
The Government propose that disabled people should he able to seek damages if they are debarred unreasonably from goods and services. However, they will not provide the right to challenge those whose buildings are inaccessible. Yet it is inaccessible buildings which are responsible for daily discrimination against millions of disabled people. The rights proposed in the Government's consultative document are an advance, but they are limited, grudging and inadequate. Rights are meaningless if they cannot be enforced. Anyone can suggest or propose rights, but if those rights cannot be enforced they are utterly meaningless.
In their document, the Government have rejected the very sensible idea of establishing a disability rights commission. Instead they propose a disability council which will be mainly advisory and which will lack the powers and authority of a commission. Many bodies can give advice and guidance, but equally many organisations and authorities can ignore advice. There is no point in offering guidance and advice if there is no way of pressing what is recommended.
I hope that the Government will take on board the sensible point that what is really required is a disability rights commission with investigative powers, able to monitor and enforce, if necessary through the courts, the rights of disabled people against discrimination. There are such commissions for race and sex discrimination and if a good argument exists for them there is an equally good case for having a commission to protect disabled people. There is no justification for treating disabled people differently. Without the commission it will be very difficult for disabled people to enforce any new rights because legal aid simply is not available in any of the forums to which they could go. Yet their need for protection is just as great as that for women and ethnic minorities facing discrimination.
To be frank, the Government give the impression in their consultative document and in speeches—the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, spoke warmly about the Bill—that they are going to provide something that will be well worthwhile. However, to disabled people the Government seem to be retreating slowly, doggedly and stubbornly in the face of parliamentary and public opinion. Their spokesmen and spokeswomen try to dress up inadequate measures as radical reforms, but they seem more concerned with public relations than with ending discrimination. Ministers do themselves no favours. What they need is a sense of mission. They should be prepared to take an imaginative leap forward for human rights such as has been managed in other countries. Will the Government explain how Ministers in the United States, Australia and New Zealand can put forward strong and powerful legislative proposals, backed by commissions to enforce such proposals, yet we cannot? On an issue on which we should have led
210
the world, we are following other countries. We have become also-rans in terms of legislating against discrimination against disabled people.
We need to provide a comprehensive anti-discrimination Bill of Rights, such as that endorsed recently by this House. That Bill passed through all its stages in this House, but the Government did not even mention it in their consultative document. The Government brushed aside the decisions of this House. I suggest that they have mismanaged the need for a comprehensive Bill of Rights for disabled people. The Government should stop deluding themselves that enshrining such rights leads to bankruptcy and industrial decay.
I should like the Minister to listen to the quotation with which I am about to conclude. It is not a quotation from disabled people or from left-wing trade unionists. It comes from the Employers Forum on Disability:
"Anxiety regarding exorbitant costs would seem to reflect inadequate understanding and analysis of the benefits generated by bringing disabled people into society as taxpayers and consumers; a lack of understanding of the business case for such reforms; a failure to place expenditure within the appropriate long term scale; and lack of direct experience of disabled people contributing in the workplace".
That is a clear and unequivocal message to the Government that their misgivings are misplaced. Such proposals would not cost the earth. It would not break industry if the Government were to introduce a comprehensive wide-ranging Bill of genuine human rights to end this discrimination once and for all. I ask the Government to consider that when they introduce their Bill.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I apologise to the House for the fact that a long-standing engagement which I cannot avoid means that I cannot be here for the end of the debate. I had put down my name to speak in the debate partly because I wanted to have an opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on her new incarnation at the Dispatch Box and to say how much I was looking forward to crossing swords with her in the forthcoming Session but, unfortunately, the gracious Speech does not seem to present many prospects or opportunities for that. I should also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the most reverend Primate on his most thoughtful and important speech.
I should like to speak briefly about a subject that is not mentioned specifically in the gracious Speech. I refer to juvenile crime. Your Lordships are well aware of the problems associated with juvenile crime and I shall give three statistics: about 45 per cent. of known offenders are under the age of 21; persistent offenders constitute 50 to 60 per cent. of court appearances; and crimes of violence are on the increase. I am one of those who agree with the Government's policy. I believe that offenders should be punished because that sends a message to them that their behaviour has been unacceptable. I also believe that offenders require to be rehabilitated so that they will not offend again, thus

211
recausing problems to society. But how much better if we could avoid those crimes taking place in the first place.
There is increasing evidence that much juvenile crime is avoidable. Recurrent offenders can be persuaded effectively to change their ways. I am involved with a befriending scheme where we have achieved a 70 per cent. success rate in dealing with young people who have been referred to us by the police as a last resort before court. They are young people known to the police who have already offended two or three times and have been cautioned. A 70 per cent. success rate at a cost of £800 for six months' intensive befriending compares favourably with the cost of a place in a young persons' institution which may be £50,000 to £100,000 a year.
My second point is that it is accepted increasingly that there are strong links between juvenile crime and the way in which a child had been brought up in the home. There is massive research on that. If any noble Lord wishes to ask, I can give many references. It is obvious: we all know that a child needs guidance, security, support, love and stimulation in its early years. It is normally parents who provide that.
During July the All Party Parliamentary Group for Parenting, in conjunction with the International Year of the Family, held four hearings in your Lordships' House. A report was produced. I have deposited it in the PPO and the Library. I encourage noble Lords to look at it. Noble Lords can take the full variety or the family economy size which is a summary and a good deal more readable. The report shows, among other things, that most parents want to be good parents. It shows also, as we probably all know if we think back to our time as children or parents, that all parents need help at some time during the course of their parenting experience. The problem is that often many of the traditional structures of our society which used to give help and support to parents, such as grandparents, the extended family and the community, no longer exist, and nothing has been put in their place.
The evidence in the report shows clearly why many parents, even parents who want to be good parents, fail to be so. It is an encouraging report because it shows that there is a great deal which can be done and a great deal which is being done—often on a small scale and often inadequately funded. There is a need to pay attention to support for parents, to the support of parental relationships so that there are fewer parental breakdowns and greater security for children, and to improving parenting skills. Perhaps I may quote Sir Christopher Ball. In his recent report he said:
"Parents are the most important people in their children's lives".
Robert Fay has said:
"A parent is a terrible thing to waste".
I wish to put across briefly the key message that the best way to help children is often to help their parents. I urge your Lordships to read the report which is available in the Library and the PPO.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I hope that I shall be with your Lordships at the end of the
212
debate; but last trains wait for no man. Perhaps I may join all those who have welcomed the Government's decision—a timely decision, I hope—to introduce a Bill to tackle discrimination against disabled people. It is apt that in the Queen's Speech that reference should follow the undertaking to implement:
"policies and programmes responsive to the needs of the individual citizen".
Disabled citizens are, first of all, citizens. They are very much part of society, and should be treated as such.
I welcomed too the Government's earlier decision to issue the consultative document on disability. I do not want to cover the ground so ably covered by my noble friend Lord Ashley or to dwell upon what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, described as the best known Whitehall farce of 1994. Now is the time to look forward.
I hope that the Government's decision to engage in a consultative process demonstrates that they will in future be more willing to consult and not to rush in with off-the-peg, reach-me-down and knock-down policies for everything from industrial relations to education. It is obvious that the Government are having to relearn how to consult. The consultative document on disability illustrates that. It is described as a consultation on government measures. It could have done with a bit more emphasis on consultation and a bit less on government proposals and measures. It could have been a bit heavier on open-minded deployment of the options, and a bit lighter on suggestions and implications, to many of which my noble friend Lord Ashley referred, that the Government's mind is already made up.
That may not have been the Government's intention. If so, the Minister has the opportunity tonight to demonstrate their open-mindedness and to show that the Government have become the listening Bench—listening not just to disability organisations but to the ordinary people who say that 6 million disabled people should have a fairer deal.
I want to concentrate briefly on an issue raised eloquently by my noble friend Lord Attenborough at the end of a marvellous maiden speech. He referred to access to arts venues—theatres, art centres, museums and galleries, concert halls and cinemas, and historic houses—visits to all of which are very much part of a civilised way of life. I do not pretend to be an expert on access to such venues. To be a real expert one needs to have been turned away from a cinema because, unlike one's friends, one is sitting in a wheelchair, or to have been denied the chance to enjoy a piece of sculpted granite because of a prohibition on touching it and one is blind. So I shall draw in part on the views of the disabled members of the trust with which I am involved: Access for Disabled People to Arts Premises Today. ADAPT's claim to being representative derives not from the fact that I am a trustee but from its origins in the inquiry into arts and disabled people carried out by my noble friend Lord Attenborough in 1985. It is a report which established the parameters and standards upon which the whole of the discussion needs to take place.
The inquiry was funded by the Carnegie Trust, which contributed well over half a million pounds into ADAPT's work. The trust's objective was endorsed by the then Minister for Arts, Sir Richard Luce. The

213
objective was to see that every main arts venue was made reasonably accessible to disabled people by 2000. The trust has raised and distributed over £1 million. Because each grant is a challenge grant, it has to be matched by other funding, so £3 million has been invested in improved facilities—loop systems, lifts, ramps, toilets, and so forth, which would not otherwise have been in place. Although a considerable achievement, that has not even begun to meet the demand.
I doubt whether the consultative document will go far enough or fast enough towards meeting the objective commended by Sir Richard Luce. The consultative document pays far too little attention to the problem of access to places of leisure and entertainment. As a result, the proposals set out by the Government would leave many loopholes for those who are resistant to the need for change. Indeed, the document is far too complacent in assuming that the existing building regulations meet their purpose of assisting disabled people; for example, they make quite inadequate provision for those whose vision and hearing are impaired. As was said by my noble friend Lord Ashley, many of the existing requirements suffer from inadequate monitoring to ensure that what the regulations intend to achieve is carried out, and is carried out uniformly.
Furthermore, the consultative document is unclear as regards goods and services. It is not clear whether goods and services include arts services. The comment that those providing goods and services should not be required to carry out modifications to existing premises appears to conflict with the aspirations for widening employment opportunities, as expressed elsewhere in the document.
I make those points to illustrate that the emphasis needs to be on the Government listening to people with expertise and knowledge in the field and to those who have suffered from inadequate access. Existing inadequacies can then be put right and we shall be able to move forward towards the target of reasonable access by the year 2000.
I should be delighted if the Minister would assure the House that access to arts venues will be made mandatory. The least that will do is an unequivocal assurance that the Government have an open mind on this issue and that they will consider seriously the arguments put forward by ADAPT and others—for example, by the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon —that mandatory action must be taken in this field.
Since the Minister, Sir Richard Luce, gave that pledge a new and potentially important source of funding for the arts has become available in the form of the National Lottery. It is a sad commentary that as regards our attitude to arts and charities we should make their public financing a by-effect —and a minuscule by-effect at that—of a flutter on the numbers. Leaving that matter aside, the least that we can expect is that the Government should insist that the arts councils and the other bodies which will be distributing the National Lottery profits should make grants to arts premises conditional—I repeat, conditional—on their improving access for disabled people.
214
I welcome the statement made recently by the Minister responsible that:
"it is particularly important that the people who are often disadvantaged within our society, and I have in mind particularly those with physical or other disabilities, should be able to benefit from lottery funds in the same way as others in the community".
There is a sharp distinction between that statement and what the Government have done. There is a sharp distinction between, on the one hand, the policy directions issued to the distributary bodies relating to matters which they must take into account and, on the other hand, the mere guidance on disability issues. I accept that even guidance on matters such as access, awareness and the involvement of disabled people in decision-making, represents an advance in government thinking. If it is right to set out in the form of directions presumptions for capital spending, it is surely right that the bodies distributing National Lottery funds should be directed to make grants to arts venues conditional on their improving access for disabled people.
Perhaps I may add a brief postscript. Your Lordships' House can hardly be described as an arts venue, although it is an historic building and, on occasion, takes on some of the characteristics of a theatre. People come here hoping for information and stimulation, perhaps even for entertainment. They come to listen and they come to see. But if they come in wheelchairs they cannot see our proceedings. I am not alone in having made practical proposals for improving access to our Chamber for members of the public who use wheelchairs. It is time that we brought our facilities up to the standard of any third-rate football club and created a space in which citizens who come in wheelchairs have the same facilities as others to see what goes on here.
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I rise to deal with one subject only in the gracious Speech. It is the brief sentence which states that the Government,
"will introduce a Bill to tackle discrimination against disabled people".
Disabled people have a great deal of support in this House.
Many disabled people and organisations for the disabled believe that, far from helping people to live with dignity and independence, all we shall have is a watered-down version of earlier Bills and that it will be presented to salve Ministers' consciences about the way they connived to defeat the Bill last Session.
In 1982 a report was published by the Committee on Restrictions against Disabled People. It showed that discrimination was practised in many forms against the disabled. The credit for that wide-ranging report must go to Sir Peter Large, who is well known to many Members of your Lordships' House. That report was the foundation of the 13 Private Members' Bills which have been introduced year after year during the 20 years since it was published. None of those Bills reached the statute book. I console myself with the thought that Parliament has seen this kind of history before—when Wilberforce sought to outlaw the slave trade. After many years of

215
persistence, and because the cause was right, there came a moment for success. I hope that it is about to come again in respect of a disabled persons Bill.
The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was brought into this House last Session by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. It passed all its stages in this House but in another place, after at each stage it had been shown to command wide support, its progress was halted only at the Report stage, using a procedural point to do so. No Member of the Government can be proud of what happened.
But against this history of negative government attitudes it would be churlish not to welcome the measure to tackle discrimination against disabled people. I shall try not to cover the points so ably covered by the noble Lords, Lord Ashley and Lord Murray. However, I am sure that the terms of the Bill will be eagerly awaited in this House and, as on the previous occasion, there will be the same concern to use the opportunity of government legislation to secure all practicable benefits to people with disabilities and to society generally, because it is the whole of society that will be enriched by the release of so much energy and talent. But the Government must understand that there is considerable apprehension in case the measures referred to in the gracious Speech could be inviting the House to deal with only half measures.
The Government's consultation paper, which was issued in July, is welcome in so far as it recognises that legislation is needed. But in that consultative document, as a main ground for substituting their own Bill for legislation on the lines of last Session's Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, the Government have again invoked their calculation that the cost of phasing in such a Bill will be £17 billion, plus the continuing cost of £1 billion per year thereafter. These figures attract the jargon term "cost compliance assessment".
This is not the occasion for debating the arithmetic but it is an occasion to point out, as did several of your Lordships last Session, that deducing an aggregate cost provides no ground for deciding whether to spend unless there is an understanding of what would result from incurring that cost. We need to measure the cost compliance benefits against what would result from the outlay. If the Government's attitude is still to be that they consider the outlay but ignore the return, that tells us nothing either way about the merits of the investment.
The result of not incurring the compliance costs is to leave people with disabilities frustrated at the edge of opportunities for education, training and employment. They become discouraged by the slanted financial services. They lack the public transport which they can use only with great difficulty or not at all. They are denied access to many buildings in which the social, cultural and economic life of the community is carried on.
The price is at present partly paid by forgoing the product of people with disabilities—and they are counted in millions—and partly by calling on the resources of other people doing for them what they would so much rather have been enabled to do for themselves.
216
The economic question for judgment is not whether to quail before an apparently large aggregate of gross cost but whether to prefer conditions as they are or in some altered form, with their respective consequences for costs and returns or other benefits resulting from incurring those costs. If compliance cost assessment means anything, it is the measure of the cost currently being borne by the disabled persons and those who try to help them. Even when it is computed with the utmost care, it is no substitute for the methodology addressed to the right question. We have to face the fact that return or benefit may arise on a different account from that under which cost is incurred.
If that is the right way to focus attention—and I believe it is—then the consultation paper provides an example of a government looking the other way. For example, the paper leaves alone the subject of transport, with only a brief reference to the degree to which buses now incorporate the features recommended by DIPTAC. It does not mention that that same ministerial advisory committee advocated buses with low, step-free floors which would enable any passenger, able-bodied or disabled, to board or alight quickly—the nimble, those with a trolley, buggy or pram, those with heavy shopping, the elderly infirm and those in wheelchairs, who would otherwise have no access to a bus unless it had a lift. That would have consequences. There would be less need to depend upon the car in towns; and less time would be spent at bus stops, thus reducing congestion and pollution. Journeys would be faster and, as experience elsewhere in Europe has shown, fewer buses may well be needed for covering the same routes.
Perhaps I may be excused for pointing out what may be the consequences of incurring those costs. I believe that I can more readily do so because I used to have to speak in this House for the then government on both transport and the environment. At the same time, I could not but concern myself with the conditions of life for disabled people. I am glad to see the Government doing that, at least in their reference to them in the gracious Speech.
I must also declare an interest as the vice-president of PHAB, which is the nationwide organisation that encourages the physically handicapped and able bodied to work, live and play together. I am also a director of Tripscope. That is a charity which helps many handicapped persons to sort their way through transport problems so that they are able to make exciting journeys to far away places.
If the legislation of this Parliament can be the instrument by which such general advantage can be secured, then I want to see the Government introducing it. But to be effective it must be specific. An example already before us is the change of regulations which means that the whole fleet of London taxis is now being converted to a design which enables people in wheelchairs to use those taxis as easily as the rest of us can. If we must rely on Brussels for some of that legislation now, I wish to see the Government using all their influence to secure it there in specific form, to take effect with all realistic speed.

