Sitting of 25 October 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL

    RIVER CALDER (WELBECK SITE) BILL [Lords]
    Ordered,
    That the Promoters of the River Calder (Welbeck Site) [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    Ordered,
    That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
    Ordered,
    That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
    Ordered,
    That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
    Ordered,
    That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
    Ordered,
    That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
    Ordered,
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    Ordered,
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    MALVERN HILLS BILL [Lords]
    Ordered,
    That the Promoters of the Malvern Hills Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    Ordered,
    That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
    Ordered,
    That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
    Ordered,
    That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
    Ordered,
    That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
    Ordered,
    That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
    Ordered,
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    Ordered
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY HERITAGE FOUNDATION BILL
    Ordered,
    That the Promoters of the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to the date be paid;
    Ordered,
    That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
    Ordered,
    That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
    Ordered,
    That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
    Ordered,
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    Ordered,
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]
    Ordered,
    That the Promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    Ordered,
    That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
    Ordered,
    That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
    Ordered,
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    Ordered,
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    SHEFFIELD ASSAY OFFICE BILL
    Ordered,
    That the Promoters of the Sheffield Assay Office Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the
    738
    Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    Ordered,
    That, on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session, the Bill shall be presented to the House;
    Ordered,
    That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
    Ordered,
    That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
    Ordered,
    That, no Petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
    Ordered,
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    Ordered,
    That these Orders be Standing Orders to the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    HUMBER BRIDGE BILL [Lords]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That the Promoters of the Humber Bridge Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
    That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
    That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
    That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
    That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered on Thursday 27 October.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Accident And Emergency Units
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accident and emergency units are currently proposed for closure in Greater London.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): A number of London health authorities are considering proposals for change to the current pattern of accident and emergency services.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Should not ease of access by road and proximity to the main centres of population be the overriding factors in determining the location of accident and emergency units? Do not those considerations point overwhelmingly to the continuing need for Oldchurch hospital in that all-important life and death role?
    Mr. Malone: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that on the two occasions that I have so far appeared at the Dispatch Box, he has been able to represent the interests of his constituents in this matter, which he does extremely assiduously. As I told him in the debate on Friday, his representations will be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as the matter is now before her.
    Ms Church: Will the Minister undertake to make a visit to Harold Wood hospital so that he can see for himself the great difficulty that my constituents will encounter if the proposed closure of the accident and emergency department at Oldchurch hospital goes ahead?
    Mr. Malone: I am be extremely keen to inform myself in whatever way is absolutely necessary to be sure of all the facts. I have undertaken a number of visits to accident and emergency units around London since I was appointed to my post. I remind the hon. Lady that the overriding requirement for the reformation of accident and emergency services across London is continuing quality of patient care and the proper provision of services for all patients.
    Mr. Dykes: In terms both of the accident and emergency services and of the other services, will my hon. Friend pledge to do all that he can to save Edgware general hospital from closure?
    Mr. Malone: Those are clearly matters to be decided at a local level. Even in my short time at the Dispatch Box, I have noticed with interest that many people are in favour of changing the structure of services in London, but when it comes to their constituency interests they make particular representations. One cannot restructure services in London without making sure that that is done in a proper and sensitive way. I repeat to my hon. Friend the point that I made earlier—quite simply, it is the quality of overall patient care in London that will inform us as we proceed with any changes.
    Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Madam Speaker: I am sorry, but I cannot accept that request from the hon. Member because Question 1 was not his substantive question.

    Vehicle Emissions
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of the effect of motor vehicle emissions on respiratory diseases.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): While there is, as yet, no conclusive evidence that motor vehicle emissions cause respiratory diseases, including asthma, high levels of motor vehicle emissions may exacerbate existing respiratory conditions and may trigger attacks in some asthmatic people.
    Mr. Jamieson: Is the Minister aware of a report published earlier this year by Noel Olsen, the director of health in the Plymouth and Torbay health authority, who concluded that there is a strong link between asthma and motor vehicle fumes? He said that, shortly, 10 per cent. of children in Plymouth will need inhaled steroids. Is the Minister aware that that view has been strongly reinforced today in a report from the Select Committee on Transport? When will his Department do something about it?
    Mr. Sackville: A great deal is being done by the Department of Transport about vehicle emissions. I remind the hon. Gentleman that asthmatics also suffer from pollen, fungal spores, house mites, smoke and a series of other factors.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Are not high levels of motor vehicle pollution a grave exacerbating factor in many respiratory conditions, particularly in London? Has not the incidence of asthma and other serious respiratory diseases increased in direct proportion to the increase in motor vehicle traffic? Should not the Department of Health, therefore, concert effectively with the Department of Transport, to get more people onto public transport, especially the tube and railways, rather than using their cars?
    Mr. Sackville: There is undoubtedly a connection, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has brought in a series of new measures to tighten up diesel emissions and emissions from catalyst and non-catalyst cars, and to put inspectors by the side of roads in inner cities to find those who are polluting the atmosphere. My right hon. Friend has promised to "get tough", particularly on those who drive smoky diesel vehicles. Having worked for him for the past two years, I am now glad that I do not pollute the atmosphere for a living.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate that the Minister's second response was a little more positive than his first. However, may I press him to speak to the Minister responsible for transport because, despite clean air zones in our cities, the pollution has intensified, as we are now discovering again this year through fogs?
    Mr. Sackville: I confirm that we are working closely with the Departments of the Environment and of Transport. We are also organising a major conference on the causes of asthma. We have invited the National Asthma Campaign to organise it jointly with us.

    Private Finance Initiatives
    Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in taking forward the private finance initiative in the South Thames region.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Good progress has been made in taking forward the private finance initiative in the South Thames region. Since the initiative was launched in November 1992, seven projects have been approved, each with a capital value of£1 million or over. This is bringing in more than £26 million of private sector capital to the region.
    Mr. Ottaway: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she confirm that, since the private finance initiative was launched, it has resulted in additional investment nationally of some £100 million and that a further £500 million has been earmarked? Is not that excellent news for patients? How will those latter opportunities be realised?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend and can certainly confirm the figures that he gives. The private finance initiative is an excellent opportunity for us to extend patient care further and faster. With the great range of projects, we are giving advice and keeping a data bank so that good practice can be developed. The criteria in every case is that projects should be good value for money and lead to good patient care.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Has the Secretary of State seen the regional private finance initiative referred to in The Independent today? The Worthing district health authority has accepted a bid from an outfit called Westminster Health. Is the Secretary of State absolutely satisfied that those who run it are suitable people to be in charge of the care of our elderly long-term sick? After all, they have been involved in a substantial fraud case in Texas and have had about 150 separate allegations of abuse pending against them since the 1980s. In any event, was not the NHS trust bid cheaper?
    Mrs. Bottomley: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to their new jobs. I am pleased, from the point of view of private finance, that it was the hon. Gentleman who said:
    "public and private finance working together in transport, in housing, in capital projects, in health and education"
    have a part to play. We thank him for that commitment to the initiative. Clearly, he has no objection to the principle but is querying an individual case. I understand that the original proposal was that the district health authority should take on three projects. That did not satisfy the trust. The trust was, however, satisfied that the individual project concerned would lead to the best value for money and high-quality patient care. Those are always the top criteria.

    Cheviot And Wansbeck Hospital Trust
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received about redundancies in hospitals run by the Cheviot and Wansbeck hospital trust.
    Mr. Sackville: We have received letters from two hon. Members. I also met the right hon. Gentleman and the hon.

    743
    Members for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) on 13 July, to discuss their anxieties about redundancies at the trust.
    Mr. Beith: Now that the equivalent of 51 posts have been lost in the Cheviot and Wansbeck group, now that safety standards have been publicly questioned even by a consultant, and now that there is even a threat of the closure of the Rothbury cottage hospital, will the Minister reconsider the situation and answer the question: why do patients have to suffer if the first year of operation of the trust system throws up something that would probably never have happened under the old system?
    Mr. Sackville: Let me say how glad I am that the actual number of redundancies has been reduced to 27, the large majority of which are in administrative grades. I do not accept that patients will suffer. I have been given an absolute assurance that those changes will be made without detriment to patient care.
    May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of all the good things that are happening at the trust, including the new accident and emergency department, at whose opening ceremony no lesser person than the right hon. Gentleman himself officiated?
    Mr. Jack Thompson: Has the Minister seen the letter that I sent some time ago about the case of Charlene Bentley from my constituency, who broke an arm, went to the Wansbeck general hospital, was unable to receive treatment at that hospital because of the lack of beds in the children's ward and had to be transferred to North Tyneside to have treatment? Is that the satisfactory arrangement that he endorses in terms of that hospital and those staffing levels?
    Mr. Sackville: I am aware of that case, and it is unfortunate that that little girl had to be transferred to another hospital. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the trust works on several different sites and is at a disadvantage in that way. It is not possible to provide all acute services at all sites.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many disabled people have been struck off local general practitioner lists in each of the past four years.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): Only 1.2 per cent. of patients deregistering from general practitioner lists do so at the request of the GP. Those patients are not categorised in any way.
    Mr. Sheerman: If the Minister does not know how many of those people are disabled, perhaps he should speak to Toby Harris, the director of the National Association of Community Health Councils, or even the health service ombudsman, both of whom are extremely worried about the number of patients who are being struck off by GPs. A Manchester report recently said that 1,700 patients, many of whom were disabled people, had been struck off lists by their doctors. Indeed, Mr. Harris said recently that one could be struck off for being too ill.
    Mr. Bowis: I have looked carefully at Mr. Harris's press release and the other report to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Neither of them refers specifically to people with disabilities being struck off. That type of evidence has not been presented to us.
    744
    I remind the hon. Gentleman that under the patients charter, everyone has the right to be on a GP's list, and if anyone has any difficulty, family health services authorities have a role in ensuring that that is possible. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that the General Medical Council, supported by the General Medical Services Committee, has made it clear to doctors that it would be unacceptable if doctors were to remove people from lists because of the cost of their disability.
    Mrs. Beckett: Surely the Minister is concerned when, according to a report from the National Association of Community Health Councils, about 30,000 patients are estimated as being struck off and, as he says himself, he has no knowledge of what percentage of those are people with severe long-term illness, disabilities and so on.
    Does not the Minister also recognise that there is considerable concern that that is happening as a direct result of the Government's policies on GP fundholding; that in Essex, for example, an increase of about 27 per cent. in fundholding practices has been accompanied by an increase of 20 per cent. in patients being struck off? That is a worrying trend. If the Department of Health does not know what is happening and why, perhaps it is time that it did.
    Mr. Bowis: There is no evidence to support what the hon. Lady says. Let me first welcome the hon. Lady to her responsibilities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Right hon."] I apologise, the right hon. Lady. We look forward to many years of enjoying her position across the Dispatch Boxes.
    The right hon. Lady referred to the report of which the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) spoke, which is the one that Mr. Harris produced. That report does not produce that evidence.
    I am aware, however, that there are some worries about the general issue of registration and deregistration. We are examining that as part of our regular review of registration procedures to discover, first, whether any improvements can be made and, secondly, whether there are any grounds for concern.