217
We await the Bill with interest, but from the many comments made today by noble Lords, the Government will be aware that there are many of us in your Lordships' House who will argue and fight when the Bill comes before us to ensure that there is no watering down of the proposals. Half measures will not do. Disabled and handicapped people must be enabled to enjoy all the rights which they so much deserve and for which they have waited far too long.
7.35 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, almost áll of those who have spoken in this debate have congratulated our three maiden speakers. I should also like to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lord Dubs knew that they would be congratulated because in this Palace of varieties that is what we do to artists who are making their first appearance. But we do not always ask them back in the way in which all three of our maiden speakers have been asked back today. They will understand, from the genuine pleasure and approval that has been generated by their speeches, that we very much hope that we shall see them again. We know that they are all very busy. We know that the main job of the noble Lord, Lord Attenborough, is to save the British film industry, and we quite understand if he has to go away now and again in order to do that.
I wish to explore the assumptions behind the policies in the gracious Speech for dealing with the continued rise in crime figures. I do not blame the Government for those figures; but I blame them for the fact that they have not been able to do anything about them. They have been rising at roughly the same rate since the early 1970s through different kinds of governments. I ask how far this Government accept the link which my noble friend Lord McIntosh sought to argue between particular sorts of crime figures and the social and economic environment.
Nobody can say that this Government have not pursued the crime figures. Since this Government came into office, there have been more than 10 Bills dealing with the criminal law, and there are more proposals in the pipeline, some of which were mentioned in the gracious Speech. This Government do things about the framework of criminal law almost as frequently as they do things about trade union law, social security benefits and privatisation. The difference is that it is not so easy to see what is the link between the Government's overall ideology and obsession with the market and what they do in the field of crime prevention. That is the question that I wish to explore this evening.
If one leaves aside the funny people who have funny theories about crime—the Freudians, the Calvinists, the Moonies—there are three broad theories about crime statistics and why they go up and down. As far as I can see, the Government's argument seems to be the first of these: the inadequate punishment theory. They believe that if they could lock the criminals up for long enough, they would become discouraged and there would not be any crime, or at least, the crime figures would start to decline and go the other way.
218
The second argument relates to declining moral standards, and I shall say a few words about that later. (That is rather a Right-wing theory). The Left-wing theory relates to relative deprivation, perceived injustice, unemployment, poverty and that sort of thing. It is easy to see that it is difficult for this Government to embrace the third of the theories.
The present Home Secretary—unlike the last Home Secretary but four, who was, I think, Mr. Hurd—focuses very much on inadequacy of punishment. The present Home Secretary said that "prison works". He told us during the debate on the gracious Speech on 18th November that there is to be a working paper based on the:
"resounding affirmation … that proper punishment should follow crime as surely as night follows day"—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/94; col. 242.]
The present Home Secretary wants more cautions, more prosecutions, longer sentences and more austere conditions. He wants fewer privileges, less leave, no automatic release and a form of hard labour for community sentences.
However, I should like to know whether the Government have undertaken a costing exercise on the matter. As we were told earlier in the debate this afternoon by my noble friend Lord McIntosh, there has been a small increase in the prison population and that has been ferociously expensive—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I trust that my noble friend will permit me to intervene. I do not believe that an increase from 42,000 to 52,000 can be called very small.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, it is small when one considers that the crime rate is rising by 7 per cent., 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. per year. It is small in comparison to the task to be undertaken if we wanted to bang everyone up. I am saying that would go very much against the general policy of the Government regarding public expenditure. In fact, I suggest that the Government do not really believe it is possible. The problem is that they cannot bring themselves to say anything else.
I turn now to the other arguments. The second argument is that the problem with the crime figures is that they are affected by declining moral standards. If one looks around the Chamber this evening, it will be understood why I have to be careful how I argue this case. Indeed, I am not sure that I want to put it forward. There are many changes that we could say we want to see if we wanted to improve moral standards; and, indeed, if we could agree on what an improvement in moral standards would look like. For example, we could talk about what we might do about the divorce laws and about all kinds of incentives to preserve the sanctity of marriage. Alternatively, the Government might want to do something about single mothers. I do not know.
However, if one thinks about it, it becomes quite clear that the last thing this Government are actually going to advocate—they are not quite that foolish—is legislation to improve the British electorate's moral standards. Some time ago they used to say that perhaps an example should be set. In fact, Back to Basics involved them in

219
setting an example but they have rather gone off that policy recently for obvious reasons. However, if one does not believe—and I do not—that everyone can be banged up or that one can legislate to improve declining moral standards, one returns to the third general argument; namely, relative deprivation and perceived injustice.
I do not want to say that all crime figures can be related to that general cause. Indeed, I believe it is arguable that there is much crime which has very little to do with poverty or unemployment. It is arguable that the fastest growing area of crime depends on employment. For example, in embezzlement, fraud, robbery, tax evasion, bribery and sleaze, one has to be employed. Moreover, for the most part, one has to be in very good employment; in other words, in a position of relative power. Moreover if we dealt with crime of the other kind—what is sometimes called working-class crime—and if we raised the standards of everyone's life, it could be argued that, if we did not get a rise in moral standards at the same time, we would get even more embezzlement, fraud, bribery, tax evasion and sleaze.
I am saying something much more limited than that; I am saying that there are areas in which there is a considerable body of evidence to show that there is a direct link between certain types of crime and certain types of deprivation. The clearest, hardest and most direct set of evidence deals with property crime and long-term unemployment among young males. There is a considerable number of macro studies—for example, the Cambridge studies and many others—which show, for example, that the rate of crime among young males and among males generally decreases and increases within the economic cycle. That is especially so as regards the late 1980s and 1990s.
There is other evidence—for example, macro studies in 41 or 42 police districts in England and Wales—which associates high crime figures with high unemployment and particularly high rates of crime among young workers suffering from long-term unemployment. If one lists the areas of high deprivation, such as Merseyside, Northumbria, South Yorkshire and South Wales, it will be seen that they are also the areas which have high rates of young male property crime.
There is also evidence of a disproportionate amount of property crime involving young male unemployed workers. However, because such studies are empirical, they tend to give different answers. One study indicates that 40 per cent. of offenders regarding property crime are the young unemployed, while another study suggested that a sample of 70 per cent. of offenders were young and long-term unemployed. We also know that there are 250,000 young male workers under the age of 24 who have been out of work for over six months. We know that there are 140,000 male young workers under the age of 24 who have been out of work for over a year. We also know that by the age of 31, one-third of young males has one or more convictions and that 5 per cent. of those in one sample, most of whom were unemployed, had two-thirds of the total convictions. In the light of evidence of this kind, I suggest that the link between young male workers and
220
property crime is too general, too plausible, too logical and too much in conformity with common sense for anyone seriously to doubt it.
Let us suppose that we were able to persuade the Government that there is something in that argument. What kind of policies would they adopt? I should make it clear that I am not suggesting what policies the Labour Party might adopt. I want to be realistic; I am talking about the present Government. I am not asking for anything that this Government could not conceivably do. However, if they were persuaded, what could they do? First, they could come to one, if you like, negative conclusion. They could appreciate the fact that if their recovery arrives, grows and blossoms so that they achieve 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. growth over three or four years, it would do nothing whatever for this problem. The increase in employment that the Government will see through general economic growth will I am afraid—and when I say "I am afraid", I do not mean that I am sorry: it is a fact—be for the most part enjoyed in reform of increased employment opportunities by part-time working women. It will do very little for men.
One of the least known facts about the British unemployment situation is that for all practical purposes, in terms of its hard core, it is a male problem. We have 9 per cent. unemployment and 12.5 per cent. unemployment among males, with an even higher rate than that among young males. Long-term immovable unemployment is very largely a male problem. Moreover, a marginal increase in growth will not solve the problem. What we need to do is positively to expand jobs. We must create jobs in a positively discriminatory way, directed at young males.
The Government would have to look at community action and make it much much bigger than the miserable 50,000 places applying after 12 months. They would have to start a general scheme for training for work, not the endless pilot penny-ha'penny scheme that they are currently running. They would have to direct some of their capital spending towards the employment of young males. Where do young males get employed? They are employed in the construction industry. The Government would have to engineer deliberately and specifically an increase in capital projects in the construction industry, in the belief and hope that that would do something about male unemployment. If possible, it should be done in areas of high unemployment.
However, one thing that they could not do is continue with the reduction in the size of the public sector labour force, especially the unskilled or semi-skilled labour force in the public service sector. This is scheduled to take another 500,000 people off to the employment exchange, three-quarters of whom may well be men. They could positively address themselves to the true problem of unemployment and the link between crime and unemployment among young males.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, it is my belief that in the past few years our country has been gripped by a malaise. The outward signs—the sleaze, the greed, the envy, the resentment and the discontent—represent

221
merely the tip of the iceberg. Underneath are other disturbing indications of this sickness. Speaking from these currently somewhat lonely Benches, it is not my intention to engage in party political warfare, and I shall leave it to others to seek the reasons therein. However, I am certain of one thing: as my noble friend Lord Tonypandy remarked in a splendid speech earlier this year, standards nearly everywhere have declined in our life today.
There was no reference in the gracious Speech to the issues which are of particular concern to me, nor indeed did I expect that there would be. However, I have at least gained some encouragement from one or two recent ministerial utterances.
A few months ago the Prime Minister referred to what he called the "yob culture"—the crime, the decline in civility and manners and in fundamental decency and kindness which George Orwell believed was part of our national character. But as Mary Kenny, that perceptive columnist in the Sunday Telegraph, wrote, behind the yob culture it is the rise of the trash culture which confronts us everywhere. Like her, I long for the sublime and beautiful but feel more and more surrounded by the culture of trash: trashy values, trashy commodities, aspirations to trashy standards, people whose heads are filled with trashy books, trashy music and trashy art.
The culture of trash is illuminated today by the kind of celebrities we are expected to admire. Recent examples are a night club owner, an anorexic girl who married an ageing rock star, an American woman who has written a smutty book and, perhaps above all, the pop vocalist Madonna.
What dismays me today is the manner in which trashy culture has percolated upwards to infect everything. It is reflected in much of the media. In an outstanding address delivered in Boston, Massachusetts, last June—surely a most suitable venue to have chosen since the United States is the leading exponent of trashy values in the world—a much respected headmaster said:
"Particularly worrying is the anti-educational effect of television. It is arguable that the most insidious influence on the young is not violence, drugs, tobacco, drink or sexual perversion, but our pursuit of the trivial and our tolerance of the third-rate. It is here that television has had its most devastating influence".
He went on to say that:
"Schools are not entirely powerless to do anything about it, but given the money at the disposal of the purveyors of junk culture, they are certainly fighting against severe odds".
Broadcasting has also gone down-market, both Radio 3 and Radio 4 being pale shadows of what they once were. According to some of the newer BBC mandarins, the corporation is too posh and ought to be trying to reach a younger, less middle class audience and to be more "accessible". However, as everyone knows, any attempt to attract a wider audience results in lower quality and eventual absorption into the international mass rubbish culture of our time.
If the BBC decides to go down-market then surely it becomes hard to justify its existence. The whole point of public service broadcasting is that it should not need
222
to hunt all the time for mass audiences. That can be left in the hands of commercial broadcasters, who will certainly do it better.
Likewise, the press has followed suit. A year ago readers of The Times may have been somewhat surprised to have seen a leading article in that prestigious newspaper beginning with the words:
"On Saturday The Times will announce the top 25 in its selection of the 100 best rock albums of all time. Readers who forecast the top 10 correctly will have a chance to win all 100 albums on the list".
Is this, and the "Pop on Friday"—often occupying three pages—what one really expects of that paper?
To be fair, The Times is not alone in lowering its sights: other so-called "quality" or "serious" newspapers now seem increasingly to fill their pages with trivia about sex, showbiz and the media. In passing, I remind your Lordships that there are sinister signs of how one newspaper group appears to be bent on destroying not only the high culture of our nation but also the fabric of its constitution.
All in all, I suggest that the function of far too much of the media today maybe summarised as the constant hype of trivia and tripe.
A moment or two ago I drew attention to the current obsession of some BBC executives with everything being made more accessible. I consider that the reason so many programmes, requiring merely a modicum of intelligence to be understood, are thought to be inaccessible is principally the shortcomings of our educational system. People are not taught to think today, merely to seek instant gratification.
I have not been involved directly in the UK educational world, but I have witnessed at first hand some of its results and how few people in everyday life seem to be able to do the simplest mathematical calculations. Everywhere the calculator rules, not the head. In business I have observed how few people can write properly. Both secretaries and executives are often unable to spell correctly or punctuate and possess only a rudimentary knowledge of grammar. As an indictment of our recent educational policies, it has been estimated that the poor standards of literacy and communication skills cost British industry and business £5 billion a year. Unfortunately, I have more than a suspicion that too many of our unemployed are unemployable. I submit that a large part of the blame for this unsatisfactory state of affairs must be laid at the door of those so-called educational experts.
I turn now to what I believe to be another major cause of the debasement of standards in the areas I have been discussing. The original idea of political correctness may have been a reasonable one in that one should not consider persons of other races to be inferior. Unfortunately, that has been hijacked by fanatics, with the result that it has spread like an insidious poison into much of our existence today.
I was interested to read some recent words, on the subject spoken by my noble friend Lady James of Holland Park, who unfortunately is not here today. She has stated:
"I think political correctness is linguistic fascism, and for those of us who went to war against fascism it is horrifying".

223
How I agree with my noble friend! I suspect that many present supporters of this ghastly creed are individuals who were reluctant to raise a glass or dance in the streets at the news of the collapse of communism and remain likely apologists for or sympathisers with that most evil of political systems. Thwarted on that occasion, they now see another means of destroying the great western cultural heritage which they deride as simply a tool of repression wielded against racial minorities and a ruse designed to enforce racial oppression, class privilege and so forth. These people believe that there is no such thing as an objective intellectual standard, that nothing is better than anything else. They sneer at the peaks of western culture as being the work of what they term "dead white European males"—a description which, according to the jargon of political correctness, manages to be racist, ageist and sexist all at the same time.
Underlying the doctrine of the politically correct lies an obsession with multiculturalism. To say, as they do, that in Great Britain we live in a multicultural society is simply to tell a white lie. The ethnic population of this country is about 4.7 per cent. At what point do we say that we live in a multicultural society? Surely not when more than 95 per cent. of the population is non-ethnic. To suit the needs of that 4.7 per cent. the politically correct propose to jettison all previous 20th century literature, as deemed unworthy of study or to be examined solely for the purpose of condemnation. In its place so-called "cultural studies" have emerged, a mishmash of "isms"—structuralism, post-structuralism, modernism, post-modernism, Marxism, Freudianism, semiotics—all overlaid with political correctness which is anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-bourgeois, anti-authoritarian and, above all, anti-patriotic. As a consequence, it is now possible for undergraduates reading English to obtain their degrees without having been required to read a line of Chaucer, Shakespeare or Milton.
Look at the teaching of history. I read that Winston Churchill once sent a minute to Rab Butler, then at the former Board of Education, saying:
"Can you make children more patriotic? Let them know that Wolfe won Quebec".
Nowadays, in the minds of our educational specialists that would count as unacceptable government indoctrination. They would be far more likely to empathise with the Canadian Indian under the yoke of British imperialism than to refer to 1759 as the "Year of Victories". Our past history must be passed over with embarrassment, if not with shame, and the younger generation taught about the evils of colonialism.
In that connection I should like to repeat some words which President Mandela spoke during a recent visit to this country. He said:
"I was brought up in a British school, and at the time Britain was the home of everything that was best in the world. I have not discarded the influence which Britain and British history and culture exercised on us".
How appalled that great man would be if he were to be apprised of the prevailing situation.
224
I do not treat political correctness lightly but consider it to be a major cause of the lowering of educational and cultural standards. Already in America it reaches far beyond the campus and the classroom. It is effectively reshaping the ethos of American life, causing social divisions that amount almost to a spiritual civil war. There is no area of American cultural life that has not been made to feel the impact of that radical political juggernaut —and what happens on the other side of the Atlantic very often occurs here. We have been warned.
There used to be a time when education and culture in Britain were underlined by the Christian faith. However, despite, if I may say so, the most human and moving speech of the most reverend Primate, I do not always feel that that is the case today. A few weeks ago it was reported that the amount of time devoted to the teaching of Christianity in our schools had been drastically reduced, if not abandoned altogether. I may be wrong—and if I am I stand corrected —but I do not recollect much of an outcry from our Church leaders, who are often quick to pronounce on secular matters. Why on earth should my eight year-old granddaughter be obliged to study Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and so on? I have no objection to children learning about other religions, but only when they know something about their own first. I suppose that that represents another concession to the myth of multiculturalism.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I hope that it will not depress the noble Lord and that he will be pleased to know that in this House the word Christianity was introduced for the first time into the last big Education Bill as a result of the initiative of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention. Perhaps I may say that my granddaughter has the luck to be brought up in Scotland.
I realise that in many respects I have described a depressing scene to your Lordships today. As it is St. Cecilia's day, I shall use a musical analogy and say that my speech has been written in A flat minor. At the same time, I do not wish to assert that all is wrong with the younger generation—far from it. I quote again from the aforementioned headmaster's address in Boston:
"They are concerned—sometimes misguidedly and sentimentally, but their hearts are in the right place—for the environment, for wildlife and for the sort of world they would like to hand on to future generations. They are strikingly less prejudiced than their parents and grandparents … They are blind to colour and creed as other generations have never been".
I believe that the younger generation deserves better of us, the older generation, than the standards currently set before them. Therefore I welcome a recent remark of the Prime Minister: that good schools can be a lifeline out of poverty, the ladder to a whole new life. I welcome, too, some remarks made by the Education Secretary in her crusade to stop the disintegration of the English language by dubbing it her "war on communication by grunt".
At the same time I must point out that if the Government wish to rid us of the yob culture, the maintenance of the belief in "market forces" or the "laws of the market" in certain directions inevitably

225
leads to the supremacy of the lowest common denominator; namely, a low-minded mass democratic audience. I have been pleased to read that the leader of the Labour Party attaches the utmost importance to education. I am also pleased to note that he and I share a great admiration for the works of Walter Scott. However, I must remind the right honourable gentleman that many of the disastrous educational policies so assiduously carried out in the past quarter of a century were first mooted when his party held office in the late 1960s. I fervently believe that we must change direction in both cultural and educational fields. How late it is to do so, but not, I hope, too late.
8.4 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I am tempted to respond to some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, but I shall refrain from so doing. I shall pick up the theme of poverty to which my noble friend Lord McIntosh referred.
Earlier this year, we had a debate in your Lordships' House on the report produced by the European Select Committee on the European poverty programmes. The then Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, stated, at col. 1422 of the Official Report of 9th June, that,
"The Government do not accept that poverty is increasing in the UK".
That statement was in direct contradiction to the Government's own statistics, not those of the EC as implied at the time. The document of the Department of Social Security, Households Below Average Income (DSS 1993), indicated that the number of individuals in UK private households with income below half the national average rose between 1979 and 1991 from 4.4 million to 11.6 million before housing costs, and from 5 million to 13.5 million after housing costs.
The DSS report demonstrates that the Government's assertion that substantial increases to the rich would trickle down to the benefit of the poor was a fallacy. In reality, the poorest tenth of the population saw a drop of 17 per cent. in their real income while the top 10 per cent. saw a rise of 62 per cent. The number of children living in families with incomes below the poverty line trebled from 1.4 million to 4.1 million. It might be assumed that those figures relate to the growth of one-parent families. However, that group makes up only about 20 per cent. of the figure. The remaining 80 per cent. are two-parent households. The position for lone parents has nevertheless deteriorated. In 1979, 19 per cent. were living in poverty, compared with the current 59 per cent.
The largest most impoverished group is low paid workers. The gap between those who earn most and those who earn least is now wider than at any time since 1886 when figures were first collected. The Government are always ready to blame a worldwide recession for their economic dilemmas. But the widening of the pay gap—the main cause of inequality—is not a global phenomenon. Only in Britain and the USA—the two countries which have pursued deregulation most vigorously—have pay inequalities increased so sharply.
226
Last year's abolition of the wages councils had a significant effect on wage levels and there is no doubt that pay will continue to deteriorate in those low paying sectors. According to a report published today from the Council of Europe, based on its own criteria, we now have one third of full time workers being paid what amounts to poverty wages. Britain is now the only country in Europe without some form of legal pay protection for the lowest paid. Employment rights, maternity provision and pensions are among the worst in Europe. What we have seen in Britain is social devaluation—an attempt to gain a competitive advantage by reducing earnings, rights and living standards.
It is not possible to look at the reasons for the growth in poverty without at least taking note of the inequalities in our taxation system. Again, it is the low income groups and the poor who are hit disproportionately. Only those earning £64,000 a year pay less tax now than in 1979. The substantial tax cuts for the rich were almost wholly financed by reductions in the value of pensions and benefits, the least well off again subsidising the rich. And there are seven new taxes still to come—a further betrayal of election promises—which will cost the average family £360 a year or £7 a week in extra tax. That might not seem over much for those who can afford it, but for some it will be another drastic cut to their already meagre budget.
Financial deprivation is graphically illustrated in research by the Food Commission which indicates that the income for the 1.5 million families living on basic social security benefit does not include enough to pay for the diet of a child in a Victorian workhouse. Tom White, the chief executive of the National Children's Home charity, for whom the research was carried out, said:
"It is appalling, as we approach the year 2000, that even an 1876 workhouse diet is too expensive for the families of one in four of our children".
A further study on the effects of poverty published in the British Medical Journal earlier this year indicated that poverty rather than personal behaviour is the greatest risk to health. The study showed that mortality rates in the most deprived areas in the north are now as bad for some age groups as in the 1940s. The evidence prompted the BMJ editorial to say that the widening of income differences and the growth of poverty during the 1980s were unprecedented.
A comparison of health and social inequality in Europe by Chris Power of the Institute of Child Health identified that cutting the gap between the rich and the poor could bring about substantial improvements. But it is for the Government to make those improvements. Only they can determine the priorities; only they can give hope to the unemployed, the low paid, the poor and the deprived. Only the Government can decide whether to put welfare to work rather than cut benefits and create poverty. The Secretary of State for Social Security last Friday gave an inkling that there could be a change in the Government's approach. It now appears that he accepts that there is a correlation between an inflexible benefit system, the widening of wage differentials and

227
poverty, and that the poverty trap into which many single parents and unemployed fall is created by the benefit system.
We need legislation and government action that will improve the real quality of lives referred to by the Minister in her opening speech. However, that is not evident from the gracious Speech. In particular, the jobseeker's allowance will cut in half the amount of time for which unemployed people will get contributory benefit. Eligibility for the new allowance will be more restrictive than at present and the rate paid to young people under 25 will be cut. The Government themselves estimate that in the first year 90,000 claimants will lose their entitlement to benefit completely and that a further 150,000 will have to switch to means-tested benefits, often at a reduced rate. I am sure that the response will be that it is in order to create jobs and to give people jobs. But they will be low paid and part-time jobs. What we want, and what should happen for the unemployed, are proper and real job opportunities.
The poor will not only be penalised by the increase in gas prices. They will also be blatantly discriminated against by the proposal to introduce a 5 per cent. discount for those who pay by direct debit—presumably to ensure that bills are paid on time. But there is no discount for those who pay in advance—the people with little money who have to pay by using coin or token meters. They could pay as much as £26 a year more than those paying by direct debit. That is another example of the ideology of increased competition being paid for by the less well off. We need perhaps to contrast that with the report yesterday of the pay rises being awarded to the directors of British Gas.
Finally, I wish briefly to refer to the Government's plan to cap housing benefit, leaving tenants to find the difference out of other benefits, be evicted, or move to cheaper and poorer quality housing. The freeing of the housing market has provided choice and opportunity for some, but that choice is an elusive dream for those without bargaining power—the low paid, the unemployed and a growing number of the young and the aged. This at a time when homelessness is on the increase, particularly among 16 to 17 year-olds.
Every aspect of unequal Britain is mutually reinforcing. Unequal pay is linked to unequal taxation, unequal social provision, unequal gender treatment and unequal modes of governance. It is the Government's responsibility to understand the interaction of all those factors on people's lives and to act to correct the imbalances of the free market.
It would be welcome to hear from the Minister that the Government appreciate the reality of the levels of poverty and that they will bring forward legislation to improve or at least alleviate that poverty and deprivation. Poverty, social deprivation and disadvantage stifle opportunity, thwart initiative and destroy hope. Urgent and radical action is required to
228
restore that hope so that this generation and future generations no longer face the prospect of living in an unequal and unjust society.
8.14 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I feel that I have spent the whole day with my pads on waiting finally to get to the wicket. However, I shall perhaps only make one run because the hour is late and I do not wish to take up any more of your Lordships' time. I wish to touch on one part of the gracious Speech which states:
"My Government will play an active part in tackling drug misuse, drug trafficking and organised crime at home and abroad".
I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch for what she said on the subject on behalf of the Government. She certainly gave great heart to all of us who were worried about young people and drugs as to what the Government intend to do in the future. Before hearing her speak, I had intended to say a little about drugs and I am afraid I shall still do so, without taking up too much time.
We are all aware of the grave damage that drugs can do to our young people, in particular the 15 to 16 age group. One always hopes that they will not become addicted and a senior doctor at the Maudsley Hospital said that many young people will experiment with drugs but the majority will stop before drug use becomes a problem. He said that the earlier a child starts taking drugs the more likely it is that the drug taking will become serious. That is why I hope to persuade the Home Office and the Department for Education to allow outsiders to go into all schools for the over 12s and warn pupils of the damage and consequences of drug taking. The outsiders must, of course, take samples of the drugs with them to show the pupils, otherwise it will have no effect. I realise that this is done already in a large number of schools but I am anxious that no child should grow up without being warned. If young adults become addicted there are many organisations and groups to whom they can turn. Although he is not in his place, I wish to pay a tribute to my noble friend Lord Mancroft for all the work that he is doing in this sphere.
In this context, the most important people to the children are not the teachers but the parents. The parents are the people who see their children on a daily basis and can look out for the tell-tale signs of different behaviour and the various other ways in which anyone who has contact with young people can tell whether or not they are on drugs. I say "parents" in the plural because I firmly believe that every child has the right to the guidance and love that both parents can provide. There again, I say "guidance".
If children are in trouble they must be able to go to their parents who, in turn, must take an interest and show a caring concern. I understand that many children start drug taking when they are truanting from school and have nothing to do. To give some idea of the amount of drugs involved, I have been in touch with the Customs and Excise which has given me the approximate figures for drugs seized in 1993. They are: LSD, 150,000 doses. I could not quite make out why it was "doses" and not "kilos", but that is what it is. They

229
seized: cocaine, 680 kilos; heroin, 540 kilos; herbal cannabis, 12 tonnes; cannabis resin, 39 tonnes; amphetamines, half a tonne. That is only what the Customs and Excise have been able to seize as the drugs were on their way either through the country or when they were landed at the ports of entry. It gives some idea of the enormous amount of drugs that are already in the country and are available to children or adults.
I want to express my worry—pointed out to me many times —about a new level of pseudo-official people who are known in this country now as counsellors. They have sprung up like mushrooms. It seems that the public can and do receive counselling about everything from car crashes and losing money to mourning the loss of a kitten. I should like to know who employs them; how much they are paid; what qualifications they must possess; and why, quite suddenly, it is assumed that people are in need of completely strange shoulders to cry on. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will not need counselling after my few remarks, but I should be grateful if she could write to me as I have had a great number of representations on this subject.
8.20 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am always happy to follow the noble Baroness, if only because of her long and devoted service as a juvenile magistrate. She will forgive me if I do not follow her this evening on the subject of drugs, although I absolutely agree that it is one of the most acute issues of the day.
My first duty is to say how pleased I am to think that we shall now struggle with the eloquence and dialectics of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who has assumed the grave responsibilities of Minister of State at the Home Office. Anything that is good news for her is good news for me. I have saluted her before as a fine Christian woman in education. She will, of course, have her work cut out in the Home Office. I am afraid that I have called her chief, as she knows, the Prince of Darkness. It is a little difficult to describe her role in a way that is not embarrassing to one of them. I see her as an angel of light; and let us hope that she will somehow or other be inspired to lighten his darkness. I am afraid that the omens are not as good as I could wish, because since she has arrived on the scene he has been involved in one or two appalling episodes. I mention, to start with, the fact that he is now cutting home visits by 40 per cent. That has been rightly denounced by my noble leader for today, my noble friend Lord McIntosh, in his powerful speech. Really, it is a sort of test case as to whether or not the present Home Secretary is on the side of penal reform. Or is he—as I am bound to think—the enemy of penal reform? I would not like to call the noble Baroness the enemy of penal reform. But, as the angel of light, will she throw her beam over this scene?
The penal reform organisations have with one accord denounced the proposal as a terribly retrograde step. One of the consortia includes the prison governors, always thought of as penal reformers. Mr. Howard may draw consolation from other quarters. The Sun newspaper of course says, "Lock 'em up". But then, the noble Baroness may say that Mr. Howard never reads
230
the Sun. He may possibly disregard it. But what does the Daily Mail, which, we assume, is the staple diet of most Conservative politicians, say about the matter? I have the words here if noble Lords want me to quote them. I shall paraphrase. It says, thank heaven that the penal reformers are being told where to get off; they are the cause of all the trouble.
You cannot be on the side of the Home Secretary and on the side of penal reform. He is the declared enemy of penal reform. I do not know whether the Minister, whom we welcome to these discussions, will take the side of penal reform or of Mr. Howard. You really cannot be on both sides—unless the Daily Mail has completely misunderstood Mr. Howard's purposes.
Mr. Howard may be in trouble on his own account now. We are told by the courts that he is guilty of gross illegality. I suppose he may find himself in custody. I do not see why not. And what will happen then? He will be denied home visits to his much-admired family and he may have to fall back on do-gooders like myself. Whether he will welcome our visits, only time will tell. However, that is not the main subject of my speech today. I had intended to talk about life prisoners. The most important issue here —I shall not deal with it tonight save in a few sentences —is whether in the near future Mr. Howard will say to a number of life prisoners that life will mean life. That is a big issue. If he does say that, the penal reformers are bound to come out very strongly against him. It would be an unprecedented step. Possibly the Daily Mail and the Sun will back him. But if he takes that step an honourable man will cover himself with dishonour for ever. The matter will arise in the next few weeks.
I cannot speak strongly enough about the matter. Mr. David Mellor has, of course, championed the idea that some sins cannot be forgiven. No doubt he is an expert on the subject. As he has decried me as a notorious do-gooder, I feel that I may be biased in my comments, so I leave that former Home Office Minister for other speakers to cope with and turn to the topic on which I planned to speak, though briefly of course. I was going to say how much I admired the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, but there is not much point when she is not in her place. She must take that as understood.
In the debates on the criminal justice Bill I put forward three amendments. The first one I shall not deal with, save merely to mention it. It proposed that murder should no longer produce a mandatory life sentence—an idea that has been repeatedly affirmed in this House. Yet curiously enough, when I supported it and introduced an amendment to that effect, it received very little support. Noble Lords cannot blame me entirely as I was ready to let the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice speak to it instead of me but for some reason that was thought injudicious. I am quite happy about the long-term future. I am sure that the matter will be put right eventually. I am sure that when the Labour Party comes to power and is committed to it it will be rectified. I shall not therefore detain the House on the subject tonight.
The next matter is one that the House has probably never studied. In saying that, I do not insult Members of this House, because, after 50 years of being interested

231
in penal reform, I had never studied it until quite recently. It is the question of the recall of prisoners. I am thinking particularly of the mandatory life sentence. I gather that there are 3,000 life prisoners but that 80 per cent. of those sentences are mandatory—and it is the mandatory life sentences to which I refer at the moment. I take the case—it is one I raised in the summer, and I have given the noble Baroness plenty of notice—of a prisoner I know who was arrested (re-arrested one might say) because it was alleged that after being freed from prison he had after a number of years harassed a woman. Her story was accepted; he was never allowed to put his side of the matter. He has been in prison since March; it is now November. That is shocking. He has never been allowed to state his case or be represented before any tribunal. I shall not deal with the matter at length because I have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, whether she will see me and allow me to discuss not only that personal issue, but the general issue of the recall of mandatory life prisoners. I understood from her rather cryptic letter that she would be ready to see me, so I hope to discuss the subject with her in the near future.
I shall deal with only one other subject tonight; namely, judicial review after a number of years. At present, a prisoner can be imprisoned for many, many years and never have a chance to state his or her case or be represented before any kind of independent tribunal. I shall take the case of Myra Hindley, but I should also like to mention two other cases.
With someone like Myra Hindley, we are told "Oh well, Myra Hindley, you cannot imagine the Home Secretary letting her out, can you?" That is what people say to me. Incidentally, when I spoke to someone the other day, his secretary replied, "Oh, I know you, you are the Myra Hindley chappie, aren't you?" I said, "Well, I have done a few other things." She said, "Well, I haven't heard about them." So I do realise that one has a certain reputation there. But I will not deal only with that case.
Myra Hindley has been in prison for 29 years. Her release depends on the goodwill and the political antennae of the Home Secretary of the day. I regard that as iniquitous—quite iniquitous. But it is not only her. If you go to Maidstone prison in the near future—and I go to many prisons—you will find a couple of prisoners there, one of whom has done 29 years and the other, Reggie Kray, who is rather well known to the public, who has done 25 or 26 years. His brother, Ronnie Kray, is in Broadmoor. They have never been allowed to appear before any tribunal.
I say that we fallible human beings are performing something unworthy of human beings if we keep people in prison for 25 or 30 years, or whatever it may be—still more, of course, for life—because the Home Secretary of the day does not feel that it would be politic to let them out. After a number of years—I say 15,
232
although there is nothing magical about it—they should come out; otherwise it will continue to be a disgrace to a civilised country.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, apart from being the "Myra Hindley chappie", I wonder whether your Lordships are aware that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was once the chairman of MENCAP. I always feel rather in the presence of a benevolent headmaster whenever he speaks. I was his chairman of fund-raising way back in the late 1950s and early 1960s, so he does do other work as well, apart from being the "Myra Hindley chappie".
After a somewhat long stage wait—20 speeches to be precise—I trust your Lordships will forgive me if I refer back to the excellent and thought-provoking maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Attenborough. I should like to thank him for his persuasive arguments on the need for the arts, the need for active support of the arts, the need for the arts to be broadly-based and non-exclusive, and the need for the arts to be available—both as participants and as members of the audience—for all people with disabilities, including those whom I try to represent, the people with a learning disability.
Incidentally, on a personal level, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Attenborough, for pointing me in the direction that my own career should take when I was demobbed one year after him in 1947. All the good juvenile roles had already gone to him, and so I had to become self-employed as an actor-manager, which led me to a career of 30 years of making my living by dropping my trousers—of a strictly comical nature, I hasten to add, but a job unique in your Lordships' House, I am sure.
The noble Lord, Lord Attenborough, also gave me a splendid cue when he made reference to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill which, in theatrical parlance, flopped last summer—in spite of massive audience support—because the Government rang down the curtain prematurely during Act I of the performance. The Government have now rushed to mount a production of their own, although I gather not a revival as such. I want to welcome—as did the noble Lords, Lord Ashley of Stoke, Lord Murray of. Epping Forest and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman—the inclusion in the Government's own agenda of a Bill to tackle discrimination against disabled people. In so doing, I hope I do not seem to be indulging in the second house of the powerful speeches made by those noble Lords and the noble Baroness.
Since so many have campaigned so hard, including many noble Lords present today although not here in the Chamber at the moment, I shall claim for MENCAP only a little of the credit for moving hearts and minds. We asked for the promise of legislation in the gracious Speech, and we have that promise. It is surely proper that the basic citizenship rights of disabled people should be addressed in Government proposals for legislation rather than in a Private Member's Bill. I hope that the history of attempts to block substantive legislation is now merely history.