    Junior Doctors
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many junior doctor posts which entail working more than 83 hours remain in the South Thames region; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many junior doctor posts entailing more than 83 hours remain in the North West region; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: All posts contracted for more than 83 hours a week in the South Thames and North West regions have been eliminated. That is a remarkable achievement as there were more than 3,300 such posts in those two regions in September 1990.
    Mrs. Lait: I thank my right hon. Friend for that most encouraging news and I congratulate her on the success of a policy that she initiated when she was Minister for Health. Is she aware that reports are emerging of a significant reduction in the number of applications for doctors' jobs in

    745
    my region? Will she comment on the fact that Conservatives cut junior doctors' hours while the Labour party cut their pay?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I take note of my hon. Friend's comments. The way in which juniors are trained—their rotations and accommodation and many other conditions—requires further consideration. I welcome the discussions that we have with the junior doctors to ensure that we continue to train and support some of the best junior doctors so that they can help the health service. Their pay has increased substantially during our term of office. I am pleased, however, that there have been such significant cuts in their hours.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the Southport and Formby community health service trust which, in March this year, met its important 1994 target of reducing the number of hours worked by junior doctors? Will she give me an assurance that, as the acute trust continues to make progress in that important sector, it will continue to have the support of the regional task force?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I certainly pay tribute to the Southport and Formby community health service trust and can assure my hon. Friend that the task force will continue to play a crucial part. I know his region well and have met junior doctors from there. Only three years ago, when I was in Blackpool for a certain purpose, a number of the juniors came to see me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). Two years later, we were able to visit them on their night shift at the Blackpool Victoria hospital to talk about the new systems, the way in which shifts have been introduced and the fact that extra resources have been put to good effect and the junior doctors' hours reduced.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the arguments advanced for the closure of the Brook hospital in the South Thames region is the requirement to meet the junior doctors' hours? Is she further aware that the future plans of the health authority depend on the acquisition of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital from the Ministry of Defence? Is she aware that the national health service may be gazumped by a private bidder? What steps will she take to ensure that that hospital remains in the public sector?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am aware of the facts of that situation, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that the Minister for Health deals with those matters as I have a close personal relationship with one of the hon. Gentleman's neighbouring Members of Parliament—that is in the Register of Members' Interests. I am aware that the effects of the reductions in junior hospital doctors' hours have implications for service delivery. It is extremely costly to provide juniors on duty overnight in a great number of establishments and we have to look carefully at that aspect. We also want to safeguard patient care and the quality of doctors' training. The dialogue that we have established between Ministers, the junior doctors' leaders and the NHS is leading to sensible outcomes, and improvements for juniors and the service.
    Mr. Purchase: Is the Secretary of State aware that some of the reductions—which are by no means universal—have been achieved by some grades of nurses having to take on tasks formerly performed by junior doctors? That has led to considerable stress, especially in hospitals in
    746
    Wolverhampton where, I understand, the Minister has imposed a block on further recruitments of junior doctors. Will the Secretary of State respond to that?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the recruitment of junior doctors is connected with a long-standing agreement with the profession over the number of juniors trained for the number of consultant posts available. I hope that we may move towards more flexibility in some of those matters as time goes by, but there has been a steady increase—of 3 per cent. a year—in the number of consultants in the health service and that is a significant achievement in itself. The hon. Gentleman rightly points to the part played by nurses in taking on some of those tasks. Managers, much denigrated by the Labour party, and administrative support staff have also taken on some of the tasks previously done by junior doctors.
    We need a pragmatic approach that ensures that juniors are well used for the tasks for which they are trained, and that their hours are not excessive. I think that we are making great progress.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend remember the case of my constituent, Alan Massie, a talented young junior hospital doctor at Warrington district general hospital who died some months ago? Is she aware that the coroner's report has now found that he died from stress and overwork because of the abnormal number of hours that he was forced to work? Will she therefore keep the matter of junior hospital doctors' hours under continual review, to ensure that young, talented people such as my constituent do not die because of their commitment to the health service?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I well understand the case to which my hon. Friend refers. The stress of being a junior doctor is associated with a number of factors, not least rotations. I was interested in a scheme being developed in New Zealand, where there is talk of a mentoring system to give support to junior doctors in training. Reducing the number of hours has been a clear priority. In 1990, 13,000 doctors were working rotations of more than 83 hours: none are now. There has been a fall of one quarter in the number of hard-pressed posts involving more than 72 hours. We want to do very much better than that by the end of the year; it is an important priority for us all.

    Mortality Reduction Targets
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in respect of the mortality reduction targets set out in "The Health of the Nation", Cm. 1986.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The latest figures show that good progress is being made towards virtually all the mortality targets set out in "The Health of the Nation" White Paper. The targets were deliberately set to be challenging and it is most encouraging that so much has already been achieved.
    Mr. Rooker: Speaking between two planted questions, may I ask whether the Minister accepts that poverty is an important factor in determining death rates? That is shown by the fact that deaths from coronary heart disease among poor men and poor women are respectively 44 per cent. and 61 per cent. higher than would otherwise be expected. Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that in the past 15 years in just four regions of the country—the north, the north-west,

    747
    Yorkshire and Merseyside—there have been 125,000 more deaths from coronary heart disease than should otherwise have been expected? That amounts to the Government, by their neglect, killing off two constituencies of Labour voters.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that the Government are committed to wealth creation, job creation and the relief of poverty, and we have been remarkably successful in that. I am also with him to the extent that I am aware of the severe problem of coronary heart disease in his constituency. That is why I hope that he will welcome the £23 million going into primary care in the Birmingham area precisely so that more GPs can deal with those issues and with the multi-factor causation of coronary heart disease and strokes. A great number of factors are involved; the whole point of "The Health of the Nation" strategy is to look into the causes of disease.
    The hon. Gentleman may like to know that the health of the nation has improved for all income groups and all social classes, and perinatal mortality has decreased, as a result of the success of the health reforms and the work that we have been undertaking.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the highly successful programme of childhood immunisation has made a major contribution to reducing the numbers of untimely deaths and improving the health and well-being of children? Will she take this opportunity to reinforce the message that, with the threat of a measles epidemic, it is vital that parents ensure that their children are vaccinated?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend. I can confirm the great success of the immunisation campaign. It is bizarre that the Labour party so stubbornly resisted the new GP contract, which has resulted in well over 90 per cent. of children being immunised against avoidable childhood diseases.
    That is just one of many ways in which we set a target that we not only met but beat. The introduction of the hib meningitis vaccine has resulted in an 80 per cent. fall in those cases in only a year. This country now has its largest ever immunisation programme. Some 7 million schoolchildren are to be immunised in November. We hope that the scheme will be widely supported because it is the effectiveness and success of the national health service that enables us to implement that important policy.
    Mrs. Wise: What account is the Secretary of State taking of the clear links that have been established between unemployment and mortality and ill health? What is the right hon. Lady doing about that, and will she restrain her hon. Friends from hounding the unemployed and persuade her Government to act to provide more real jobs?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am vigorously championing the success of the Prime Minister and other members of the Government in reducing the number of unemployed. A reduction of 400,000 in the number of unemployed since the end of 1992 is a remarkable achievement. I am certainly not pursuing populist gimmicks such as compulsory paternity leave which would be imposed by Brussels and would drive jobs out. A minimum wage would also be counter-productive in terms of providing
    748
    real jobs for our people. I want to make sure not only that we have people in employment but that we have healthy people in employment.
    Mr. Sims: Is not the progress towards meeting the targets in "The Health of the Nation" extremely encouraging? But does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment at the poor figures in relation to reducing the incidence of smoking among young people and especially girls? What are her plans to reduce the largest avoidable cause of premature death?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is a persistent and wise champion of the cause of reducing the extent of smoking. As he will know, in that respect we have been more successful than any other European country apart from the Netherlands. That is largely because we believe that price is a crucial variable. Every 10 per cent. increase in price leads to a 3 to 6 per cent. fall in consumption. We are meeting the target for adults and pregnant women. The problem is in meeting the target for young people. The most important factors are parental disapproval and education in schools. I am pleased that through our "Health of the Nation" strategy we are reinforcing our messages to parents and to those in control of young people and are increasing the extent of anti-smoking education.

    Private Children's Homes
    Ms Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring her Department is undertaking of the placement of children by local authorities in private children's homes unregistrable under the Children Act 1989.
    Mr. Bowis: The social services inspectorate is currently undertaking a study of children's small homes in England.
    Ms Coffey: How can the Minister undertake adequate monitoring when his Department has absolutely no idea how many children are placed in children's small homes? His Department does not specifically request that information from local authorities. As he knows, a lot of nonsense is coming from his Department about such homes. When will he introduce legislation that will require those homes to register and enable them to be inspected so that the same standards can apply to all children's homes irrespective of size?
    Mr. Bowis: That is precisely what the current study is doing. It is establishing a database of small homes and considering whether the regulations that apply to them are adequately understood and applied. As the hon. Lady knows, unlike homes for adults, small homes for children are covered either by foster home regulations or placement regulations, and that is in addition to the welfare responsibilities of the authority in whose area the home is located.
    Dame Jill Knight: As most of the worst cases of bad treatment of children in homes—for example, pin-down—occur in local authority-run homes, why are we being asked to monitor only the private homes?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right. Sadly, the cases of abuse that we have had to investigate occurred in homes run by or under the auspices of local authorities. The homes that we are discussing here are for four

    749
    children or fewer. Except in my discussions with the hon. Lady about her concerns and with the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) about the impact on the community of children from such homes, I have not heard anyone say that children in such homes are at risk.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister acknowledge the importance of professional training for officers in charge of residential homes for children? Will he confirm that the Utting report found that 21 per cent. of officers in charge do not have relevant professional qualifications, and can he give the House an assurance that the Government are on target to achieve the Utting recommendation of having all officers in charge of residential children's homes fully qualified by 1995?
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Warner and Utting reports both contributed to our policy making. As he will know, we have set up the support force, which is doing excellent work around the country. He will also know that we have a budget of some £70 million for training and that there are now 5,000 more qualified social workers every year. We are seeking to meet the targets to which he refers. The proof of that is that, 20 years ago, 38 per cent. of field social workers were trained, whereas the figure is now more than 90 per cent.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Only this morning, I was speaking to the owner of a private unregistered children's home in my constituency who stressed that such owners want to be registered and distinguished from what he termed "the cowboys" involved in private care. I met the Minister's predecessor—
    Madam Speaker: Order I am waiting for a question from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Bearing in mind the fact that it is now nearly two years since my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) and I met the Minister's predecessor at the Department of Health to discuss this matter, why has it taken so long to plug what is, frankly, a dangerous loophole in our child protection legislation?
    Mr. Bowis: There is no way that I would be satisfied if I thought that regulations were inadequate to protect children in those homes. That is why we have issued a circular reminding local authorities of their very real powers in such matters. That is why, from now and in future years, the annual gazetteer of children's homes will include the numbers of children placed in such homes so that we know what the position is and can continue to protect children in small homes as well as in the larger ones.
    Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend will know that one of the great difficulties in the care of children, whether in small or in large homes, is that there is such a rapid turnover in the people who look after them. Will he take steps to give much more robust guidance to the statutory services, to encourage caring volunteers to act as long-term mentors for those children and keep an eye on the way in which they are being looked after by the statutory services?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. So much can be done by statutory services—by inspection, regulation and visits—irrespective of the size of the home. What is needed are friends for children—key workers looking after children and making sure that they are in touch with those individual children's lives,
    750
    ambitions and hopes so that if they get into difficulties, somebody is there to take note and alert the proper authorities.

    Dental Services
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response she has received on the Government's proposals for NHS dental services and charges.
    Mr. Malone: We expect the dental profession's representatives and those others consulted to respond to Green Paper "Improving NHS Dentistry" when the consultation period ends on 1 November.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister realise that a 25 per cent. increase in dental charges would further increase the number of patient deregistrations because many people would no longer be able to afford to visit the dentist? In view of the recent Denplan survey, which revealed that more than three quarters of dentists would be more likely to leave the national health service if the Government's Green Paper proposals ever became a reality, and forecast that 69 per cent. of patients would be private by 1999, will the Government scrap the Green Paper and instead take steps to ensure an adequately funded dental care system within the national health service?
    Mr. Malone: Certainly not. The hon. Gentleman should remember that Denplan is a private organisation. Its headquarters happen to be in my constituency, so I know the company extremely well. It is hardly surprising that a limited survey carried out by an organisation with such an interest has come up with such a finding.
    I remind the hon. Gentleman that recruitment of NHS dentists is extremely good, with 578 additional dentists being recruited in two years. Also, 378,000 more patients have been added to NHS lists during that time. Spending on general dental services under this Government has increased by 56 per cent. since 1979 in real terms. That is the real level of this Government's commitment to NHS dentistry, which will continue.

    Cancer Research
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent last year on cancer research; and what percentage of that was provided by charities.
    Mr. Bowis: The latest figures are for 1992. They are £250 million and 45.9 per cent. respectively.
    Mr. Chisholm: Why is much less money spent on cancer research per million of population in the United Kingdom than in other countries? Why is it that in this country, uniquely, most of the money comes from charities? That makes long-term research difficult. Will the Minister undertake today to give more Government support to research into breast cancer—the biggest single killer of women between 35 and 50—as part of a much-needed national action plan on breast cancer?
    Mr. Bowis: That is a collection of questions. Of course, it makes sense to combine with our counterparts abroad to ensure that the resources of the world are devoted to combating cancer. According to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Britain is spending 7 per cent. of the NHS budget on cancer—that is some £2.8 billion. The

    751
    hon. Gentleman must be aware that this country leads Europe in its breast cancer screening programme and on investment in that.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the mixture of funding for investment. We very much welcome, and work alongside, the resources invested by charitable organisations and also by the pharmaceutical companies.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that charities give all sorts of people the opportunity to contribute directly to the extension of knowledge, to the fight against cancer and, very often, to mutual support groups?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The work of charities and their ability to attract resources from individuals is a great asset and one which we should nurture. They are especially good at attracting resources from individuals for the fight against cancer.

    NHS Employees
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from employees afraid to speak publicly on NHS matters.
    Mr. Malone: None.
    Ms Eagle: Does the Minister agree that there is growing concern about the increasing number of dedicated health care professionals who are being disciplined or even dismissed by their health trusts for speaking out about the decline in standards? What will he do now to put a stop to draconian gagging clauses?
    Mr. Malone: There are no draconian gagging clauses. The procedure is set out clearly in the guidelines that have been issued, which emphasise not only that there is a right to speak out and go through the proper procedures but that there is a duty to raise such matters in the proper way and to have them dealt with thoroughly and properly.
    Mrs. Gorman: What representations has my hon. Friend received from the proprietors of private nurseries who are being harassed—
    Madam Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. I am on my feet. If the hon. Lady will relate her question to the question on the Order Paper, I will hear it.
    Mrs. Gorman: What representations has my hon. Friend the Minister received on health matters from the proprietors of private nurseries, who are afraid of speaking out publicly for fear of their being closed for the most minor infringements?
    Mr. Malone: None, to my knowledge.
    Mr. Pike: Is the Minister aware of the concern at Burnley health trust, where many of the employees are not able to speak about what is happening? Is he further aware that one consultant was dismissed last month with three hours' notice and that the chief executive was asked to resign yesterday? Should not there be an inquiry into what is happening at that health trust?
    Mr. Malone: The guidelines are precise. They state that fair procedures should be set out which allow openness and that a climate should be established between those who manage the institutions and those who are employed in them so that such matters can be properly
    752
    investigated. The hon. Gentleman should refer to the guidelines. If it is the case that the institution to which he refers is not living up to them, that is a matter which needs to be looked into.

    Junior Doctors
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last met representatives of junior doctors to discuss the implementation of the new deal.
    Mr. Malone: I last met the junior doctors' committee chairman to discuss the new deal on 29 September, and before that on 28 July. Ministers have met the representatives of the junior doctors on numerous occasions since we launched the new deal.
    Mr. Congdon: Given the success in reducing junior hospital doctors' hours, does my hon. Friend agree that it is now important to do what we can to ensure that all accident and emergency departments have the appropriate level of junior and senior doctors on duty at the most critical times?
    Mr. Malone: It is always extremely important that all accident and emergency units have a proper mixture of staff. However, those patterns are changing and, in many cases, it is possible to break down boundaries between the nursing profession, junior doctors and consultants. Where that happens, a far better mix of patient care is available for those who need it.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Berry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 October.
    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. Berry: Does the Minister for business probity still command the full support of the Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: I shall be making a statement immediately after Question Time and the hon. Gentleman should contain himself.
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Clark: During the course of his busy day, does my right hon. Friend ever pause to reflect on how easily little bits of bad news can push major items of good news out of the headlines? In congratulating my right hon. Friend on his continuing achievements in Northern Ireland, may I ask whether he agrees with me that the end of 1994 will be remembered not for the media's obsession at the present time, but for the achievements in Northern Ireland, which have brought stability, hope and peace beyond our wildest expectations?
    The Prime Minister: It is attractive from time to time to maintain a proper perspective on political matters and