233
There were times during the last Session when I was more saddened than amused to see Westminster farce challenge Whitehall farce—although I think the word "challenge" is misapplied. At least our original version down the road excited laughter and some degree of happiness. The proceedings in the other place last summer were absurdly futile and excited only sadness and frustration. I hope and believe that the Government have now got their shoulders to the wheel instead of their feet under it—a much more dignified, creative and comfortable posture.
The Minister has been listening to disabled people and to those who speak for disabled people. He has been to America to look at how the Americans with Disabilities Act is working. I am not one of those who believes that American pilgrimages necessarily resolve British problems, but I am sure that we can learn from those who have ventured before us, and who have secured much good without breaking the bank.
Nearer home, I chaired last month—as a politically neutral person—a meeting of the Conservative Disability Group at its annual conference, at which there was the same support for change that the hundreds of responses to the Government's consultative document have reflected. So we are moving forward, although there is still much to do. I welcome the principle of the Bill. As to its scope, we can only speculate at present.
Alice Etherington of MENCAP and People First—a powerful advocate for herself and for others with a learning disability—pointed out at our hugely successful three-day Gateway/MENCAP conference earlier this month, that legislation needs to cover education, transport and financial services, as well as employment and shopping, if it is to support people's rights across the whole range of their daily experiences of denial of those rights.
Those who, unlike your Lordships, can properly debate matters of taxation will have noted the suggestion from others that disabled people working for small employers might more readily be protected were there tax concessions in relation to facilities provided for them by their employers.
A narrowly drawn Bill will not be any use to disabled people or bring any credit to the Government. I am reminded that in the recent Sadler's Wells production of "Cinderella", which finished on Saturday, the wicked step-mother cuts off her daughter's toes to get her feet down to the required size. The result is that the wretched girl loses both the prince and her ability to walk. Some of us are suspicious of the Treasury as a potential wicked step-mother to this Bill.
Those of us who enjoy our citizenship rights—and, as Members of your Lordships' House, even a measure of privilege—talk about anti-discrimination with passion, but inevitably with some detachment. We are talking in the main about the rights of other people.
I have already quoted one self-advocate at MENCAP's Blackpool conference. During a conference break a young married woman with learning disability, very close to tears, told how she and her husband had been driven from their flat. They had suffered verbal abuse; excrement had been pushed through the letterbox; they had been physically assaulted, all
234
because they had a learning disability. Others at that conference had similar stories to tell. Most of them less dramatic, though equally painful.
Violence and intimidation are not legal, but all the while discrimination is legal some of our fellow citizens will suffer from those around them. As Robert Peel said in another place—and certainly at another time—of the sufferings in the Ireland of his day:
"Just how much suffering on the part of other people do we tolerate before we do something about it?"
8.38 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this debate has been one in which we have drawn much attention to the exact subject that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has been talking about. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and many other noble Lords have spoken with considerable authority about the proposed legislation on disabilities. This is something which I propose primarily to speak to, but I shall limit my comments to a very short space of time.
Primarily, what was initially proposed in the Bill was something which gave people rights—rights to be treated as other people, with some degree of assistance, in achieving their potential as full members of society, as full human beings. That right has been granted to virtually every other section of society. A decision that you shall not do something because of something which is quite arbitrary and over which you have no control has been removed.
If it can be done for people on the grounds of race, colour of skin or gender, it should be done for those who have a disability, for the simple reason that a disability is not something over which a person has control. Indeed, drawing on that analogy, the proposals which are put in front of us —that we shall have assistance for certain things that cannot be done by people in certain types of activity—seem a little like confronting a very hungry person with a wonderful nouvelle cuisine meal which looks very nice but does not satisfy the appetite.
We talk about employment and about access to certain goods and services. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, employment rights are of absolutely no use unless there is a guarantee of the right to get to where that employment takes place. One cannot subdivide the human experience into different pieces like that. It just does not work.
I and many other Members of this House have tried to convince the noble Baroness—with, I may say, a considerable degree of success—that certain types of advice are necessary on education Bills. We can very gladly say that we do not have to go through that process again, at least this time. We have always said that information is needed because of the types and range of disabilities and the subdivisions within the bands of disability. One cannot draw an arbitrary line about something called disability. Unless we tackle the whole of the problem, the goal will be missed. Disability is not something that can be divided into certain types of activity.

235
Finally, the type of legislation that we have in front of us must be greatly enhanced—or perhaps it is merely the first step along a road. Personally, I should rather have all the legislation done at once; but even if it is done in a series of tranches, it will be all right, so long as we get to where we are going and address the rights of disabled people in all the activities of society. If we do not do so, we shall fail to reach even the modest goals that the Government's proposals suggest.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, in my judgment, this debate has been of a very high standard, which I must try to maintain. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Attenborough on a brilliant maiden speech in philosophy and concept. Of the other two maiden speakers, my noble friend Lord Dubs made a speech which was extremely pertinent to the subject of this debate. I was not present to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, but I have been told that it was excellent. I have thus been able to congratulate my three colleagues.
In my judgment, the gracious Speech should be more than a catalogue of forthcoming attractions. It should also express concern for what I should like to call the ethos of our society—the spirit and indeed the soul of life as we live it today. I composed those words before I knew that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury was to speak in the debate. He spoke wonderfully well on a whole range of subjects of concern to our society. I should like to express my appreciation of the service that he has done us today.
Such thoughts occurred to me as I contemplated the launch of the national lottery, about which I intend to speak. It proved to be a total marketing operation, devoid of any sense of ideals or fairness toward competing competitions such as the pools or premium bonds. Most importantly, it trampled underfoot all the consideration that we should have for the charities. Charities are important. There are 200,000 charities in this country and 500,000 voluntary bodies. They are the lifeblood of our community.
I have always supported the national lottery. I was a member of the National Lottery Promotion Company which championed it. I supported it in Parliament by speech and vote and I bought tickets last week. So my concerns do not arise from hostility to its concept. I am concerned that the operation should be promoted fairly and should respect the interests of everyone else in the field. The public good should receive equal consideration to the marketing promotion of the lottery.
As I see the matter, Ministers have laid no responsibility upon the director general of the lottery (who awarded the lottery to Camelot) to ensure that the public good was a factor in determining who should operate the new bonanza. The football pools, which I also support, have made a magnificent contribution to the Football Trust, which I myself instituted. Now, every football ground in the country has been transformed in matters of comfort and improved in safety. Also, the pools-funded Foundation for Sport and the Arts has accepted responsibility to aid the whole
236
field of sport and art. The football pools have every right to feel aggrieved by the treatment that they receive in comparison with the lottery. They and the betting industry are now subject to direct competition from the lottery. But, unlike the lottery, they are excluded from access to television. They cannot even buy time to advertise their wares—nor, incidentally, can the premium bonds do so.
Yet the extent to which the BBC promoted the lottery—several minutes at a time of free advertising—was a blatant abuse of its charter. The advertising went far beyond anything which could be said to be advertising the programme when the draw took place. The advertising of the BBC amounted to no less than a promotion of the lottery itself. As I said, that is an abuse of its charter. It is a matter of considerable importance and is directly the responsibility of the Home Office. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether he and his colleagues will investigate this matter and report back to Parliament on it.
The pools have other sources of complaint. A roll-over prize, which the lottery can operate, cannot be undertaken by the pools until it has been first operated by the national lottery. That seems an extraordinary state of affairs. Unlike the national lottery, the pools cannot show the checking of pools coupons, nor can they take part in handing out any of the prizes won on the pools in the newsagent shops where the tickets were bought. Incidentally —this is a figure which I came across only today and will probably astound your Lordships, as it did me—if one adds up the tax that the pools pay and the donations that they now make to good causes through the Football Trust and the foundation, it seems that the pools now pay out 47 per cent. of their income in that way. The lottery pays out 40 per cent. of its income in that way. That is an astonishing comparison. I feel that the Chancellor should examine the discrepancy in his forthcoming Budget. Again, the national lottery can pay out small prize money at the shops. That, as I said, is unlawful for the pools to do.
Finally, I should like to turn to the matter of charities. I ask the House to consider the treatment suffered by charities. When the Lottery Bill first appeared, there was no provision for charities. That was added later in response to widespread criticism from all parts of the House regarding the likely effect of the lottery upon charities. The charities receive 6p in the pound for every ticket sold in the national lottery. It is already clear that charity income will suffer as a result of the over-the-top promotion of the national lottery. The amount for the lottery launch alone is said to he £45 million—an astronomical sum and grotesquely over the top in my judgment. If that sort of advertising is maintained it will be certain to damage every other lottery in the land.
It may be recalled that Part II of the Charities Act 1993 stipulated that in the case of joint ventures—private companies operating with charities—the tickets must clearly state how much of the stake money goes to the charity. I think most of us would support that. Why does that principle not affect the national lottery? As I say, the contribution is 6p, yet most of the propaganda for the national lottery sought to suggest that the way to support charities was to buy national lottery tickets. That

237
is quite ludicrous. If we want to support a charity, we must give £1 to the charity and not give £1 to the lottery, which will then give the charity 6p. I remind the House again that the 6p is not a donation to the charity. It is 6p to compensate the charities for the income which it is assessed that they will lose as a result of the operation.
The charities say that they are already experiencing considerable problems in promoting their causes because of the saturation coverage of the national lottery. Tenovous —a group of 10 charities which gave themselves that name —has been operating at 150 sale points in Tesco stores. That has now been reduced to 50 because of competition from the national lottery. There is therefore a direct reduction of its income as a result of the national lottery. Littlewoods Pools tell me that it has been asked to lend its professional expertise to promote charity lotteries, which it is pleased to do. But it is experiencing the greatest possible difficulty, acting on behalf of charities, in obtaining outlets in shops and supermarkets because the lottery seems to win every time.
Some may say that it is too early to judge the effect of lotteries upon charity giving. I do not think so. For example, in Ireland, where there has been a lottery for some time, they have now been able to measure the reduction of income to charities and they put it at 4 per cent. Here it has been estimated that the drop will be around 7 per cent. or £200 million a year—an exceedingly large figure.
The Institute of Charity Fund Raising Managers is so concerned about the way in which the national lottery is being launched that it wanted to complain to the Advertising Standards Authority against Camelot. It said that in its view,
"the advertisement for the lottery could lead the public to believe they are giving for charity when they are not".
As I said before, they are compensating charities for loss of revenue. That is a universal view in the charity world. Michael Taylor, the director of Christian Aid, put it very starkly when he said,
"We positively hate the ads".
We must take account of those views.
The institute estimates that at least £100 million per annum will be lost to charities. I see that on the tape today it was stated that £2.5 million of this week's lottery will go to help the charities. If there are 52 charities, that amounts to £125 million, which is well short of the £200 million which the charities already estimate they will be losing. The £45 million spent on the launch of the lottery and its massive advertising campaign is distorting the concept of charity giving and therefore it should be a matter of great concern to us all. It is damaging the ethos and community spirit of our society. It must be reined in.
In this country charities are a great national asset. They save the country billions of pounds. Even more important, they provide thousands of hours of dedicated voluntary service—service which money cannot buy. I submit that it is the duty of Parliament, and especially of government, above all to protect the position of the charities. I hope that the Government can assure us tonight that they will accept that responsibility and pay
238
close attention to the operation of the national lottery which quite properly causes many of its supporters the greatest possible anxiety.
8.55 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, although not mentioned in Her Majesty's speech, the news that a children Bill for Scotland was going to form part of the "other measures" to be laid before us, was welcome indeed. This evening I am wearing my hat as the Lords' Convenor of the Scottish All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children, which I believe I took over from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, who spoke earlier. I should like to endorse every word he said, particularly in regard to the timescale between the publication of the Bill and any Second Reading or further debate on it.
The Children Act 1989 affected mainly England and Wales. The last major piece of legislation affecting children in Scotland was the 1968 Social Work (Scotland) Act, so it is now 26 years since the law regarding children in Scotland was revised. The Child Care Law Review was set up in 1988 and published its report in 1990. The Scottish Law Commission made its recommendations on family law in 1992. The consultation period for adoption law ended on 31st August 1993. We have had Lord Clyde's report on the Orkney child abuse inquiry and a number of others which have shown, as did the Cleveland inquiry in England, that all is not well with the law as it stands or with related matters which will, I hope, be included in the Bill. Will the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, be able to tell us in his winding-up speech when the Government expect the Bill to be published? Will he also be able to answer a few more questions?
A checklist of items which the Scottish All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children would like to see included in the Bill was sent last summer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. Can the Minister say whether all the items included in that checklist have been incorporated in the Bill? Can he tell us also what the Government's intentions are regarding resources?
We understand that the Bill will be dealt with in another place by the Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Scotland—at least for Second Reading and Committee stages of the Bill. I heard, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that it would debate it on Monday, 5th December. Can that be so when that is less than a fortnight hence and the Bill is not yet available? How will its procedures work? Is the report true which appeared in the Herald, I think, last Thursday 17th November, that it would be able to call witnesses? If that is so, how will that work? Will children's organisations in Scotland which would like to give evidence or produce witnesses, be able to request a hearing, or will the committee alone decide whether or not it wishes to call any witnesses; and, if so, what witnesses they wish to call?
Finally, how will the Committee stage work in this House? Is it true, as the Herald suggests, that the legislation will be taken off the Floor of the House? If so, who will be able to table amendments and who will