    753
    I do believe that we have now entered a fresh phase of the peace process in Northern Ireland, as I set out in my speech in Belfast last week. As I saw for myself across the community in Belfast last week, there is enthusiastic support in Northern Ireland for the progress that has been made and appreciation and understanding of what still needs to be done. But there is greater hope that peace may now be permanently achievable than we have seen at any time in the last quarter of a century.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Prime Minister investigate the affair of Healthcare International at Clydebank and tell us why more than £30 million of public money has been put into creating a private hospital and what will now happen to rescue that hospital? Will he guarantee that any such rescue effort will not be at the expense of NHS hospitals in Glasgow and the west of Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will examine carefully what the hon. Lady has said. As the hon. Lady will know, year on year, the resources available to the health service in each part of the United Kingdom have increased, as have the number of patients treated and the quality of service offered by the NHS, and we intend that that will continue.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: I invite my right hon. Friend to use the time between now and the start of the intergovernmental conference in 1996 to persuade our partners in the European Community to adopt a moderate rather than ambitious agenda. Does he agree that a stately minuet would be preferable to the rain dance that he described in his celebrated article in The Economist one year ago?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend sets out my view with great clarity. It will be necessary in 1996 to look carefully at changes that have occurred. I do not personally believe that there is a great appetite across the European Union for dramatic changes. We will have to wait to see what is placed on the agenda, but my judgment is that changes deserve to be modest and should be no more.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Does the Prime Minister accept that it is not sleaze but his party's basic values that have been exposed? Is it not the case that, now that public service is set at naught and the marketplace rules, Conservative Back Benchers are operating in that marketplace?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman examined improvements across the range of public services over the past 15 years, he would realise that his remarks are utterly and totally misguided. Service to the public is what matters. Where that can best be provided in the private
    754
    sector, it should be. Where it remains in the public sector, we have done more to improve service than any previous Government.
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that choice and diversity are essential if we are to continue improving the nation's schools? Will he reconfirm yet again his support for grammar schools, grant-maintained schools, the assisted places scheme and city technology colleges? Can he tell the House how many children are being educated in those schools?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's point follows on rather well from the previous question. Education is a service to the public and now offers more choice at a higher standard than previously. It does so as a direct result of the policies that we have followed. Giving parents more choice and more information on which to base their choice is a fundamental part of our policy will remain so. That means that we need more grant-maintained schools and CTCs. I cannot immediately tell my hon. Friend how many pupils are attending those schools but I will do so in writing. Something like 1 million parents have benefited from those schemes, and many more will do so in future.
    Mr. Barron: When I was first elected to the House, I believed that I was elected to perform a public service. Will the right hon. Gentleman make a comprehensive statement at 3.30 pm, to ensure that other Conservative Members believe that we are here to give public service and not for self-service?
    The Prime Minister: Clearly the hon. Gentleman was not listening a few moments ago. I set out clearly our determination to improve all services that must remain in the public sector, as many must. I commend to the hon. Gentleman my speech at the chartermark awards a few days ago, which he would find of some interest.
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who have something to contribute to public life should be encouraged to serve on public bodies? Has not the obsession with sleaze reached absurd heights when the Labour party accuses General Sir Peter de la Billière and the Duke of Kent of being Tory placemen on public bodies?
    The Prime Minister: I believe—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) is entirely right in pointing to the fatuous nonsense that appeared in a Labour pamphlet published last week. There is a serious debate to be held about public service and non-departmental bodies but it cannot be held by claiming that General Sir Peter de la Billière and the

    755
    Duke of Kent were placed on quangos because of donations that they made to the Conservative party. Where there are issues, let us look at them.
    Let us look also at the large number of Labour party members who serve on quangos. I have here a long list of members of quangos, all good Tory placemen: Mr. Bill Morris, Mr. Jack Jones, Mr. Harry Irwin, Lord Plant, Eric Hammond, Hugh Scanlon, Reg Bottini, Lord Cocks, Baroness Blackstone, Lord Barnett. I shall spare the House the rest of the list.

    Hon. Members: More.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the House does not want more of me. Quieten down now.
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Lynne: Given the Prime Minister's avowed intention to maintain the highest standards in public life, will he reassure the House that the disgraceful tactics used by the Government to crush the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill will not be used again when disabled persons' legislation comes before the House in future?
    The Prime Minister: I indicated earlier in the year that we would send out a consultation document on the question of anti-discrimination legislation for disabled people. We have done so. We have received more than 1,000 responses to that document. We are examining those carefully and, as soon as we have finished that, we will make an appropriate announcement.
    Mr. Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the creation of 1,000 additional jobs by Rover at the Longbridge plant on the edge of my constituency is a demonstration of good Government policy and superb local management, and will he support it?
    The Prime Minister: All extra jobs are worth while and we have had a lot recently. Unemployment has fallen by more than 400,000, partly as a result of growth in the economy, partly because of the increased competitiveness and partly because of the sort of investment in this country that would not take place if the policies of the Opposition parties had been followed. We now have output rising at 3.5 per cent., inflation at a 27-year low, unemployment
    756
    down by 400,000 and business confidence at a high level. I look forward to more jobs being created in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere.
    Mr. Tyler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Tyler: When, this time last week, the Prime Minister answered my question about making his Administration a sleaze-free zone, why did he not admit to the House that he had had an inquiry for three weeks into the behaviour of members of his party? Why did he not come clean with the House at that stage, instead of waiting for newspaper revelations to force that information out of him?
    The Prime Minister: When the hon. Gentleman reads the Cabinet Secretary's report, which I will be publishing this afternoon, he will see that his question is wrong and he will owe me an apology.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is not the point about public appointments that, if we had not had denationalisation, the Government would still be left appointing their own placemen to run half of British industry? Has not one of the great gains of having a Conservative Government for the past 15 years been that we have got rid of most of those appointments and that we do not need to have trade unionists on every board in the country?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. It is also entirely to right to say that we need people who are public spirited to serve on non-departmental public bodies. That is the case and it has been for a long time. [Interruption.] Perhaps I may remind hon. Members who shouted out, "They are all Tories" of a Labour party national executive committee advice note published recently? It reads as follows:
    "Labour Party members may take up places on non-elected authorities and use them as a platform for our campaigning".
    It goes on:
    "Members accepting appointments of this kind should inform Walworth Road so that the … Shadow spokespeople and Head Office policy officers can maintain a network of contacts, informing appointees of Labour policy and collecting useful information in return."
    That is the sleazy way in which the Labour party deals with non-departmental bodies.
    Mr. Bill Michie: Why are the Prime Minister and his Government spending so much time chasing would-be or wishful job seekers, instead of concentrating on his right hon. and hon. Friends who have too many paid jobs?
    The Prime Minister: We are seeking to put as many people as we possibly can who are at present without jobs and unemployed—whom the hon. Gentleman claims that he cares about—back into work. The job seeker's allowance seeks to play its own part in doing that. It is a necessary innovation; I welcome it, and I believe that it will be very successful.

Public Life (Standards of Conduct)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the conduct of public life, and put some proposals before the House. Before I do so, I shall refer to the report that I asked the Cabinet Secretary to undertake on allegations of impropriety against named individuals that had been made by Mr. Mohamed Al Fayed. I have now received Sir Robin Butler's report, and am publishing it in full in a written answer this afternoon. Before turning to wider matters, I should like to draw on that report.
Perhaps it would be best if I quoted paragraph 2 of Sir Robin's report to me. It reads as follows:
"In reporting those allegations the informant said that Mr. Al Fayed wanted a meeting with the Prime Minister, principally because of Mr. Al Fayed's wish to have the DTI Inspectors' Report on the takeover of the House of Fraser revised or withdrawn."
It continues:
"He had made a number of allegations against Government Ministers and was contemplating passing them to others."
Sir Robin then sets out my reply. He records that I replied that it would be impossible for me to see Mr. Al Fayed in these circumstances. If Ministers had been guilty of wrongdoing, as Mr. Al Fayed alleged, I was not going to make any sort of deal, regardless of the cost to the Government's reputation. I said that I would consider how to proceed, and suggested that in the meantime my informant should make no response to Mr. Al Fayed.
I said that because I was not prepared to enter into discussions with Mr. Al Fayed on any of these issues. However, it was clear to me that I would need to establish whether there was any substance in the allegations. If there was, it was unlikely that they would remain private; nor was it right that they should remain private.
Upon the substance of the allegations, the House now knows that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) has resigned from the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) has rigorously rejected—both orally and in writing—the allegations of impropriety made against him, and is taking legal action. Sir Robin's report makes it clear that he has found no evidence that controverts my hon. Friend's assurances on these matters.
I must tell the House, however, that, since Sir Robin completed his report, other unconnected allegations which were not the subject of his investigations have been made against my hon. Friend. I must consider whether the combined impact of these allegations disables my hon. Friend from carrying out his responsibilities as Minister for Corporate Affairs. I believe that they do, and my hon. Friend agrees and has resigned from the Government.
On the other allegations put to me, Sir Robin found that they are either demonstrably false or, so far as he has been able to establish after careful inquiry, entirely unsubstantiated, as well as being denied by the Ministers concerned.
I now turn to wider issues. It is important that the public have confidence in our system of public administration, our methods of making public appointments, the conduct of people in authority and the financial and commercial activities of public figures. It has always been the wish
758
of this House that British Government, Parliament and administration should be entirely free of malpractice and I am determined to ensure that that is so.
In the present atmosphere, there is public disquiet about standards of public life and I have concluded that action is imperative. I have listened carefully and have reflected upon the points raised by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House in framing my recommendations.
I have decided to establish a body with the following terms of reference:
"To examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public office, including arrangements relating to financial and commercial activities, and make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements which might be required to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life."
For these purposes, public life should include Ministers, civil servants and advisers, Members of Parliament and United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament, members and senior officers of all non-departmental public bodies and of national health service bodies, non-ministerial office holders, members and other senior officers of other bodies discharging publicly funded functions and elected members and senior officers of local authorities. That is a wide-ranging list, and it is intended to be so.
I have considered the nature of the body to be established. A royal commission tends to be cumbersome, and would probably take too long; a committee composed solely of Privy Councillors might be seen as being too narrowly drawn; a Speaker's Conference traditionally deals only with electoral law; and a formal board of inquiry or judicial inquiry tends to carry out specific investigations rather than considering broader issues and making recommendations to the Government. Arguments can be made for any of those bodies, but I believe that a better way ahead exists.
The body needs to be able to respond quickly and to be sufficiently flexible to deal with the wide range of issues I have outlined. I have, therefore, decided to establish standing machinery to examine the conduct of public life and to make recommendations on how best to ensure that standards of propriety are upheld. It will contain prominent individuals who have practical experience of Parliament and public life, but also others with expertise and knowledge of our principal institutions. Lord Nolan, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, has accepted my invitation to chair this committee.
I have invited the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats each to nominate a member of the committee, and I shall announce the full membership shortly. I hope that the committee will be able to produce at least a first report covering the main areas of current concern within six months, and then stay in being as a standing body to advise the Government of the day.
It will be open to the committee to take evidence in public, although it could also invite evidence in writing or in private and would probably wish to deliberate in private, but the committee must determine this. Naturally, I would expect Ministers and Members of Parliament to give evidence to the committee if requested to do so, but I should make it clear that the purpose of the body is not to replace the House's own machinery, which is the proper way to consider issues affecting individual Members of the House.

759
The new body will advise on general procedures, including procedures governing public appointments rather than investigate individual cases. When the committee has reported, I will publish its report, I hope in full, lay it before the House and take the proper action upon it. Recommendations affecting the Members and procedures of this House will, of course, be for the House to decide.
I hope that I have made it clear that I am determined to ensure that this is a wide-ranging review of the safeguards of standards of public office. It is vital that the system is seen and recognised to be beyond criticism. I shall naturally make available to the committee "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and any other documentation concerning the proprieties in Government that the committee may seek.
This country has an international reputation for the integrity and honour of its public institutions. That reputation must be maintained and be seen to be maintained. I hope that the standing committee I have announced today will enjoy the support of the House and reassure the people of this country about our determination to maintain high standards of conduct in public life.
Mr. Tony Blair: I welcome the new body to look at conduct in public life. It is plainly sensible and necessary. I accept that some of the allegations made by Mr. Al Fayed may well be unsubstantiated and, indeed, badly motivated, but will the Prime Minister accept that public anger over these issues goes far wider than merely the matters raised by Mr. Al Fayed?
On the inquiry, will the Prime Minister confirm that it will cover not simply the consultancies of Members of Parliament and outside financial payments, but whether Ministers who privatise companies should then sit on their boards; the role of lobbyists, the use of patronage generally, not just for Members of Parliament but for others; and appointments to quangos, especially given the news today—I should be obliged if he would confirm it—that there are some 66 national health service trusts whose chairmen are either prominent members of the Conservative party or gave a donation to it?
Does the Prime Minister agree that the inquiry must be comprehensive, covering past malpractice, present practice and future rules? In that regard, may I point out what I think is a weakness in his statement? Will he confirm that the one area of investigation that appears forbidden to this body will be the specific allegations made against Ministers or Members of Parliament that have given rise to the public anxiety? If the new body is not to examine those cases, is there not an overwhelming case for the Committee of Privileges, which is the only other body that can examine them, to sit in public so that those matters can be investigated?
If that is ruled out, might I suggest alternatively that it is imperative that the new body, headed as it is by a Law Lord and with the power to take evidence, investigates the specific cases before moving to the general conclusions? If the Prime Minister rules out either the Committee on Privileges sitting in public or the new body investigating those matters, there will be justifiable public concern that the general inquiry is being used to sweep the particular allegations from public view when it is those allegations that have given rise to the public concern.
760
It would not be unfair to describe today's statement as decision-making on the run. Indeed, the resignation of the Minister with responsibilities for trade, just announced, suggests something of the same. I should be obliged if the Prime Minister would tell hon. Members what the nature of those other allegations against the Minister are. I repeat, however, that the inquiry is right. I do not underestimate the difficulties that beset the Prime Minister or the delicacy of the judgment that he must make, but the warning signs over these issues have been ignored for too long.
There should be no more statements made one day only to be superseded by different ones made the next. The action that the Prime Minister takes today should be expanded to encompass the comprehensive solution that I have put forward. If he does that in the way that I described, we will ensure that his Government once again start to control events rather than be driven by them.
The Prime Minister: Let me deal with the points that the right hon. Gentleman made. I welcome the fact that he supports the establishment of this new body. It will restore confidence where confidence may have been lacking, and that is to be welcomed in every part of the House. I welcome also what he had to say about the allegations that have been produced by Mr. Al Fayed.
On the right hon. Gentleman's specific questions about the inquiry, I made clear in my statement the answer to a number of the questions that he asked, but I shall confirm specifically for him that, yes, it is possible to look at the membership of boards, the relationship with lobbyists, patronage and quangos. That is all well within the terms of reference, as I said to the House a few moments ago.
On membership of quangos, no record is kept of the political affiliation—[Interruption.] No record is kept of the political affiliations—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear. The House must come to order so that at least I can hear what the Prime Minister is saying.
The Prime Minister: I repeat the point that I made a moment ago. People of all political persuasions serve on non-departmental public bodies. Many of them who are sufficiently well known for us to know their political affiliations without central record are well-known members and supporters of the Labour party.
There is no precedent for the Committee on Privileges to sit in public. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well the good reasons why that is so. It is necessary to have an investigation in depth without unsubstantiated allegations subsequently being made. That is a matter of natural justice, and has always been seen to be so by Members of the House, until some Opposition Members seemed to wish to play partisan party politics.
As for the new body, as I made entirely clear in my statement, it will set up the procedure to ensure that everyone has confidence in the way in which public affairs are conducted. It has been set up for that reason, and it is unbecoming of the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that it was set up for any other reason.
As for the nature of the allegations about my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), they are allegations and they are unsubstantiated. Whatever inquiries the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) may have, I am not going to retail unsubstantiated allegations. They will be investigated—they should be

761
investigated—but every hon. Member should know that the purpose of the House is not to retail unsubstantiated allegations, but to make sure that they are investigated and, if true, acted upon.
Mr. John Biffen: May I welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in particular the wide scope that is proposed for the inquiry, and the method by which it is thought that it should conduct its business?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I felt that it was necessary to give the committee the widest possible scope, so that it may deal with the whole range of concerns that have arisen not just in the events of the past couple of days, but I suppose, in some respects, rather earlier. It is therefore right to deal comprehensively with this matter; to have the committee independently chaired by a senior Lord in Ordinary, whose independence can be undoubted; to have representation on it from each of the three largest political parties in the House and to have other representation on it, which will spread across the band of public life, of people from politics and beyond it.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement, not least because it seems to follow almost identically the proposals put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) a week ago. I am tempted to ask the Prime Minister why it has taken him so long to get there. Will he understand, however, that a welcome for the principle of a general inquiry into the ethics of public office should not be taken as satisfaction with the way in which the Prime Minister has handled individual concerns about individual Ministers in his Government?
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his indecision in this matter stands in stark contrast with the clear undertakings that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) little more than a week ago? If there are substantive matters to be investigated, does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that they should be investigated not by the Cabinet in the Cabinet, but by the Privileges Committee in public?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's originality is such that he repeats precisely the points made some moments ago to which I have already replied. As for decision-making, an inquiry was established immediately. That inquiry has reported, and action has been taken on it. As for the wider issue, I would hardly regard as he does the decision to establish the widest-ranging committee to deal with the conduct of public life that has been established in this country at any time since the second world war.
Sir Norman Fowler: May I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the action that he has taken? Is it not the case that only an independent inquiry of this kind will satisfy the public? Is it not much better to have such an independent inquiry than to allow the agenda to be set by political muck-raking?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend entirely about that. It is necessary to have a proper body
762
so that people know that actions are taken within a proper framework and can then deal with suitable contempt with those who make unsubstantiated allegations.
Mr. Peter Shore: The Prime Minister emphasised the wide-ranging nature of the inquiry that he has just announced, and, like others, I welcome that. But will the terms of reference also include a matter that bears upon standards of conduct in public life—the financing of political parties in the UK?
The Prime Minister: This inquiry will deal with Government matters, Government appointments and Government behaviour. It has nothing to do with the financing of political parties, which has been dealt with by the Home Affairs Select Committee.
Sir Peter Tapsell: While greatly welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask him whether the Director of Public Prosecutions will examine whether Mr. Al Fayed should be prosecuted for attempted blackmail and whether all those who either succeed in bribing or attempt to bribe Members of Parliament should be prosecuted for corruption or summoned before this House for contempt of Parliament?
The Prime Minister: The latter point is predominantly a matter for the House. On the former point, the note of my meeting has been passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Is the Prime Minister telling the House that the inquiry will have no right and no capacity to inquire into those cases where substantial sums have been paid to the Conservative party in order to buy favourable decisions or privilege?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would be wise to reflect on what he has just said and on his evidence for saying it. I set out clearly the remit of this committee. It is perfectly clear, and I have nothing to add to it.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the new body will have the power to look into the substantial sums of money that are paid to a number of right hon. and hon. Members for things that they do for the news media, based on information received while Members of this House?
The Prime Minister: I should think that the chairman of the committee may well consider that the remit would cover an examination of such payments.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: As the Prime Minister purported at Question Time to read out a selected list of Labour members of quangos, he must have taken some trouble to ascertain such political affiliations. Will he now compile and publish a full list of the political affiliations of chairmen and chairwomen of quangos, so that the public know how the Government fill those vacancies?
Will he also publish a full list of the chief executives of the next steps agencies with their salaries—something which he has totally refused to do so far—together with the salaries of the civil servants who did the comparable jobs before the agencies were set up?
The Prime Minister: That is a classic illustration of the sort of smear by association that we have seen so often