239
be able to speak to them and vote on them? I know that I am asking the noble Lord a great many questions at this very early stage, but we should very much like to know where we stand.
9 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I too should like to join in welcoming and congratulating my two noble friends Lord Attenborough and Lord Dubs and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, on making their maiden speeches today.
It was about one year ago this week when I made my maiden speech. It seems only like five minutes ago; but it was a year ago. I can recall very clearly the ability of this House to make each individual Member making a maiden speech quite nervous. Even the most accomplished speakers, among whom I do not count myself, can be made nervous before they speak. Like most things in life, one remembers the good points and forgets the pain very quickly. I remember the friendliness with which my speech was received. I remember too, and continue to value, the friendship and friendliness of Members across all the divides in this House. I believe that the varied breadth of experience and working life which the three new noble Lords will bring to this House will add to what I very quickly learnt was the wonderful voice of experience and knowledge about life as it is. I hope that the noble Lords will join in and enjoy the debates, some of which are more enjoyable than others.
This evening we have had a very wide-ranging debate and it is right that we do. I sat here thinking about the topic I wish to talk about, which is unemployment. I came to the view that so many of the issues which have been discussed feed back to that key issue for each one of us; namely, employment and unemployment. It touches all of us: it is the meal ticket for so many in society. When we meet someone new, we still ask the question: "What do you do?". There is still a stigma in society about being unemployed.
So it was with great disappointment, in listening to the gracious Speech, that I found absolutely nothing in it which would give the unemployed hope or any kind of vision of their value in society and of what measures the Government would be taking in the next Session to attack this problem at the core of our society. As I see it, the only measure in the gracious Speech—and it was mentioned from the Dispatch Box today by the Minister—is the job seeker's allowance. That is not a measure to help the unemployed; it is not a measure to reduce unemployment; and it is not a measure which will contribute in any constructive way to helping unemployed people find employment.
I say that because I believe it is a breach of contract, not in the legal sense, but on the basis of integrity and fairness. When people have been in work they have paid through their national insurance contributions for this benefit. The Government have broken their contract with them by cutting the benefit in half as the job seeker's allowance will do. It is not as though there are not already in place regulations which will deal with the
240
so-called work shy or people who do not want work. I say "so-called", and I shall return to that issue in a moment.
There are three compulsory measures which the Government have introduced for the unemployed. They are the restart interviews, job plan workshops and restart courses. There are seven non-compulsory measures that the unemployed have to be tested against, too. They are non-compulsory; but they can be punitive because the refusal of an unemployed person to take part in one of the seven voluntary measures can result in a decision that they are not actively seeking work and therefore their benefit can be withheld and they are disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit.
I say that I am disappointed by the content of the gracious Speech. When one looks at the British social attitudes survey which was recently published, it shows that the British people are actually more in touch with the reality of what is going on than the Government. The people who were polled in that survey said that they did not believe that the unemployed were not looking for work or were unemployed voluntarily. Among all the issues that have rightly been debated this evening, the issue of unemployment, according to a Gallup poll which I looked at today, is the single most important issue. People believe that it is the key issue even above crime and law and order.
I know that Ministers on the Benches opposite will probably say that I am completely out of touch and will question whether I have looked at the figures because unemployment is coming down. The numbers registered for unemployment may be coming down but I suggest that the number of people employed are also falling at a faster rate. The figures which are available from the Department of Employment appear to contradict each other and I am not too sure whether that department is absolutely positive about their base.
It is pretty clear that the number of people in work in Britain is declining. It is estimated that something like 100,000 fewer people are in work today than a year ago. Even the Treasury itself, in its summer forecast, conceded that employment has contributed relatively little to the fall in employment. The jobs which we have seen grow are part-time jobs, casual jobs and very low paid jobs. The American term "the working poor" is here today with us in Britain and is a reality. Indeed, since the abolition of the wages councils, 37 per cent. of those who were formerly covered by them have seen a drop in their wages. That is what has happened since that underpinning has been removed.
So there is no evidence that there is a pool of workshy people who need measure after measure to try to persuade them to work. The simple question is: where are the jobs? What are the Government doing about creating work? I agree with what my noble friend Lord McCarthy said on that. Why, for instance, cannot we see a release of the £6 billion that is held by local authorities following the sale of council houses? That money could help to start the economy by providing work for people.
Why do not the Government show more concern about the reduction in investment? Investment in the previous two quarters was among the lowest that this

241
country has seen. We have seen a gradual deterioration in the level of investment at a time when the work that is created is in the high-tech and added value area.
Britain has a bad reputation for training. Out of the 22 countries in the OECD, we come 21st for the low skills of our workforce. Between 1979 and 1991, 5 per cent. of the companies of our partners in the European Union reported skills shortages. In Britain the figure was 14 per cent. What we need right now is training for our people that will give them the opportunity to be able to offer the skills, helped by Government policies, which would open up the gates and make work available.
Against that background, I was therefore disturbed to read that the Government appear to be letting go of something like £525 million which the European Union is trying to give us for training employees in frontline companies which are going through a restructuring process. I am sure that all noble Lords could list at least three industries, and many companies, which are having to go through restructuring. So why are we not claiming those training funds from the European Union? I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that we are going to claim that money and that those newspaper reports are incorrect. However, I have to say that the newspaper concerned was the Financial Times.
I should now like to raise an issue which has been discussed in the media although not in the gracious Speech. I ask the Minister whether we shall be seeing measures to abolish industrial injury benefits, again transferring more costs on to employers and making workers even more vulnerable.
We are to have a Bill on disabilities. People with disabilities will certainly take great heart from the many speeches that have been made today in support of proper measures to provide equal dignity for people with disabilities. I support all the statements that have been made in that regard.
I should like to conclude by referring to pensions, which we shall be debating in depth when that Bill is introduced. When looked at in a cursory way, it does not seem possible to argue against equalising pensions at 65 because it appears to be only a question of equality. However, I ask the House to bear in mind the fact that the majority of women in Britain in the age group to which we are referring are not covered by occupational pensions, so we would be saying to them, "If you do not have work, you will be means-tested", and we would be putting that vulnerable group at the bottom of the economic ladder.
When the gracious Speech was given, the newspapers said that it was empty. They said that it did not contain anything and they asked what we were going to do this Session. I do not agree with that view. I believe that when we come to discuss the issues that were touched on in the gracious Speech, we shall realise that we are dealing with some pretty nasty provisions which do nothing to look after, to help, to support, to give dignity
242
or to create the "feel good" factor which is so elusive in Britain today. The gracious Speech does nothing to help the vulnerable.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I too should like to join in the congratulations that have been paid to the three maiden speakers. I congratulate particularly my noble friend Lord Dubs. I was amused by his story that in another place he once made a speech of which nobody took any notice. If he has a similar success in this place and makes only one speech of which nobody takes any notice he will have made an exceptional contribution.
Several noble Lords have spoken about the audible sigh of relief that was heard throughout the country when it became clear that there would be no further legislation on education. That is indeed to be welcomed. Since this administration was elected in 1979 there have been only two years without any education legislation. This year will be the third. However, the Government should not be under the impression that that sense of relief in any way indicates acceptance of the successive education Acts. No, it indicates a desire for stability, continuity and for allowing members of the teaching profession to be free to act as the professionals that we pay them to be.
It is worth reflecting on some of the reforms that we have seen in recent years. What of grant-maintained schools? Of the 23,000 schools in England and Wales only some 1,000 have grant-maintained status and only four new grant-maintained schools were created in October this year. That policy is now in collapse. In an interview published in the Independent newspaper on 19th October this year, the Secretary of State said that she had no special powers to speed up the rate of schools opting out. However, she said that the local government review would propel more schools into grant-maintained status as they feel uncertain about their future. Is that not a dishonest and wrong way to use the local government review? It was not part of the Local Government Commission's brief and it flies in the face of a true choice being offered to governing bodies as they consider their school status each year.
What of the other reforms? What of the national curriculum? Sir Ron Dearing is to be congratulated on producing the new national curriculum, but what a price we have had to pay to reach that point. Against a background of Government indecision we have seen teachers' workload, resignations and early retirements rising. That is to say nothing of the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been spent and the some seven years it has taken us to reach this point. If Sir Ron Dearing is to be congratulated, then the traumas and costs of the national curriculum should be laid firmly at the Government's door.
A further plank of the reforms we have seen in recent years is the introduction of league tables. Today, of course, we have seen this year's much-vaunted, much-publicised results. I must confess that I have always found the whole debate about league tables somewhat sterile. As far as I can judge, all the political parties agree that the added value —to use the jargon—

243
which a school gives a child properly reflects the quality of the school rather than do crude examination results. The difficulty, of course, is that added value is difficult to measure whereas examination results are simple to measure and thus simple to tabulate.
The political debate has been whether the examination results alone are so crude that when they are put in the national league tables they can actively mislead parents. As I said, I find this a sterile debate as it is not tables, in whatever form they come, or tests, however consistent they be, which will raise standards. It is good teachers who raise standards; it is proper resources that raise standards. I shall be much happier when the political spotlight turns to the quality of teachers in our schools and the resources we choose to make available to them rather than to testing and tables.
Earlier this year we saw the publication of the Parent's Charter. I shall say nothing about the lack of consultation or the great expense incurred in posting it to every household. The two watchwords in the charter were "standards" and "choice". I should be more impressed by the Government's concern for standards had they accepted that there is a link between resources and standards. Parents who send their children to private schools know that that link exists. Indeed, all parents know that that link exists. Why do not the Government produce league tables showing the money spent on a child's education versus the examination results achieved?
As to choice, that is surely the most abused word in the education lexicon. Never mind that parents are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the choice made available to them, judging from the number of appeals. Choice for an 11 year-old in my borough, which is the Conservative-controlled borough of Wandsworth, means a choice between specialisations. I do not want my daughter to be given a choice between specialisations when she is 11 years old. Like all parents, I believe, I want her to have a broadly based and thorough education so that she is better able to exercise her own choice later in life. I know of no evidence that parents are seeking greater specialisation for their children at that young age.
The Government were right to allow for a period of calm in the education world. It would be churlish of me not to acknowledge their successes with the national curriculum and the local management of schools. However, I hope that they will not continue to pursue policies which are unpopular and proving to be unworkable, and which divert attention from the true education debate that we should all be having. That debate should be about the resources we make available, and the quality of teachers in our schools. Those, not tests and tables, are what matter.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not hear the maiden speeches due to a long-standing engagement that I had outside the Palace of Westminster. My regret is made even deeper as a result of the great compliments that I have heard about them.
244
I wonder how long, and what more must it take, before the issue of harmonisation with Central European Time can be included in a Queen's Speech. How many layers of incomprehension and indecision have to be penetrated before common sense can prevail in the Home Office summer time department? Does the Minister agree that it took at least 15 previous Queen's Speeches, and I believe more than 15 Conservative Ministers of Transport, before there was an acknowledgement of the need for a high-speed rail link to connect our capital city with the rest of Europe? If this is, indeed, an indicator of the speed of a government department's recognition of the blindingly obvious, how long will it take the Home Office to acknowledge the need for this country to harmonise with Central European Time?
The Home Office has apparently been "considering Summer Time" for more than five years. During this period, we have not been allowed to have a proper debate on the matter in your Lordships' House. Nor is there any mention in the Queen's Speech of a government Bill being put before us, and I do not count the lottery of Private Members' Bills which is to take place this Thursday as either a positive or a serious effort by the Government to bring this country any closer to harmonisation of its timescale with Europe. However, if the Private Member's Bill to harmonise our timescale with Europe is fortunate enough to be selected for debate in the other place, will the Minister say whether the Government will bring it to the statute book or whether it is their intention further to delay making a decision on the matter in order to allow the Home Office yet more time for consideration of the evidence put before it since the consultative document of June 1989?
If nothing happens on Thursday, what will the Government's position on time harmonisation be? Will we in your Lordships' House be allowed time to debate the consultation document, even though it is now five years out of date? Will Her Majesty's Official Opposition, which so far as I am aware has revealed nothing of its intentions on the subject of Central European Time, make its position clear? Will the Liberal Democrats, who are also known Europhiles, make their position somewhat clearer?
Many organisations—for instance, British Rail, British Airways, the CBI, the tourist boards, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the Police Federation—have put before the Government strong and convincing evidence for extended daylight in the afternoons. As yet there has been a nil response from the Government, so what are the advantages of retaining the status quo? Who are the politicians, and what interests do they represent, who are putting forward arguments to retain the status quo? On what hard evidence are those arguments based?
The only evidence that we have on which to base these facts is the consultative document and recent submissions from interests such as those that I have mentioned. The majority of those organisations or companies supported and continue to support the concept of single/double summer time—that is,

245
harmonisation with Central European Time—which will allow for extra daylight in the afternoons as opposed to the mornings.
Will the Minister in reply agree that the Government have managed to give an impression that Scottish farming interests north of the Tweed are somehow against changing over to harmonisation with the European timescale? What farming operations can the Minister name that will be affected by such a change? What crops are grown between the months of November and the following spring? Is the Minister aware that the habits of domestic animals and their wildlife counterparts are light-related not time-related? At these latitudes, farmers throughout Europe are inclined to farm indoors. Therefore these are controlled conditions which the farmer can operate at his own convenience and will not be related to Central European Time. Farmers from northern Norway to southern Spain are not objecting to CET, so why should Scottish farmers be any different?
If the farmers are not affected, what about commercial organisations such as those covered by the somewhat random list appearing in the back of the consultative document? British Petroleum, which I think is the most northern oil rig operator, was excluded, whereas the Zip Fastener Corporation was included for some reason. Perhaps civil servants from the Home Office may not be fully aware that best dressed Scots residing north of the Tweed have little use of the products of that worthy company.
I suppose that it is not fair to blame the Home Office for lack of experience in matters which go on north of Hadrian's Wall or, indeed, on business matters because they are not part of its brief. Therefore, will the Secretary of State for the Home Office consider relinquishing his responsibilities for summer time to the President of the Board of Trade? At least he may be able to appreciate the seriousness of the present uncertain situation as set out in the Confederation of British Industry's plea to the Government, which I believe was submitted last month.
Is the noble Lord aware that only four hours of every working day in the United Kingdom are in harmony with those in Europe? Will the Minister set out what advantages flow from that either to the City or any other organisation which is trying to do business in the £300 million market of Europe?
The Queen's Speech was meant to be geared and focused on Europe. In fact, it was focused to the extent that a vote of confidence may even have to be taken on the Government's stand. I have no confidence in any government who fail to recognise the timescale as it relates to Europe. The measure to which I refer is popular. Everyone to whom I have spoken, including organisations, wish it to be adopted and yet it has been excluded. I should have thought that the Government would be in need of such a popular measure these days. Will they please consider bringing it forward?
There is another point on which I can speak as an individual from these Benches. People and ordinary voters outside ask, "What about a change of government? Will it make any difference?" If the opposition parties are to take the place of government
246
in a very short time if there is a vote of confidence, they must make clear what is their position with regard to Central European Time. The position has not been made clear. An all-party committee has been fiddling about with the matter for a long time.
I believe that our debates on the Queen's Speech allow one a sentence or two of philosophy. Is it not the case that many people outside the Palace of Westminster believe that politicians are out of touch and are playing a game which is not related to reality? I have tried to put forward one proposal; namely, in relation to Central European Time. Tens of thousands of passengers are using the new train service. The inconvenience, the tiresomeness; the lack of competition which that minor irritation causes seem to be of no concern whatever to the Government.
Why is that so? Why is nothing said about it in the Houses of Parliament? A great deal is said about it outside. In the taxi coming here, the taxi driver was complaining to me about the dark evenings and I said that I was going to try to put that right tonight. But it is not my business to do that. I merely seek to draw to the attention of Her Majesty's Government that many people are irritated and confused by their lack of action. If it takes as much time to get through to the civil servants and to the Minister concerned as it took in relation to the necessity of a high speed rail link to link our capital with the rail system of Europe, then there will be another 10 years of consideration by the summer time department of the Home Office.
9.24 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I rise to make a personal contribution from the Back Benches at this stage because when we consider two aspects of Scottish legislation—namely, the criminal justice Bill and the children Bill for Scotland—I hope to be sitting on the Front Bench, unless something disastrous happens between now and then.
It is something of a landmark to be standing here praising the gracious Speech and, indeed, praising the present Administration because, lo and behold, we do not have only one Bill for Scotland this year. We have two. That represents a 100 per cent. increase in productivity on the part of the Scottish Office in bringing matters which concern people in Scotland before your Lordships' House.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, mentioned the number of Bills we have had since 1979 relating to criminal justice in Scotland. I have a list of them. In 1980 there was the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act; in 1982 the Criminal Justice Act and some mental health Acts; and in 1985 the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act. In 1987 we had the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act and in 1988 the Road Traffic Offenders Act. In 1990 there was the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act. In 1991 we had the War Crimes Act and in 1993 a variety of criminal legislation, if one can call it that. Then there was 1994. There has been a whole plethora of legislation.

247
Having made that observation, I am pleased to know that the Government have in mind the bringing into force of a consolidating measure to bring all that legislation together because, from a practitioner's point of view, it is an absolute nightmare. It may be very good for academics who write books and supplements to them, but for a legal practitioner it is quite a horrendous way to practise the law.
Criticism has been levelled at the Government about the lack of consultation leading to the introduction of the criminal justice Bill. I believe that there is a great deal to be said for that. But I hope that it will be remedied in your Lordships' House during the Committee and Report stages when, no doubt, we shall be snowed under with amendments from various people who are interested in the criminal justice system in Scotland.
I noted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, said that there was all-party support for the Bill, thus giving the impression to the public that it would go through on the nod, so to speak. I should point out that we shall nod it back to the Government from this side of the House. It will not have an easy passage through this Chamber because it is one of the last chances that we shall have to get a Bill of some kind sorted out before the present Administration go out of office. We shall treat the Bill with respect. We shall treat it in the way that Bills are treated in your Lordships' House; namely, with a view to amending conservatively, if I may put that in the legal sense. However, we shall not let silly proposals go through without fighting them.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships just one example, so as to give notice to Her Majesty's Government. Intrusions into the right of silence of the accused in Scotland will not—I say "Not" with a capital n—be tolerated north of the Border. We will not have Her Majesty's Government for Scotland aping what has happened in England. We do not want that. We have separate legal systems. For example, what is happening in Clause 26 of the Bill? I give that as a trailer, so to speak, to the debates we may have. It provides that the prosecutor can comment on the failure of the accused to give evidence.
We live in a country—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—where the right to silence is one of the great features of our legal system. Are we to allow prosecutors, some of whom, if I may so express it, are not too clever and who do not have a level of competence, to be let loose on juries and to comment on the failure of an accused to give evidence, bearing in mind the right to silence? If, for example, an over-the-top prosecutor says, and I take my own name by way of example, "By the way, members of the jury, you will have noticed that, despite all the evidence, Mr. Macaulay—ho, ho!—didn't go into the witness box to give evidence", the judge will then instruct the jury that they may draw such inferences as they may see fit from my failure to give evidence. What sort of legal system is that?
248
Further, what if the prosecutor goes right over the top? I am only giving your Lordships a minimal example because I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has heard more prosecutors in action than I have. We have both been prosecutors in our own time. However, when irresponsible prosecutors are given such leeway to attack the failure of the accused to give evidence, we have real trouble. What does the judge do about it? At present, judges in Scotland are allowed to comment on the failure of the accused to give evidence. However, they have been told that they must exercise a great deal of restraint when making any comment. How does the judge control the wild prosecutor? The more the judge says to the jury, "You will ignore what Mr. X, the prosecutor, said to you", the more he draws attention to the fact that the accused has not given evidence. So we have a complete mixter-maxter of evidential rubbish. So long as the presumption of innocence prevails in this country—and that is a very important presumption—we must not make unnecessary inroads into it.
Some of your Lordships last Friday may have seen a television programme called "The Trial". There are to be four more programmes. The case shown was a classic example of where failure to give evidence may very well have been the deciding factor in convicting the defendant. I do not know anything about the facts of the case, but having watched the programme it seems to me that it may very well have been that the failure of the accused to give evidence to challenge the case against him sent a message to the jury that they should find him guilty.
We are in danger of making the failure to give evidence amount to corroboration of guilt in the mind of the jury. It is all very well for people to say that that is not how the law works. We are not dealing with the law; we are dealing with juries. If silent messages are sent to the jury—although not deliberately—by prosecutors and judges, then the whole administration of justice is turned on its head.
When it comes to the Committee and Report stages of the Bill, the profession in Scotland will not take this change lying down. The profession will protect the interests of the accused so long as it can until the Government override it. Therefore, the Government should be very careful when exercising any intrusion into our system.
The Government should be very careful because they are already being criticised north of the Border for introducing mirror image legislation. We all know what happened in your Lordships' House during the passage of the English Bill. Your Lordships do not indulge in riots, but there was as near a riot as I have seen in your Lordships' House on occasion. We cannot accept mirror image legislation for Scotland. We must have legislation which deals with the position in Scotland.
If there is to be the effective abolition of the right to silence, there is one matter we must consider. Do we examine the whole court system? Do we abolish completely the adversarial system of justice? There would only be protection for the accused if we had an investigative form of justice such as exists in France. At present we are in severe danger of falling into a halfway

249
house. We must consider the matter seriously and ensure that no injustice is done. If a jury are told that they can draw such inferences as they think fit, that is incapable of correction in an appeal court. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, who sits in the appeal court, may or may not confirm what I say. We are entering very dangerous territory in the criminal justice Bill.
There are two other matters I wish to deal with. The first concerns sentencing guidelines. If I have read my newspapers correctly, in England in the past year there have been several cases in which judges at the local level have said publicly that they wish they could sentence someone to five years imprisonment, or whatever it might be, but because of sentencing guidelines they can give only two years. The judge, who is sitting at the centre of the community, has heard the evidence, seen the accused and seen the victim. And what happens? He sentences the defendant to five years' imprisonment instead of the two years set out in the guidelines; the case goes to the appeal court, which is handed a file of papers. A pile of papers cannot compare with individuals. The appeal court does not see individuals; it does not see the agony and distress of the victim. The appeal court says that the appropriate sentence is two years and that the judge acted clearly outside the guidelines. I, for one, am not prepared to accept that.
I accept that inferior courts, as they are called in the Bill, should pay heed to what the appeal court may have said in appropriate cases. Any restriction on the freedom of a judge in the local community to impose what he considers an appropriate sentence has to be considered carefully.
As regards fiscal fines, we enter into desperately dangerous territory. Fiscal fines are now being considered for possession of cannabis. We have our own views as to whether it is right or wrong to smoke cannabis, or whatever one does with cannabis, just as people have views on whether or not it is right to drink. But what is happening in this regard has another dangerous aspect. We are going into a halfway house. If a youngster is found in possession of 0.25 milligrammes, or whatever it may be, of cannabis, obviously identifiable as being for personal use, the fiscal says, "All right, the fine is £15," and away the youngster goes. If he is again found in possession does he receive another fiscal fine? The fiscal fine—I speak personally—may encourage people to take cannabis because they will not go to prison. Suppliers will be encouraged to say to users, "Just take it. It's all right. If you're caught, you will just get a fiscal fine". Therefore we have to be careful to ensure that we are not too lax in the administration of justice in that respect.
As with road traffic offences, fiscal fines are an administrative convenience. It can be said, "We shall not bother the police or the courts. Just pay a £20 fine". We must be careful that we do not create a system of hidden justice. No one would know who had been found in possession of cannabis. The main point is that fiscal fines do not get to the root of the problem—the suppliers. You can fine kids until the cows come home. You can take 100 children in Campbeltown, Glasgow
250
or Edinburgh, fine them £20 each, and say, "You shouldn't have cannabis". But the basic question is, "Where did you get it from?" and you are no further ahead. Fiscal fines do not meet the problem of fighting drugs on the streets. However, we shall return to the issue later.
The noble Baroness, Lady Saltoun, has already dealt with the children Bill for Scotland. Perhaps I may pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser. He has kept in touch with those of us in the parliamentary group on children with regard to a children Bill. We understand that a Bill will be printed in the not too distant future. I believe it only fair to say that as with the criminal justice Bill there are many good things in it and many bad. We pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, for the interest he has shown and the communication he has had with those of us who have sought to have such a Bill introduced.
As I understand it, the children Bill quite properly concentrates on the reports of child abuse cases in the Orkneys, and so on. Another area of child abuse relates to parents who abuse their children publicly for their own interests. I refer to children who are caught up in a so-called tug of love. A family not too far from your Lordships' House is involved in that. Such children are exposed to publicity. They have to go to school the next day in a blaze of newspaper publicity. Nothing is done to protect them. No one represents those children. No one represents the two children down the road to whom I refer. No one says, "I don't care what you and you do with him and her but I don't want any publicity about it". There is no effective protection from publicity for children in this country.
We are all on the one side in this respect. I wish to see protection for children against exploitation by the newspapers once the Bill has gone through Parliament. I am sure that the Government will support this side of the House if that view were to be taken.
Another dangerous aspect relates to the exclusion of abusers. There is a proposal in the Bill that if a father or a mother is suspected of abusing a child, he or she will be excluded from the house. Going back to the presumption of innocence, that is a matter which must be dealt with extremely carefully. If a father is excluded from the house and people in the locality know and ask, "Why is Jimmy not at home tonight?", they may be told that the court has put him out. They ask why and are told, "Because he has been abusing the children". One can think of the local consequences: the fellow may well be found not guilty, but his reputation and standing in the community are wrecked and he may be subjected to physical abuse, as we know has happened.
There are many areas to be covered in the two important Scottish Bills. I have taken up some of your Lordships' time, but the rest of the time has been spent on England and Wales and I make no apology.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I should like to enter the dangerous ground of disputing fiscal fines but it occurs to me that perhaps I should have had the forethought to arrange for my twin brother to be here in my place. He is a lawyer and he might have been able to make a

251
contribution. However, not only would that have been dangerous legal ground but I might have been in the worrying situation of a possible charge of contempt and I do not know what might have happened to me.
I sense a sigh of relief in the House that we have come to the last speaker before the gap. I respectfully congratulate your Lordships on the speed with which we have got through business in the last hour. I shall conclude the speeches before the gap by drawing your Lordships' attention to what I believe to be the single most serious source of suffering in the community. That is, the continuing problem of care in the community for the mentally ill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, has already covered some of the ground and I have no desire to go over it again. However, I remind your Lordships that it covers an immense number of people. I believe that at any given time in the country there are 250,000 cases of schizophrenia. Of those, a high proportion—something like one in 10—eventually commit suicide. Although there is no cure, some 20 per cent. return to health by natural means, but the remaining 80 per cent. are subject to what the noble Baroness rightly referred to as the "revolving door" syndrome. The puzzle that confronts all those of us who have an interest in this large part of the community is how, in the new context of care in the community, we deal with that revolving door syndrome. It is said to be clinically necessary for those who suffer seriously from schizophrenia to return for hospital treatment from time to time, to all the facilities of a residential hospital.
There is an area of statistical confusion. A notable and respected authority, Professor Wing, has worked out that we require 52,000 beds in hospitals for mentally ill patients. We are told from the government Benches that there are in fact 80,000 beds available in hospitals and in residential homes in one place or another. But nowhere is it stated that in all the places where those beds are alleged to be the necessary facilities are also available for dealing with the revolving door syndrome. I ask Her Majesty's Government to clarify this issue.
There is a certain semantic problem. We are quite used to talking about long-stay patients and about acute and urgent cases. But now we are told that there is also the very large requirement—a larger requirement than for acute and urgent cases—for medium-stay beds in hospitals. I have yet to learn how that kind of requirement will be met. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will clarify that matter. From these Benches, we do not raise the issue in a political way. We are all on the same side.
We are fortunate in having in this House the Minister responsible at the Department of Health. She has an enormous understanding and commitment. We know that she is working the whole time to improve matters, and that matters are improving. Great progress has been made in the past few years and we hope that it will continue. There is a problem of resources, as the noble Baroness said, and that perhaps overshadows everything else. Whichever complexion of government we have,
252
there will still be a problem of resources. There can never be enough resources to provide all the facilities that this terribly difficult social problem needs.
I ask that when in the course of this Session we deal with the Bill that is to be put before us, and which we welcome, there will be greater supervision of violent cases discharged from hospital; but that that should not mask what is in scale the far greater and continuing problem of how to provide the treatment, care, and care in the community conditions that we require.
9.53 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, for the second year in a row I rise to wind up in the debate on the humble Address immediately on the heels of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who has spoken on the disaster of care in the community. For the second year in a row I have to say that I agree with everything that the noble Lord has said. I have to ask therefore why nothing has happened.
I am reminded of an incident in 1628. The Hampshire militia were unpaid. The deputy lieutenants reported that there was the danger of a mutiny. They wrote to the Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant, who happened also to be the Secretary of State, wrote back saying that there was no danger of a mutiny for the troops were too naked to be seen marching in public. I think that that is some part of the explanation as to why no action has been taken. But it is a misguided self-interest. I hope not to have to repeat this performance and achieve a hat trick in the debate on the humble Address next year.
We have had a real treat today. We have heard three maiden speeches of rare quality, of intellectual distinction, delivered with clarity and wit, based on real experience, and giving promise of many excellent speeches to come in future. I am delighted to have been able to listen to all of them. I look forward to the next speech from all three noble Lords.
We have also been privileged to listen to a most important speech from the most reverend Primate. I agree with a great deal more of it than the most reverend Primate might perhaps imagine. The difficulties created by what I think he called "the erosion of shared values" are deep and serious ones. We need to find ways of dealing with them, which we have not yet done.
The problem actually is an old one. It was first pin-pointed, so far as I know, by Henry Ireton in 1648. Henry Ireton had been weened on the doctrine of liberty of conscience. He was then faced with a man who claimed, on the grounds of liberty of conscience, freedom to commit murder and bigamy. Henry Ireton said:
"A man may make conscience to do some things which are contrary to common morality".
But the problem is, I think, that we really cannot go back; whether it is desirable or not, the way is not open. The difference of values around society is getting wider, and will continue to do so. So what we really need to think about is ways of accommodating the difference. John Stuart Mill tried to find one. Whether there is now sufficient agreement about what constitutes harm to others is a problem, but it is a problem that I would like to think we will be thinking about in future.

253
I hope the Minister when he replies will answer the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, about why it is that the unemployment and employment figures are both falling at the same time. I would also like to know the answer to that question, and if the Minister can answer it I shall listen with very great interest.
I would like to share the general welcome in the House for the inclusion in the gracious Speech of Bills based on the reports of the Law Commission. I remember the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, last year; it was a very compelling speech. I hope that this is a precedent which will be followed by governments of all political complexions.
I am particularly pleased by the inclusion of the Law Commission Bill on domestic violence, and I hope the Minister will convey to the noble and learned Lord his namesake my thanks for the time that he has given to us in a meeting on that subject. It appears to have been fruitful, and I would like to thank him. But, to quote the pill inside the sugar, if there should be in this Session further measures taken against legal aid, that will deprive the concession of a very great deal of its value.
Equality before the law is a vital ideal, even if it has never quite been realised. If people do not go to law in civil cases, the alternatives are often worse. In some areas we are getting reports of people pouring petrol through each other's letter-boxes and setting them alight rather than going to law. One may wonder in that context whether legal aid is cheap at the price.
If the noble and learned Lord should consider placing regional cash limits on legal aid—which is an idea that I have heard discussed—I hope that before doing so his department will study the Social Policy Research Unit report from the University of York on the operation of the Social Fund. It has used that cash-limiting principle, and I think that before the noble and learned Lord's department considers using such a method it should consider the well-known difficulties it has run into in the only serious government attempt to operate it.
I would also like to welcome in principle the Bill to implement the Barber judgment on pension ages. It is an international obligation, and in one form or another that Bill must be passed. When it gets to the Committee stage, we shall be concerned with two points. One is the possibility of introducing some degree of flexibility into the retiring ages; the other is about strengthening the safeguards proposed in the Goode Report. Our view is that those safeguards, particularly where they concern the employee and pensioner trustees and the possibility of removing them, are not quite strong enough. We should like to see them strengthened.
Of course, there are matters that I should like to have seen in the gracious Speech which I did not see. I should like to have seen something on the peculiar difficulties which the young are now facing. I have drawn the Minister's attention to the report Teenagers at Risk, published by the Royal Philanthropic Society and the Trust for the Study of Adolescence. That is one report among a very considerable body of work. It found that young people are simply not managing to get through the transition from dependence to full independence. That is the sum of a whole series of related problems.
254
For people between the ages of 16 and 18 there is a real problem in the application of the law of majority. It is one that might be suitable for a future reference to the Law Commission. At this time of night I shall spare the Minister the problems of 16 and 17 year-olds and the benefits system. He knows my views on that matter and he will hear more of them. Part of the problem is training, about which we have heard much tonight. The youth training scheme is providing neither suitable training nor a means of subsistence. I shall look with care at the forthcoming Budget to see whether anything is done to increase youth training allowances or to increase the ridiculous £15 bridging allowance that people receive at the end of their youth training. That has not been up-rated since 1988. The sum of £15 is not a living wage.
At the heart of this subject is that the Government must take on board that young people who leave home very often do so because their parents have left them no choice. Let me give the example found by Crisis in its report on beggars in London. The young person wanted to cease to be a Jehovah's Witness. In a free country that was his right. He was thrown out of his home for it and he received no benefit. Five years later he was still begging on the London streets. I am not proud of living in a country where that happens.
I also regret very deeply that there is nothing in the gracious Speech about the Child Support Act. I appreciate that the Government need time to respond to the Select Committee. I do not believe that they were altogether surprised by what the Select Committee said. I hope that tonight the Minister will be able to give us some indication of what his response may be. I must say that if the Government go no further than the Select Committee, it will not be enough to procure the continuance of the Act. We on these Benches believe that the basic ideas behind the Act were sound but that almost everything in the drafting of the Act went wrong.
There are two items in the Select Committee report which may be of real value. One is the proposal to make allowance for capital settlements. Just a couple of hours ago I was listening on the telephone to yet another person who for years had been paying everything that the court ordered him to pay, and rather more as well. All that is simply to be wiped out and ignored. He could not see the justice in that, and neither can I.
The other valuable concession concerns travel to work. In that regard the Select Committee has taken away with one hand what it has given with the other. It says that it will not allow the cost of a car if any proportion of it is for private use. Many people cannot go to work without a car; it simply is not physically possible. But if those people once use the car to do the weekly shopping, they will not be allowed the car any more; then they will not be able to work and they will be forced onto benefit. I do not see the sense in that.
We also need changes which benefit both sexes. For too long the matter has been discussed as a war between the sexes. We have enough of that already; we do not need any more. We need allowance for expenses which people are legally compelled to pay, like debts and council tax. If a formula does not allow for those