763
during the past few years. It is not very difficult for most people in politics to know the political affiliations of prominent socialists like Baroness Jay, Helene Hayman, Lord Scanlon, Mr. Jack. Jones and other people I mentioned earlier. I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman lives, but most of us on this side of the House can recognise a socialist, whatever activity they may be performing, if they have been as prominent as those.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: As chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today, especially his reassurance that matters affecting Members of this House will continue to be considered by Members of this House.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said, and I certainly concur with the points that he made. My hon. Friend speaks with great experience of those matters.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that the matter of taking money from big business can never be properly cleared up until the Government face the 64-dollar question and say that Members of Parliament should have one job and one job only? Members of Parliament hold 550 directorships, consultancies and adviserships, which are mainly held by Tory Members of Parliament. It is high time that people understood that they should be able to live on the payments made to a Member of Parliament, and that there should be no conflict of interest between serving constituents and serving other masters outside. Clean up the stables now.
The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman entirely carried his hon. Friends with him in those remarks—some of them also would have interests. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman also addressed himself to the question of trade union sponsorship and membership of that type. I do not think that that is a matter for the hon. Gentleman. He may be the latest living example of the old levellers, but many other people on both sides of the House believe that the concept of the wholly professional politician will only isolate politicians more and more from the people who send us here.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I refer my right hon. Friend to the second paragraph that he quoted from the Cabinet Secretary's report. I ask him to confirm that, in the past six days of hectic media reporting, not a single member of the media managed to discover the way in which they were being manipulated by the Al Fayeds. Although legitimate issues were raised in public, the media should be encouraged to try to ask how they are being manipulated by others.
I also ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that it is right that the new standing group should not examine every part of internal party funding, and that we cannot expect it to consider the way in which the Leader of the Opposition got his £70,000 and why the Labour party has appointed Tom Sawyer, the man who said, "No pay, no say", as its general secretary.
Ms Clare Short: Because he is the best man for the job.
The Prime Minister: "Because he is the best man for the job," the hon. Lady says. I do not doubt that. He may
764
well be the best man for the job; I would not have any criticism about that in the case of Mr. Sawyer. The people whom we appoint are also the best people for the job; that is why they are appointed. I hope that Opposition Members will make the same type of judgment as the hon. Lady did to defend her position, that we would make to the people that we have appointed.
Now we know the truth, do we not? It is the right person if it is someone on the Opposition side; it is sleaze if it is someone on our side.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is no use writing a new highway code unless there are sanctions at the end of it, such as fines or taking away the licence, to implement it? Is he aware that the last time that the House received recommendations to expel two Members—in that case, Reggie Maudling and Albert Roberts—the Tories divided the House on party political lines and threw out that recommendation? Will the recommendations of the new body have to come back before the House for endorsement and be subject to political sanctions, or will the new body have the power to fine or suspend, or recommend expulsion on the verification of the Speaker?
The Prime Minister: I made the point earlier to the whole House, quite clearly, that the report would have to be laid before the House for the House to consider. If I had not done so on matters relating to the House, a large number of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends would have said to me, "This is a matter for the House of Commons, and it has to come back to the House of Commons." Opposition Members cannot have it both ways. As for dividing on party lines and walking out on that basis, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell the Privileges Committee about that.
Mr. Alan Howarth: Welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask him whether he agrees that the same requirements should be made, as far as may be reasonable, of quangos as of local government, in respect of access to information and documents and meetings, as well as publication of membership and registration and declaration of interests?
The Prime Minister: Those are all points that can be covered in the report, and I suspect will be.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that, whatever the merits of a wider inquiry may be and whatever embarrassment to individuals or parties may have arisen from recent events, the matter of real concern is that, when people vote for a Member of Parliament, they should know that that Member works for them and is not using his position in Parliament to earn money on political matters that benefit the Member, not the constituent? Were that idea to spread, people would lose faith in the House of Commons, which would destroy centuries of work to establish the democratic principle.
That being the case, is the Prime Minister aware that the only way to deal with it is total openness, which is why I and other Members of the Committee of Privileges felt unable to hear the evidence in private and believed that it should be in public?
Is there not a clear answer to the problem? The Prime Minister and other Ministers, like everyone who has been a Minister, are governed by the strictest guidance of procedure for Ministers on private interests. If that were

765
applied to all Members of Parliament, and if the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 were used to disqualify, by law, those who did not fulfil those criteria, the matters could be dealt with and public confidence restored.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's latter point is certainly the sort of matter that the committee may wish to recommend, and may wish to send back to the House. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be free to give evidence to the Committee on such issues if he wishes to do so.
On the subject of open government, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I have probably made more moves towards open government in the past three years than we have seen at any stage in the previous 30 years. Those include the membership and terms of ministerial Cabinet Committees, the publication of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", the Intelligence Services Act 1994, the White Paper on open government, the code of practice on Government information, the statutory access rights, the openness of public records, the code of practice that includes a range of other matters, more than 11,000 records released under open government initiatives—I could extend the list. Those are the moves towards open government that I have made in the past three years, and I think that it is time that some Opposition Members realised some of the movements that have been made.
On the earlier part of what the right hon. Gentleman said, many of his strictures are equally applicable to sponsorship by trade unions. The purpose of the Register of Members' Interests is to ensure that people are aware of what outside interests Members of Parliament may have.
Mr. Roger Gale: Every weekend, the majority of Members of the House go back to their constituencies and hold advice surgeries to try to offer help to constituents from all walks of life. It is vital that those people are able to come to us—men and women on both sides of the House—and expect to receive sound, helpful and honest advice. It is for that reason more than any other that I welcome the inquiry that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced. My right hon. Friend has—
Madam Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Gentleman resume his seat for a moment? He is making a statement. He has been on his feet for some time, and I have not yet heard a question.
Mr. Gale: My right hon. Friend said that there would be an inquiry into the affairs of Ministers of the House, Members of the House and civil servants, which is absolutely right. It is not up to the House to question—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. A number of hon. Members wish to be called, and I now want brisk questions to the Prime Minister, not long-winded statements.
Mr. Gale: There is a section of the community that has not been named in my right hon. Friend's statement. Will my right hon. Friend ask the chairman of the Press Gallery to conduct a similar inquiry into the political affiliations,
766
financial interests and shareholdings of members of the Gallery, their editors and proprietors, and to publish them?
The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend may have achieved a rare moment of cross-party consensus.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that, when he appears before this House with a straight face and tells us that there is no current connection between political affiliation and quango appointments, he makes himself and his Government look shabby, foolish and quite incredible?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, even if, as usual, he is wrong.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and I regret the resignation of our hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). Perhaps my right hon. Friend could also take a look at one of the biggest quangos of all—the European Commission. Would it be in order to suggest that British nationals serving in the Commission as Commissioners, or working for it, or who are now likely to serve on the Committee of the Regions, should also be included in the remit of the new body?
The Prime Minister: I have certainly included the United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament, but I am not sure whether the conditions of service of others who work in the Commission and elsewhere would legitimately fall within that remit.
Mr. John Evans: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people in this country are appalled by the prospect of Members of Parliament holding consultancies that pay them large, although undisclosed, sums of money? If he wants to give real credibility to the new body that he has announced, why does he not include both Members' consultancies and trade union sponsorships?
The Prime Minister: I am interested to hear that suggestion. I made it clear earlier that it was perfectly possible for consultancies to be examined by the Committee, which can make recommendations about them. The hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt about that.
Dame Jill Knight: Has my right hon. Friend noted the number of times during these exchanges when Opposition Members have referred to the proceedings of the Privileges Committee as "secret"? Does he not feel that, in the interests of accuracy, it should be clearly stated that every line of every question and answer will be published and then debated in this House? There is no secrecy in that.
The Prime Minister: That is entirely true; I could have made the point in answer to a previous question. The report of the Privileges Committee, although its proceedings will be held in private, will be published, brought to the House and then debated by the House. That is hardly a secret investigation, and it is open to every member of the Committee to come and speak in the debate.
The reason why the Privileges Committee has always met in private has been well understood for many years: it is in the interests of natural justice that it should. I very

767
much regret that on this occasion, for whatever reasons they may have—I shall leave others to judge them—Labour Members alone have decided that they will not sit and conduct the investigation into the behaviour of Members of Parliament in the traditional manner. I believe that people outside will see that as a partisan move for partisan reasons.
If the report were not to be published, debated and then acted on, Opposition Members might have a point. As it is, they have none—except that they want to create the maximum amount of difficulty, irrespective of how the House traditionally deals justly with its Members.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I generally support the Prime Minister's announcement today, although we share the view that some appointments to quangos are made for political reasons. In Northern Ireland, that is not usually because the persons concerned are Tories, as they are an endangered species there. Usually, it is people who have been defeated at elections who have been appointed to quangos.
Is there not a danger of hysteria getting to us n this House? Already I have heard people crying, "Why didn't he resign?" when earlier they were crying, "Why doesn't he resign?" It is a fact that standards in this House are still respected throughout the world as an example for all.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. There has been an hysterical reaction in some quarters. There seem to be a large number of candidates for the role of witchfinder-general on the Opposition Benches—people who seem unconcerned about the way in which they are behaving. That truly is as poor as any of the behaviour that they themselves criticise.
Literally millions of people in this country would claim to be Conservatives, socialists, Liberals or members of some other political party. The argument that those people are somehow different and should therefore be excluded from public service is totally and utterly ludicrous.
I want people of quality whatever their political persuasions to serve, and the sooner the Labour party removes its dogmatic opposition to bodies that run things locally, such as national health service self-governing hospitals, the sooner many of its supporters will wish to come forward and work for their local communities and make a success of those bodies. It is the Opposition's doctrinaire stupidity that stops that happening.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement of the inquiry. I should like to return to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith). While all our officials in the Commission are meant to be honourable men, should we not set an example by regulating them in the same way as we regulate public officials in this country—or is my right hon. Friend saying that employees in the European Commission, those who are UK nationals, are beyond UK law and jurisdiction? Should we not do something about that, bearing in mind that the Commission is responsible for £5 billion of fraud in the European Union?
The Prime Minister: People working for the European Commission who may previously have been British civil servants are in exactly that same position as people who have been working for the United Nations and other bodies for the past 20 or 30 years. The fact that people
768
work for the European Union ought not to mean that they are treated in any way differently. They are employed for a period by people other than ourselves, and do not fall within our natural responsibility and jurisdiction. People may regret that, but it is a fact. Those people who properly fall under the control of the House for these purposes are elected Members of the European Parliament, and I have included them in the inquiry.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Can the Prime Minister say whether Mr. Al Fayed was interviewed by the Cabinet Secretary? Will he say who the other Ministers were and whether they were interviewed? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his inquiry is unprecedented, and does he not know that his Law Officers accept that the Committee on Privileges could meet in public or in private: that that is up to the members of the Committee?
In the context of being partisan, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that the public might draw the conclusion that the partisanship lay with the Government supporters, and that the issue was decided only by the casting vote of the Lord President? The public will also ask, "What have this Government got to hide that they have to meet in private?"
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is sometimes mind-bogglingly silly. On the points in the first part of his question, I suggest that he refers to Sir Robin Butler's report. On his latter points, he should refer to the answer that I have several times given to his hon. Friends and which he has not yet taken in.
Mr. Gary Streeter: For the avoidance of doubt, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the standing committee will examine and explore the substantial sums that pass from trade unions to Labour Members year in and year out, and no doubt the substantial favours that are required in return?
The Prime Minister: That is not specifically included in the remit, and I am not sure without a careful examination of the remit whether it would fall within it. But, of course, if people wish to volunteer that, it is a matter for them.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: The Prime Minister has suggested that no records are kept of the political affiliations of quango appointees. Is he aware of the existence of the Public Appointments Unit, which has nine full-time and two part-time staff investigating the backgrounds of appointees? Is he also aware that the Public Appointments Unit registers 10 different categories of information with the Data Protection Board? In the course of the inquiry, will he ensure that the criteria used for those 10 different categories of information about prospective appointees to public office are placed in the public domain?
The Prime Minister: Let me take, for example, the question of health service appointments, as I think, from memory, that that was the one I referred to earlier. No central record is kept there of the political affiliations of the people who are appointed. On the hon. Gentleman's logic, many of the people who are invited have high-profile positions. But hundreds more do not—they just have a commitment to public service. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect. Is he really suggesting that one should engage in a series of questions to all the people

769
there as to what their political affiliations might be? What is the question to be, "Are you, or have you ever been, a Conservative?"—is that the sort of society that the hon. Gentleman wants?
Mr. Henry Bellingham: In welcoming the Prime Minister's statement today, will he ask the Lord in Ordinary when he comes to looking at patronage and the abuse of it to examine carefully the record of the last Labour Government, and in particular the resignation honours list of one Prime Minister and the appointment of a son-in-law to the ambassador to Washington by another Labour Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister: I seem to recall that, when the last Labour Government were in power—admittedly, a long time ago—there was a great fuss about the number of Labour appointees to bodies of one sort or another, particularly those that became known as quangos. There is no doubt at all that that was certainly the case at the time. Anybody who has served on a local school governing body with a Labour-controlled education authority will know very well precisely what Labour authorities have done so frequently to Conservative Governments—
Mr. Tony Banks: And Conservatives.
The Prime Minister: "And Conservatives," says the hon. Gentleman, so he concedes that that is what Labour authorities do. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman makes my point for me.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Can the Prime Minister repeat his assurance that the inquiry will report within six months? Some of us can remember that, in October 1989, the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General came to the House and announced an inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich cases. That inquiry was dragged out, and every conceivable excuse was used to drag it out, for the next five years, until most people had forgotten the origins of the inquiry in the first place. We do not want to see that happen in this case.
The Prime Minister: The timetable for the inquiry will not be in my hands. I have said that I hope the inquiry will be able to report, at least on the substantive part of its work, within six months, but that is a matter for Lord Nolan, the chairman, and the members of the inquiry, one of whom—a senior member—will be appointed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and another by the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Liberal party.
The timetable will not be in the hands of the Government in any sense. I have expressed the hope that it can be done within six months, and I believe that the chairman and the committee will seek to meet that target, but I can offer the hon. Gentleman no guarantees, for it is not within my control.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will accept that one of the background elements in the who e matter is the speed with which the role of Members of Parliament and the expectations of them of their constituents are changing, and the way in which the relationship between this place, the
770
Government the European Union and, indeed, the public service in our country is changing. Will he at least give us the assurance that he will think very carefully about also setting up an inquiry into the best way of equipping this great House of Commons to take the country into the 21st century, in light of the way in which so much is changing so quickly?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about the changing demands on Members of Parliament. Members who have served in the House for more than a few years will acknowledge that difficulty from their own practical experience. There is no doubt that the much greater availability of Members of Parliament and their much greater visibility through a much higher level of media interest than ever before has added to their work load, so I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend has to say. However, that is predominantly a matter for the House itself rather than specifically a matter for me, although I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend's underlying proposition.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Will Prime Minister confirm that the two Ministers who have resigned did so apparently on the narrow point they had not declared items in the Register of Members' Interests? Will he accept that the issue is much more serious than that? Will he therefore reject the notion that, just because something is in the Register of Members' Interests, it is all right to do it?
Will the Prime Minister also make it clear that the whole purpose of the inquiry is to look way beyond whether we have a Register of Members' Interests or whether people declare what is in it, to the real prospects of trying to find out how to bring back to the country the honour that the House has so long deserved?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's first proposition was wrong, of course. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) certainly resigned because he did not delare something in the Register of Members' Interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) has resigned not on those grounds, but on the grounds that more allegations, as yet unsubstantiated and unexamined, have been made, and on that basis it is clearly difficult for him to continue with his present responsibilities as Ministers for Corporate Affairs. For that reason, he has left the Government. Nothing as yet has been proved against my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton.
Of course there are wider concerns. It is precisely to allay them that I have set up a mechanism which I hope will, when it has reported and is operating, show beyond doubt that many of the wilder allegations and tittle-tattle that have appeared recently have no basis and are, indeed, nonsense. Once the procedures are in place, much of the feeding frenzy that we have seen from time to time over recent years and weeks will be seen to be the utter nonsense that so much of it is.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We shall now move on to the next business.

BILL PRESENTED
  FORMER CABINET MINISTERS AND PUBLIC OFFICIALS (INTERESTS)
  Mr. David Winnick presented a Bill to prohibit former Cabinet Ministers, senior civil servants and senior officials of public departments and public bodies from accepting employment from a company which was privatised when they held office or which had a commercial or contractual relationship with a department or body for which or in which they exercised a relevant function: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 164.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
  That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Metrication) (Amendment) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Weights and Measures (Metrication) (Miscellaneous Goods) (Amendment) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Units of Measurement Regulations 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.

Drug Education
4.20 pm
Lady Olga Maitland: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to deal with drug education.
This is a wide subject, and I want to concentrate on one aspect—solvent abuse. More radical steps must be taken to save our children from solvent abuse than those proposed by the Government's Green Paper "Tackling Drugs Together". At present, it is not unlawful to sniff solvents. However, we should note that two schoolchildren die every week from solvent abuse, and many more damage themselves. Solvent-based products are cheap and available, and can be bought with pocket money. Many children graduate to soft drugs. Far too many end up in gaol after decades of drug addiction fed by crime.
We must take a critical look at what is happening behind our backs. It is estimated that 750,000 of our children have tried sniffing solvents, thereby putting their lives at risk. There is not a quiet, pleasant neighbourhood in the country left untouched by children experimenting with solvents. The youngest reported was only seven years old; the youngest to die was just nine.
After road accidents, solvent abuse is the second highest unnatural cause of death among people aged 10 to 16. Even in my constituency—leafy, pleasant and stable Sutton—the practice of solvent abuse is far more widespread than parents and teachers could ever imagine. It is not just an inner-city problem; it is a national curse affecting normal, decent families.
Indeed, it was not until I began to make inquiries among teenagers that I saw for myself the urgency of the problem. With the help of the charity Youth Awareness Programme—YAP—which is run by young people in Sutton to counter drug and solvent abuse, I have managed to get an inside view. Their experiences are backed by another charity, Re-Solv, which is a specialist in solvent abuse.
What I heard was highly disturbing. There is barely a family in Sutton where one child has not experimented with solvents. It is all too easy. Every household has at least 30 domestic products that can be turned to improper use, ranging from aerosols, such as hair sprays, to cigarette lighter refills. Worse, children have no idea how lethal they can be. The number of youngsters who die at first attempt is shocking.
Let us take the case of Jane—it is not her real name—who is aged 14. She attends a popular, well-managed local school which, on the face of it, would not have any such problems. However, Jane says otherwise. Peer group pressure is powerful, and solvent sniffing is widespread. She says, "We are doing it at the back of the class and the teachers don't notice. My first experience was with marker pens. You can get a good buzz from them."
Girls are being increasingly influenced by boys, who are now being introduced into the school. They graduate from marker pens to more powerful solvents. Sniffing then takes place outside school—down a quiet lane or even at home. Jane has now become a voluntary youth worker trying to stop her friends from using drugs. Their response is discouraging. They tell her, "We know what we're doing. Sniffing doesn't do any harm."

773
Richard—again, not his real name—aged 15, is trying to do the same at his school and youth club. He said, "They are all doing it, and have been experimenting for years. It is difficult to get them to listen to me."
Olivia, now 18, who attended a Roman Catholic school, told me, "I started at school on solvents before moving on to drugs. It was so easy. It began with, 'Let's have a go on Tipp-Ex.' I started sniffing. I had head-thumping experiences and carried on. It gave me a lift. I liked it."
Then Olivia told me how they learned to get an even better sensation by drinking alcohol at the same time—beer or cider, both of which are affordable. She added, "The truth is, none of us had any idea that by breathing aerosol cans through the sleeves of our sweaters and directly into our mouths we could freeze our lungs and die. I saw it as an easy way to get a high and as an escape from everyday problems."
My teenagers then listed the most popular products they use. After aerosol-driven products come glues, drycleaning fluids, lighter and correcting fluids, not to mention butane gas, used in cigarette lighters and refill canisters. The latter is particularly lethal, and is the single cause of the greater number of deaths.
I congratulate the Government on their proposal to educate children in primary schools on such dangers, but much more needs to be done. Industry has a major responsibility, too, and must be educated to respond. It is, after all, its dangerous substances which cause the damage. Industries should be obliged by law to put a warning label on products that could be misused. I congratulate the British Aerosol Manufacturers Association on taking a lead in issuing guidelines. They must now become statutory.
In turn, the bona fide customer needs to be educated to buy non-solvent-based products. Industry must move to non-solvent-based products wherever possible, and grants for research into substitutes should be provided. The Government must make grants available for research and development into alternative butane-free propellants. In any case, pressure and incentives should be applied to manufacturers to use pump-action cans. Why not subject dangerous aerosols to excise duty, following the principle of paying less for green petrol?
The Government should consider strengthening the existing Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 by establishing an enforcement agency. Pitifully few prosecutions have resulted so far. Retailers must be educated about solvent-based products. Only 43 per cent. of shopkeepers even know which products can be abused.
Every retailer must question and refuse to sell to a child who suddenly buys half a dozen aerosol cans. At the same time, he must be suspicious if there is a sudden and unexplained request for plastic bags which are used to enhance sniffing. If in doubt, do not sell. Make it tough to buy solvent-related products. There should be a ban on all sales of butane gas lighter refills to those under 16 years old. Finally, we should strengthen the Children Act 1989, giving social workers power to take action with young people at risk from sniffing solvents.
I trust that my Bill will have support from both sides of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Lady Olga Maitland, Sir Malcolm Thornton, Sir David Mitchell, Mr. Neville Trotter, Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. Michael Shersby, Mr. David Hanson, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Jonathan Evans, Mr. David Porter, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown and Mr. Michael Stephen.