255
expenses, the only option open to the man will be to go bankrupt. The maintenance will then not be paid and the children will be no better off.
We need second families to be treated on an equal footing with first families. People who have those families in good faith owe support to them under the same principles which apply to the first. The formula for housing costs in particular does not adequately allow for that. Above all, we need recognition of the fact that no formula can possibly foresee all cases. There must be an element of discretion for cases that the formula does not foresee. Without that I do not think that the Act can survive. And when the Minister considers the Act he should look at the remarks made earlier today by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, regarding the drafting of statutes. All those remarks apply with especial force to the drafting of that Act.
In relation to the jobseeker's allowance, I accept the principle stated by Mr. Frank Field that it is an implied contract that the state owes support to the unemployed and in return the unemployed owe the state an attempt to look for work. I do not believe that that is in issue between any parts of the House. But there are matters that worry me quite deeply in that Bill. If I understood the White Paper correctly—I shall be delighted to be told that I have not —it is envisaging a total disentitlement from benefit to people who are found not to be seeking work.
First, I have doubts about the use of starvation as an instrument of policy. Secondly, I have some concern about what people who are totally disentitled to benefit will do instead and about whether what they do instead will actually be cheaper to the Treasury than what they were doing before. Thirdly, I have a concern regarding the number of people on benefit who are suffering from undiagnosed mental illness and who cannot always be held fully responsible for behaving in a way which other people may not think rational.
In that context I see an uncomfortable conjunction arising between the jobseeker's allowance benefit and a new test for incapacity benefit. I shall not weary the Minister with arguments on that with which I know he is already familiar. But for me that test is not a test of incapacity to work; it is a functional test of physical disability. If I find that somebody has passed that test I will not therefore believe that he or she is fit for work. If in two years' time coming out of the tube station I see large numbers of people holding placards saying, "Denied benefit and unfit for work", then, subject to an expert medical opinion, I will have a predisposition to believe them. I am sorry to say that; but that is the position.
Fourthly, as usual the Government have found sticks; but though they were considering them during the summer, they do not seem to have found many carrots. There is a really unfortunate poverty trap in the interlocking between income support and family credit. I shall mention only income support disregards, passported benefits and the cost of travelling to work and ask the Minister to look at the citizens advice bureaux report published yesterday, In Work, Out of Pocket. We shall be hearing more about that report this
256
Session. I ask him also to look at the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee on the role of incentives in the benefits system. If the department were able to move towards the letter and the spirit of that report, it would do a great deal to shorten the Committee stage of the Bill.
We have here a large collection of people found fit for work aged 16 and 17. There are the victims of care in the community; people in part-time work denied employment protection who are being, in effect, deprived of the protection of society and of the law. As soon as society deprives people of its protection, it always finds that it is spending money protecting itself against them. That is not only Tacitus' principle that it is proper to the human race to hate those whom we have hurt. People who have been on benefit and denied it do not simply cease to exist; they do something else. They may get ill. The cost of homelessness to the health service is formidable and I believe that there should be communication on that between the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health. After all, they do not have very far to go to make it. If such people do not fall ill, they may commit crime. I am not saying that that morally excuses them. I am not attempting to deny individual responsibility. But very few people in fact starve for choice.
If the Minister looks at the report from the Nottingham Young People's Benefit Campaign, Beg, Borrow or Steal, he will find there large numbers of people, mostly aged 16 or 17, stealing, as they put it, "to get money to live on". It found one person in Nottingham who was stealing in order to pay his poll tax. If that person had not been naturally law-abiding he would not have become a criminal. That is not where we ought to end up.
10.12 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, it seems to me that the gracious Speech is a bit of a non-event. The vacuum created by the disappearance of the privatisation of the Post Office, which I am glad about, has not been filled even though there are enough problems requiring attention. Nevertheless, we have had an excellent debate this evening. In particular, as all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have said, we have had three magnificent maiden speeches from noble Lords who have joined us after careers of immense distinction in their own chosen fields. As others have said, I hope that we hear a great deal more from them. We have had a couple of sparkling contributions from two seasoned performers in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford.
I cannot altogether follow the most reverend Primate about standards in public life, although I agree with him to some extent. I believe that he would agree that we have all lived through a very violent and brutal century and that has had, I fear, a coarsening effect. What the answers to that are I do not know. I agree with the most reverend Primate that standards in public life are immensely important.

257
Nevertheless, as far as the gracious Speech is concerned, the Government have indicated that they will continue with their present fiscal policies designed, they say, to bring about rising employment and other matters. Of course, we all welcome the recent drop in the figures for the unemployed although, with other noble Lords, I have some doubt about the manner in which the statistics are arrived at. As we know, they are simply based on those claiming and actually getting unemployment benefit. But hardly a day goes by without a report that some large institution somewhere is going to cut large numbers of staff. Moreover, as my noble friend Lady Dean said, many of the new jobs created appear to be part-time.
For many years after the last war, governments (both Conservative and Labour) acted on the assumption that the maintenance of high levels of employment was a priority for government. For most members of my generation, unemployment was not a problem. If you lost one job, another was likely to be fairly readily available. However, as everyone knows, that is no longer the case and is the root cause of many of the problems, social and financial, that we all face.
The lack of security that is implicit in job flexibility, which the Government have done their best to encourage, has social effects upon the economy generally and upon the way in which people organise their lives. If the only employment available is on a short-term contract, or part-time or temporary, the people so affected are naturally unwilling to enter into long-term commitments, so the housing market continues to be relatively stagnant. Retailers in the high street report that customers are hanging on to the money in their pockets because they are worried lest they do not have it at all next year. Individual car sales are lower than expected for a very similar reason. There are also problems about insurance and pensions provision since they depend to some extent on long-term security.
The result is that people in white collar employment in the finance sector, the public sector and the Civil Service who at one time would have confidently looked forward to a career and to a job for life—and what is wrong with that? —are frequently facing unemployment at a time when they would once have anticipated being at their earning peak. Incidentally, many of those people were Conservative voters and it is that general lack of security and concern for the future that is turning them away from the party of government and, I hope personally, to other parties and solutions.
I for one do not worry about that over much, but I am concerned about the damage that I believe Conservative policies have done, and continue to do, to the social fabric of our country. One of the Government's responses, along with deregulation, is to try to cut public expenditure. Hence we have the jobseeker's allowance which appears to be based on the assumption that if only the unemployed were to seek non-existent jobs more strenuously, all would be well. It is claimed that the jobseeker's allowance would be a better benefit for unemployed people. That is what it says in the document that the Government have produced. However, it is difficult to see how that claim can be sustained. While
258
unemployment benefit lasts for a year, contributory JSA will last for only six months. Thereafter, as a number of noble Lords have said, it will be a means-tested benefit.
In effect, employees who have just faced an increase in the amount of national insurance contributions that they have to pay will have a cut in the benefits for which they have paid. It must be emphasised that unemployment benefit is not some form of charity. It is part of the social insurance scheme for which people pay when in employment. It is an insurance policy. What would be said of a private insurance company that defaulted upon a commitment in such a way? After six months, when the JSA is means-tested, that change may very well hit people with family responsibilities.
The JSA, like income support, will discriminate against young people. Those under 25 who are unemployed will receive a lower rate of benefit. Incidentally, perhaps I may say how much I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who regretted that the Government have not taken the opportunity to introduce a proper policy for youth.
There is also some concern about the disabled. As we know, we are to have a Bill on rights for the disabled. One can only wish that the Government had taken the opportunity, when they had it, to pass the Bill which they failed to support last year when it was passed in your Lordships' House. A number of noble Lords have spoken about the proposed Bill for the disabled—notably, my noble friends Lord Ashley of Stoke and Lord Rix. Like many other noble Lords who have spoken on that matter, they have a great deal of experience and expertise in the area. Clearly, we shall need to look carefully at the Bill when it comes before us to make sure that the disabled are not going to be short-changed.
As we know, incapacity benefit is to replace invalidity benefit. We discussed that earlier in this House when we pointed out that that could mean many disabled people facing cuts in their income. It now seems that that is so. Thousands of people who would have qualified for invalidity benefit will not qualify for incapacity benefit. Many disabled people are worried that they will fall between the tighter incapacity test which denies them incapacity benefit and an inability to meet the terms of the new test in the JSA.
The Government's policies appear to be predicated on the assumption that benefits for the unemployed are too generous, and that generosity means that people involved no longer bother to look for work. However, the Government themselves tightened up the rules relating to entitlement some time ago when those were changed from availability for work, which had been the test for many years, to actively seeking work. People now have to demonstrate that they are actively seeking work to qualify for benefit. No doubt the Government will say, as they have said already, that the situation is improving and that the JSA is intended to help people back into work. As I said, and as my noble friend Lady Dean emphasised, much of the work that is available is part-time, temporary and low paid. We thus have a problem of the working poor as well as the unemployed, and the taxpayer is subsidising low paying employers through the benefit system.

259
The problems are serious, but the Government show no sign of tackling them except for the application of "the same as before". Yet there are alternative policies which should at least be considered. The TUC and the CBI have moved closer together in recent months in an endeavour to present a programme which would result in employment-creating initiatives. The TUC's document Budget for Jobs towards Full Employment has been drafted carefully. It does not pretend that there are easy solutions to the problems of low income, whether they arise from low pay or high unemployment. Nevertheless, it proposes a three-year public investment programme which it says would create over 300,000 jobs by investing in transport and urban renewal. That would, of course, cost money, but eventually there would be savings resulting from lower unemployment and social benefits. In any event, such initiatives should be considered, and we should endeavour to persuade our partners in Europe to look also at programmes. We must embark seriously on job creation if we are to have any chance of reducing the burden of social benefits.
I turn now to the issue of pensions. We are promised a Bill. It is reported that the Government intend to equalise state pension ages for men and women at 65. It is, of course, accepted that that cannot be done immediately since many women now in employment would have been expecting to be able to retire at 60. I regret that the Government did not find it possible to accept the recommendation of the Committee of your Lordships' House, which sat under the distinguished chairmanship of Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that there should be a decade of retirement between the ages of 60 and 70, with people having a genuine choice as to when they might retire between those ages. A cut-off point which is the same for all persons and in all industries and employments has always struck me as too arbitrary.
As it is, there is likely to be opposition from women's organisations and, I believe, from the Equal Opportunities Commission, which regard this proposition as a worsening of conditions for many women. What do the Government intend to do with the money that they will save? Do they intend, as they should, to raise the basic retirement pension which is clearly now too low? The position is likely to worsen relative to wages as time goes on.
As to occupational pensions, I note that the intention is to improve security, equality and choice in non-state pensions. If by that it is meant—I understand that this is so from what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch said—that the Government intend to legislate to give effect to the Goode Report, many of us will welcome such advances. Even so, many of us felt that the Goode Report, while recommending improvements, did not go far enough in protecting members' rights. In particular, we should want to see that there is provision for employee trustees since those, if properly trained—they should be—are the main safeguard against the loss of members' rights in occupational schemes.
I am pleased to learn that minimum solvency standards will be required to protect the security of members' rights, and that there will be a regulator. I hope that the regulator will have many more powers
260
than did the Occupational Pensions Board. I was for many years a member of the OPB and people thought that it had many more powers than it actually had. It was not an overall pensions regulator with the powers of a regulator. I am glad that the intention is to ensure that there is such a regulator. We shall look closely at the Bill to ensure that there is protection as we understand it.
However, the previous occasion on which the Government made much of choice in pension provision was when their obsession with individualism led to the sale of private personal pensions to people who are better placed either in their firm's occupational scheme or in SERPS. The Government must bear a large share of the blame for what has happened, which has had the effect of damaging the pension prospects of many people. Employees were actively encouraged by government propaganda to liberate themselves—that was the way in which it was put—from their employers' schemes. And, of course, the Government were anxious to run down SERPS, which they never liked anyway.
The self-regulatory mechanisms of the industry must work extremely hard to try to clear up the resultant mess. I speak as chair of the PIA Ombudsman's Council which is expecting a heavy workload next year once the claims start coming in. While clearly much of the industry has been gravely at fault, it cannot be overlooked that the major fault rested with the Government. It was made clear at the time that the Government's preference was for everyone to have individual personal pensions. The national insurance rebates were a "bribe" to get people to take out personal pensions. They involved a very substantial loss of revenue to the Exchequer while encouraging people into private pensions when they would have been better off to have remained where they were.
Perhaps I may emphasise what was said by my noble friend Lady Dean. No specific reference was made in the gracious Speech to the industrial injury scheme. Therefore, I hope that it has been agreed to leave the scheme alone. It is the only system of no-fault compensation that we have and it is very necessary because many working environments are inherently hazardous, no matter what is done by way of health and safety to try to protect the employers who work in them. I would welcome some kind of Government assurances as to the future of the industrial injury scheme.
Our debate today has touched on a number of issues in the sphere of home and social affairs. Enough has been said to indicate the anxieties which we have on this side of the House. When the Bills are before us we shall do our best to amend and improve upon them on the lines that have been indicated today. But, really, this is not much of a gracious Speech and there seems to be a fairly general view to that effect.
10.27 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, described the gracious Speech as a non-event. For a non-event, it has certainly drawn an impressive list of speakers and has kept us here well into the evening. We have been treated to three excellent maiden speeches. The noble Lord, Lord

261
Tope, has a long involvement in local government and education. Perhaps I may tell him that the Secretary of State is setting up a taskforce to implement the Prime Minister's commitment on nursery education. Part of the role of that taskforce will be to determine the amount of funding that will be needed.
A number of other noble Lords mentioned nursery education. It would be wrong to assume that we are starting from zero because nine out of ten three and four year-olds already have some form of pre-school education. Just over half attend nursery school or nursery and reception classes in primary schools. Forty-one per cent. are represented in play groups. Therefore, we have a good base on which we can build and fulfil the commitment given by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. As the noble Lord mentioned in his speech, for a short spell he was a Member in another place representing Sutton and Cheam. The only thing I could think up about Sutton and Cheam was that Cheam has been made famous by Tony Hancock; but that probably shows my age more than anything else.
We then had the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Attenborough, who has been a distinguished actor, producer and director for over half a century. I am not sure that I did not catch a passing glimpse of him yesterday evening on television in a clip from something in which he was telling a little boy that he was actually Santa Claus. But perhaps I did not see it properly.
The noble Lord is a winner of a fair number of Oscars and BAFTA.s. I have to tell him that no rewards or awards are given for speeches in your Lordships' House; but if we did do that, we might have given him an award this afternoon. He has been involved with a wide range of artistic and charitable interests, as he mentioned in his speech; and I could not help but notice in Who's Who that yet another member of the Garrick Club is joining your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and myself have quite a lot in common. Many years ago we were both councillors and we both fought—again, as I read in Who's Who—seven election campaigns with the same not very good record of failure and success. We served together in another place from 1979 to 1987, when we were both obliged to take what might be called in rugby parlance, "an early bath". It is comforting to have here another refugee from the vagaries of the electoral system, and I am sure that the noble Lord will find, as I have found, in your Lordships' House a different, more civilised and more knowledgeable atmosphere where quiet reason and logic carry the day.
Having listened to the noble Lord in the other place, I know that he has a deep interest in human rights. As a nation, we have a difficult balancing act to carry out—as do other nations—between helping out those who are in genuine danger in their home nations and those who are economic refugees.
A number of your Lordships got onto fairly philosophical planes. I am not sure that I shall follow those speeches for too long. To a limited extent it started with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who was trying to identify all the political and economic theories which had gone the way of all flesh. He did not
262
mention socialism or Clause 4, and such matters; but I should not have expected him to. That is perhaps rather close to home.
However, at the beginning of his speech, in trying to identify the basis for social policy, he described it as the means to a civilised society. I do not think that too many of us would dissent from that. But it reminded me of another definition; namely, the permissive society as the civilised society. I hope that the most reverend Primate does not mind a Presbyterian saying to an Anglican that I thought that the most reverend Primate reminded us most forcefully that there is a myth that what is good and right is a subjective opinion—a sort of "do your own thing", although the most reverend Primate did not use those words. However, those words were certainly extremely prevalent as the philosophical basis of many people's lives and I believe that to be a most dangerous philosophy which is very much at variance with our Judaeo-Christian traditions. That has presented us with many problems, both as a community and even inside the Department of Social Security, where it has created problems in relation to our budget.
I really do not share the pessimistic view of some noble Lords with regard to young people. Too many generalisations are made about young people. I thought that today's school league tables showed quite clearly that there are great improvements in the performance of young people in school. I understand from what Mr. Blunkett said on the radio this morning that school league tables are now no longer the thoroughly bad things that they have been over the past two or three years. Many young people are heavily involved with the Scouts, Guides, Boys Brigades and various youth organisations. I am sure that anyone who watched the youngsters on "Songs of Praise" last Sunday would see a great many reasons for rejecting that pessimistic view.
A fair part of the debate was taken up with what I might describe generally as Home Office issues. Perhaps I may try to run through a few of the points raised and obviously, in view of the length of the debate, I shall be able to deal with only a few of the points raised.
I was asked about the criminal cases review body. That will investigate possible miscarriages of justice. It will commission inquiries from the police and others. As my noble friend Lady Blatch has already indicated, the new review body will be properly resourced and funded. Details will be made available in the usual way when the Bill is introduced.
I know that both north and south of the Border, those who are particularly interested in those matters are concerned about the implementation of Law Commission reports. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, both mentioned that. I should point out that, of the 30 unimplemented reports listed in the 1994 annual report of the Law Commission, five were implemented during the last Session and a further 10 have been accepted but have not, as yet, secured a parliamentary place. The reports in question are all law reform reports, many of which concern policy issues on which there are strongly held and widely differing views. Some of them are

263
particularly suited to being taken up as Private Peers' Bills or Private Members' Bills. The Government will continue to encourage that practice.
We had discussions from time to time on the difficult problem of crime, which is such a worry to many of our citizens. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am much obliged. Before the Minister leaves the subject of Law Commission reports, do I understand correctly from what he said that the Government are not proposing government time for any of those outstanding reports; but that they are proposing to leave them to be dealt with by Private Members' Bills?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am saying that we would be interested in encouraging Private Members' Bills. However, there is always that last phrase in the Queen's Speech which I believe states:
"Other measures will be laid before you".
The noble Lord never knows what may happen. I do not want to try to forecast anything that might happen in that respect.
I return to the question of crime. I listened with some interest to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I believe that much of what the noble Lord said, though not all—as he will not be surprised to hear—would find fairly common ground. However, I thought that he might have pointed out that in the past year we have seen a modest fall of 5.5 per cent. compared with the previous year in the rate of crime in England. Although it is modest, it is still the largest fall over 12 months that we have seen for 40 years—
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, that is beside the point. There has been a slight improvement because there has been a slight recovery. The crime rate is linked to recoveries, booms and slumps.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure about that. However, if one considers the long timespan which the noble Lord mentioned over which crime figures have moved, I suspect that there has been, as he pointed out, a fairly inexorable increase over many years almost regardless of which government were in power. I do not believe that one can entirely relate or correlate it to rises and falls in unemployment or economic activity over the period.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway asked me about the question of war crimes investigations. I believe that he knows all the figures. In Scotland, the Lord Advocate has decided that there is insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution against anyone living there. There are 24 cases still being investigated in England, seven of which have been the subject of substantive reports to the Crown Prosecution Service. I know that my noble friend has tabled a Private Member's Bill which is due for its Second Reading on the 7th of next month. I have little doubt that we shall have a more detailed debate on the subject at that stage.
264
I suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is not very pleased to see me at the Dispatch Box this evening because we have barked at each other on the subject of dogs once or twice over the past 12 months. The noble Lord has not changed his view and neither have I. As I told him on a previous occasion, I am more interested in children that I am in dogs.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, went off on quite a different tack on the question of Greenwich Mean Time. I feel that I must at least make a few remarks on the subject. I believe that the noble Lord pretty well presented a one-sided case on the matter. When, just by chance, at quarter-past eight on Monday morning in Glasgow, I said to my taxi-driver something like, "Gosh, if we were on European time as some people want it would be dark at this time", he expressed his horror of dark mornings. Of course, you cannot actually save daylight. The good Lord ensured the length of the day and we cannot do much about it. But one can have extended daylight in the afternoon at the price of reduced daylight in the morning.
If businessmen in the United States are able to work over time zones in that country and if businessmen from Japan seem to be able to work quite successfully in different time zones all around the world, I find it hard to believe that, somehow, businessmen in Europe are incapable of operating over more than one time zone.
I must say to my fellow clansman that if he tried to put his argument in Scotland he might find a little more resistance than he seems to find in the south of England. I do not mean only among farmers. If he goes north to Mackay country in the north of Scotland I think that he will meet even more objection to the suggestion that we move from what is our astronomical time zone of Greenwich Mean Time—and we must be close to the Greenwich meridian at this moment.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, who is always a pleasure to listen to although I do not often agree with him, made several points about the mandatory life sentence for murder. We have debated the subject on a fair number of occasions. The noble Earl is concerned about the length of time some life sentence prisoners are detained, and pursues the subject with commendable vigour. Our position remains that we do not believe his concerns are well founded. There are some life sentence prisoners for whom life will mean life. That has always been the case; it is not a new policy. Nor are life sentence prisoners being kept in the dark about their tariff or denied the opportunity to make representations.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I cannot make sense of what he says. What he says is not true. He says that there are some prisoners for whom a life sentence has always meant life. That is untrue. I hope that the Minister will withdraw that statement.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that I can withdraw it. It is the case. I believe that the public would expect that to be the situation. Anyone now receiving a mandatory life sentence is told the judicial recommendation as to the period which should be served for retribution and deterrence and given the opportunity to make representations before the

265
Secretary of State sets the tariff. The prisoner is informed of the Secretary of State's decision and given the reasons for any departure from the judicial recommendations.
I do not want to comment here on the recall of the prisoner the noble Earl mentioned in particular, but I can assure him that my noble friend will be happy to meet him and discuss the questions he raised.
I realise that there is some controversy over the subject of criminal injuries compensation, which a number of your Lordships raised. However, it has to be emphasised that one of the reasons the projection has been growing so vigorously is that over the past 10 years the average award has increased by some 5 per cent. more than inflation in every year. If one projects that forward it results in very large figures. I should say to your Lordships that in this country we provide the most generous scheme of any country in the world. I have figures before me covering a number of countries. Not only are we ahead of them, we are in a different league. Awards totalled £165.1 million in 1993–94. The next country in the list is Canada, with £29.5 million. Of all the schemes around the world, the scheme in this country provides 36 per cent. of all the resources put into criminal injuries schemes.
A number of points were made by noble Lords concerning the health Bills which are before us. I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow—and I gather that the issue was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, but I am sorry that I missed her speech because I was out of the Chamber for a few minutes at that point—that the mental health Bill is a very important piece of legislation. It will improve the treatment of mentally ill people. It will introduce a clear legal framework for care in the community for certain patients. Like the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, I have had experience as a Member of Parliament in another place 10 years ago of people with schizophrenia. It is the most appallingly debilitating disease for the families and for the young men involved. It is very important that when they go out into the community—and we want them to do that—we must not lose sight of the fact that they can easily relapse if they are not properly treated and taking their drugs.
I am sorry that I missed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton. I shall read her speech with interest. However, I received a report of what she said, and I would say to her that almost everyone living in the UK today is better off than their parents and grandparents were. I gather that she seemed to doubt that proposition. That is not my quotation. It is taken from the first page of the first chapter of the report of the Commission on Social Justice.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, who has had to catch a train because he has court business in Edinburgh tomorrow, and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, asked me about matters pertaining to Scottish legislation. I know that all three noble Lords have taken a great interest in the Children (Scotland) Bill. My noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie proposes to publish the Bill shortly. Noble Lords will not expect me to go into any detail about its contents, but it will be a
266
major step in reforming legislation for Scotland's children. I believe that I am one of the select band who read Lord Clyde's report on the Orkney affair. I was very convinced by that that we needed some legislation. I am delighted that it is coming forward.
The procedure will be as follows. The Bill will be dealt with in another place for its Second Reading by the Scottish Grand Committee. A Special Standing Committee will be appointed to take evidence from interested parties. That will be done in Scotland. It will be for the committee itself to decide exactly how it is done. Shortly thereafter the Bill will be referred to the Scottish Standing Committee in another place. For the Committee stage in your Lordships' House, if your Lordships agree it would be possible for the Bill to be considered by a Committee off the Floor of the House.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, will a time limit be placed on the evidence taken during the Standing Committee stage; or will there be an evidential free-for-all with everyone coming back from the Orkney inquiry and all the other places. How will the procedure work?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure of the time limit. My memory tells me that there is a limit on the time that the committee takes evidence. That committee will decide who will give evidence. While I suspect that it will wish to hear some factors about the Orkney affair, I hope that it will also wish to take evidence on a rather broader base.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, gave us a fairly detailed account of what he considered the shortcomings in the procedures in civil justice in Scotland. His views are well known and respected. We are gratified that he welcomes the new commercial procedures. No doubt my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will wish to consider his proposal for an inquiry into the civil procedures very carefully indeed. As he suggested, a re-examination of some of our pleading rules may well be appropriate.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, spoke on more constitutional matters. I do not wish to continue for too long, but this is perhaps an appropriate place to refer to it. The noble and learned Lord referred to two or three subjects of constitutional interest—devolution, proportional representation and reform of the House of Lords. As the Government have no intention of bringing in legislation about any of those issues, there seems no point in the Government setting up a Royal Commission to advise them what to do.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. My plea was for a Royal Commission, not for legislation to be brought in immediately.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the last time we had a Royal Commission on devolution it came to conclusions which ultimately the people of Scotland rejected in a referendum. If we do not wish to go down the road of devolution, proportional representation or reform of your Lordships' House, I do not see why we need the advice of a Royal Commission. The parties opposite may need that advice to get an answer to the

267
question posed by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. She referred to the difficult West Lothian issue: what would Scottish Members of Parliament do if voting on English legislation for which they had no responsibility in their constituencies? That includes the law. It is an interesting picture. According to the Labour Party, England will be divided into five or six different assemblies with five or six different legislatures. I am not sure whether after many hundreds of years of history as one country, the people of England will wish to see their country broken up, having joined with the rest of us 300 years ago in one United Kingdom.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister use some phrase other than "broken up"? Historically that is an inaccurate way of dealing with the regional distribution of power which has been normal for most centuries in European history.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not wish to enter into a great argument about it. Many of us firmly believe that devolution, independence or whatever one calls it—one is a short step to the other —will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. Many of us quite firmly believe that. I do not wish to take up too much time, but I am happy to give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister on the point, but in his earlier remarks he talked about the Scottish legislation concerning the children Bill being considered by the Scottish Grand Committee in another place and taking evidence in Scotland. The anxiety I have is that that is rather different from the remarks which the Minister is now making about treating the United Kingdom as a whole.
I remind the Minister that in this House we do not have any convention of treating Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish business separately other than with all Members of your Lordships' House dealing with it. How does the Minister envisage the House dealing with the Scottish children's Bill?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I answered that by saying that, if your Lordships wished it, there is the possibility that the new committee procedures off the Floor of the House may be used for the Scottish children's Bill. All noble Lords, of whatever place they are Peers, will be free to attend and debate it. The children's Bill in the other place will be discussed by Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, one unitary Parliament.
A number of noble Lords spoke on the question of the disability Bill. I say to them all that I believe that the Government have an excellent record on work for the disabled. For example, in the year 1993–94 the Employment Service placed 53,300 disabled people in jobs. The access-to-work scheme will provide an even wider range of help to more people through a budget of £14.6 million in this financial year. The total spending on benefits to help the long-term sick and disabled people and their carers has trebled in real terms since
268
1978–79 to £17 billion last year. That is an increase of 237 per cent. Access to buildings has improved, although there is some way to go on that.
Over the summer we have been consulting on a range of new initiatives to tackle the continuing problems of discrimination against disabled people. My honourable friend the Minister for disabled people has been working with my right honourable friends at the Departments of Employment, Health, Transport and Education to produce a range of measures, including legislation in this Session, which will go further than ever before in advancing the position of disabled people. He will make announcements with the details in the near future.
I was asked about the Child Support Act. At the moment we are considering the Select Committee's report, but we are still quite firmly of the view that the absent parent of the first family—however we wish to call it—has considerable responsibilities, social, moral and financial, to the children which he fathered—and largely in this case I can call him "he".
I turn now to the pensions Bill, which will be very important. I have no doubt that we shall spend some time on it and I do not wish to spend too much time this evening. I had not intended speaking for quite so long and I apologise to your Lordships. The non-state pension part of the pension Bill will attempt to improve the security of pension funds in order to ensure that no other group of pensioners or prospective pensioners has to go through the trauma that the pensioners whose pension funds were pillaged by Mr. Robert Maxwell have had to endure.
On the state pension side, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, suggested she did not quite approve of the age of 65. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, indicated the same. I need not remind them that the Commission for Social Justice seems to have come down more on our side of the argument than on theirs. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that it is not a matter of saving money that we are spending now. It is actually making sure that we do not impose on the working people in 2020, 2030 and thereafter a level of expenditure that they will not be able to afford. So it is not a matter of saving money. It is a matter of ensuring that, come 2020 and 2030, the state pension will be affordable by those people in work. I believe it would be absolutely irresponsible for us not to take action on the problem and to leave a time bomb ticking away for those people who will retire in the next century.
The jobseeker's allowance is a very important new idea, changing the rather negative aspect of unemployment benefit and unemployment centres into a more positive idea of job seeking. After all, that is what the great majority of people who become unemployed are doing. Two-thirds of unemployed people get back to work within six months. Of course we recognise the difficulties, especially for the other third who go beyond the six months. But we believe that the agreement that we shall have with the job seeker, which will set out what we will do to help and what the job seeker himself or herself will do, will help with this difficult problem. Ideas such as the new back-to-work bonus will, we believe, be very helpful in encouraging people who are

269
unemployed to take part-time work, and then in encouraging them to take the next step into full-time work.
The noble Earl asked me a number of questions, and one in particular about "in work, out of work", the role of incentives in the benefits system by the SSAC. The committee's paper certainly presents a number of valuable ideas. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Peter Lilley, has already thanked the chairman. We will certainly be considering some of those ideas further; although I have to say—and no doubt the noble Lord is aware—that some of the proposals, such as increasing the earnings disregard, have not been accepted. We believe that the back-to-work bonus, as I said, illustrates an effective way of encouraging people to enter part-time work and act as a stepping-stone into full-time work. We shall be considering the ideas in this report and in a number of other reports which deal with the same problem of how we help people—especially long-term unemployed people—back into work.
Today we have ranged over a wide number of issues, touching on the lives of all our fellow citizens: crime, and its evil impact on far too many decent, law-abiding citizens, and the need for the law to be firm and fair; the health service, with its vital role of looking after all of us when we are ill; in Scotland, where we shall address the needs of some very vulnerable children; and in my own department, helping the disabled, ensuring the security of occupational pensions and the capability of future generations to pay for the state pension and helping the unemployed to seek and find work.
The Opposition have accused us of running out of steam. Touching as it does on many vital aspects of all our fellow citizens' lives, I believe that the Queen's Speech has more than enough steam in it to run a whole class of Flying Scotsmen.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—I realise that I risk bringing the wrath of the House down upon me at this hour of night—from what he said earlier about law reform and Law Commission reports, I fear that he may be going back on undertakings or indications that have already been given. Is it not the case that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said on 2nd November (at col. 898 of Hansard) in response to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman:
"I am sure that the noble and learned Lords will appreciate that I am unable to be more specific at present. However, I hope that I can give them some encouragement. I have also noted that the use of special procedures may help us to speed the transition from recommendation to legislation of these most valuable reports".
That is, Law Commission reports. The Queen's Speech then went on to mention "further measures of law reform" and my noble friend the Chief Whip has been invited to take part in discussions on enacting Law Commission reports off the Floor of the House. Is it really the case now that the Government only propose
270
to support Private Members' Bills, or is it the Government's proposal to give government time to these important Bills?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I have been indicating from a sedentary position for about three-quarters of the noble Lord's intervention, yes, indeed we do mean to bring forward some of them. I am sure that the noble Lord understands that within a wide subject such as this, with so much material to cover, one occasionally gets things slightly out of order. I was wrong in what I actually said. Although we would not be against Private Member Peers or Private Members in the other place taking forward the legislation, we do indeed, as my noble friend has already said, intend to take some of these Bills forward ourselves.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, while the noble Lord is still on his feet, perhaps I may ask whether or not the Government are going to do anything about the Dangerous Dogs Act.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I suggested to the noble Lord, I thought as gently as I could, that as he had me at the Dispatch Box that should not give him any encouragement that we are going to move in any way on the subject of the Dangerous Dogs Act. We believe the dogs to which the Bill refers are indeed dangerous, and we put the lives and the health of small children before dogs.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down for the third time, can he please tell the House whether or not it is true that the Scottish Grand Committee will start proceedings on the Children (Scotland) Bill on Monday, 5th December?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sorry, my Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lady that. I think she will have to wait and see when the Bill is printed and when the business managers in another place find time for a Second Reading, which I think I said will be in the Scottish Grand Committee.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ullswater, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—(Lord Lucas.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I do not oppose the Motion, but in view of the assurances we had when we debated the hours of sitting of the House at the end of last Session, I venture to point out that last Thursday's debate was adjourned at past a quarter-to 11 and I see that it is now 11 o'clock tonight.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
House adjourned at one minute past eleven o'clock.

  CONSULAR FEES
  CONSULAR FEES
  LICENSING OF HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION: CONSULTATION PAPERS
  LICENSING OF HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION: CONSULTATION PAPERS
  PRISON HOME LEAVE AND TEMPORARY RELEASE SCHEMES
  PRISON HOME LEAVE AND TEMPORARY RELEASE SCHEMES