Drug Education
  DRUG EDUCATION
  Lady Olga Maitland accordingly presented a Bill to deal with drug education: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 October, and to be printed. [Bill 165.]
Opposition Day
[19TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  The National Health Service
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.28 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move,
  That this House shares the public alarm at the creeping privatisation of the National Health Service, accompanied as it is by lower accountability to the public, and a diversion of resources into increasing bureaucracy at the expense of patient care.
  The national health service holds a unique place in the life and affections of the people of Britain. There could be no more eloquent testimony to its uniqueness and importance than the lip service paid even by the former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher—to whom the socialist principles on which the health service are based were and are anathema—or the caution shown by her successor, who claimed only a few days ago in Bournemouth that the health service will not be damaged or privatised
  "not while I live and breathe."
  Fine words, which we are told express good intentions—but we, like the people of Britain, do not give that for the Prime Minister's intentions. Of concern to us is the calamitous effect of his policies, which are producing a two-tier health service with an increasing role for ability to pay, driving us stealthily but steadily towards a privatised health service with diminished public accountability for huge sums of public money, and causing an enormous increase in bureaucracy.
  At the outset, I pay tribute to those people who continue, despite the obstacles placed in their way by the Government's gross incompetence, to make, our health service work and who strive daily to deliver high standards of patient care. I refer to the staff of the national health service. The Secretary of State, like her Government colleagues, has adopted the dishonest practice of attempting to pretend that any criticism of her or of Government policy is criticism of the health service itself or of its staff. Let us get that out of the, way for a start. The staff of the health service are wonderful—the Government are appalling.
  The health service remains a service with huge achievements to its credit. It is one within which public servants struggle to do the job for which they were trained, no matter how difficult the Government make it. Those achievements are maintained despite Government policy, not because of it.
  The Secretary of State continues to insist that her so-called reforms are delivering the goods. I remind her of the words of the chair of the British Medical Association at its conference in July:
  "There is no longer one national health service."
  That is despite the promises that the Government have repeatedly made to the British people. The chair continued:
  "There are 100 purchasing consortia and 400 provider units, each with its own self-serving view of its best interests."
  776
  Despite the Secretary of State's claimed confidence in the changes that she has brought about, she has been deeply reluctant to debate them in the House. The Government last initiated a health service debate in November 1991, when the right hon. Lady's predecessor was in charge. The current Secretary of State for Health, who has held that office since the last general election, has never once volunteered to discuss her relentlessly continual reforms—her permanent revolution—with right hon. and hon. Members.
  Not only has there been little debate, but there has been no independent evaluation or research into the impact of Government reforms. Ministers are often pleased to quote the OECD report published earlier this year, but even they have admitted that it relies on assumptions and figures supplied by the Department of Health and can in no way be described as independent. We await with interest the Audit Commission report due next year. Meanwhile, the Secretary of State is charging ahead with further changes and initiatives well before that report appears.
  Major transformation in the nation's health service is taking place without proper consideration and debate in the House, and without full and proper evaluation even of changes made so far, let alone with full prior consideration of the latest ideas being floated—the application of performance-related pay or local pay bargaining. We are also kept ignorant of the real costs.
  In March 1993, we were told that the cost of changes up to that time was –1.2 billion. That was enough, had it been differently spent, to fund up to 1,000 new health centres across Britain or almost to clear the health service's waiting lists. But, since March 1993, there has been silence from the Secretary of State on the cost to the health service of this "permanent revolution". We have managed to squeeze out the news that some —37 million, in total, has been spent on minor consequences of change; such matters as logos, changing note paper and so on. Although that much smaller sum has been spent on the minor consequences of change, it is, of course, the kind of sum that the Government have found for attacking the waiting lists, which are of so much more value to patients.
  The first effect of the Government's changes, whatever their cost, is the commercialisation of the health service—the slippery slope to overall privatisation—and not only that commercialisation, but the stealthy increase in private provision itself. I am avare that the Conservative party dislikes the use of the word "privatisation" in the context of the national health service, although it seems to revel it in everywhere else. I am even more aware that, in the course of the debate, some Conservative Members may chide me for daring to use the word in the light of the Prime Minister's assurance that the health service will not be privatised while he lives and breathes. Let me, for the fullness of information, quote what the chairman of the British Medical Association said last week at a meeting of the Caledonian Society. He said:
  "I was delighted by the Prime Minister's assurance in his Party Conference speech that the Government is not going to privatise the NHS…I am, nevertheless, somewhat bewildered because the fact is that the NHS is already being privatised."
  He goes on to give the example of the first privatisation of clinical support services in the Lister laboratories. That privatisation is causing serious alarm across the health service because it means the privatisation of pathology services, which are so crucial to the provision of a universal national health service.

  777
  By the way, I would not like the House to miss the fact that this passage about privatisation—again, I am quoting the words of the head of the BMA—concluded:
  "I am driven to the sad conclusion, therefore, that the Prime Minister does not know what is going on or that he is not in control of the situation."
  Is the Secretary of State—I wonder—in control of the situation? If she tells us that the health service is not being privatised, she, too, will be subject to the charge that she does not know what is going on.
  The number of private beds has risen by two thirds since 1980, while national health service beds have been reduced by a third. That is not a question only of changes in medical techniques, which, I know, is the usual excuse that the Government trot out when we talk about the reduction in the number of beds; it is a shift in the pattern of provision in which the number of national health service beds is being reduced and the number of private beds is increasing. One hundred thousand private patients are now seen in the national health service, mostly in private bed units in trust hospitals—an increase of 12 per cent. over one year. Laings review of private health care makes it plain that almost 19 per cent. of all United Kingdom hospital-based health care is now provided by private hospitals and nursing homes, whereas in 1984 only 7.5 per cent. of hospital-based health care was so provided.
  Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: Does the right hon. Lady accept that the number of beds in the national health service has gone down at a rate of—roughly–10 per cent. over the past 10 years, which merely reflects different patterns of treatment and more surgery being done on a day-case basis? Is not it dangerous for her and her colleagues to put out an alarmist story about beds disappearing when, in fact, that is totally inconsistent with today's medical needs?
  Mrs. Beckett: I know that the hon. Gentleman has made that intervention in previous debates and I am afraid that I think that he might—if I may say so with deep respect—have been on automatic pilot. If he had listened carefully, he would have heard me saying that my point was not simply that there had been a reduction in health service beds, because I recognise, despite the fact that we would argue with him to what extent that has been part of the problem, that there have been changes in medical care—the point that he was making. I was making a different point, not one with which he is quite so familiar, which is that while the number of national health service beds is decreasing, for whatever reason, the number of private sector beds is going up.
  A survey carried out by The Observer newspaper and Denplan, a private dental scheme, shows that, in dentistry, 77 per cent. of those dentists surveyed thought that within five years they would treat no national health service patients.
  I hear the Minister of State muttering, "Here we go again: we have heard that before." Yes, we have heard it before. I receive complaints at my advice bureaux—I should think that the Minister receives them at his; if not, I hope that people will listen and then turn up—from people who are very worried because they do not think that they will be able to get NHS treatment for their dental
  778
  needs in the future. They find that very alarming and they do not like the fact that the Government are presiding over such a reduction in health service care.
  Perhaps most telling of all, within the private sector the share provided by charitable hospitals has fallen from 57 per cent. to 37 per cent. since 1980, while the share provided by hospitals run for profit—run explicitly as businesses to make money—has grown from 42.5 per cent. to 63 per cent.
  In August this year, Peter Griffiths, an advocate of the Government's so-called reforms—a former deputy director of the NHS executive, I believe—was more forthcoming than some Ministers have been about the future as they see it. He made it clear that, in his view, the move by many of our existing institutions from state trust status to, in effect, the status of private health care providers was an inexorable development of existing policy.
  Then there is the evidence leaked to The Sunday Times in August, and not so far refuted—although perhaps it will be refuted during the debate—that American health care companies are engaged in secret talks with the Government with the aim of taking over parts of the national health service. The Minister of State, I believe, has confirmed to The Sunday Times that several American concerns are trying to secure a foothold in Britain, and doctors and academics have already expressed the fear that the managers of the world's most expensive medical system may end up dictating the price of health treatment in Britain.
  The hospitals that—it is suggested—have been targeted are the Royal Marsden in London, with its worldwide reputation for cancer treatment, and the Christie in Manchester, which is similarly famous and valued. As I have said, despite those strong rumours we have as yet heard no denial from the Government that such talks are taking place and I see no evidence that anyone is volunteering to give me such a denial today.
  Across the board in the health service, we are seeing the commercialisation of a great public service. As research commissioned recently by the GMB union shows, there is no clearer evidence of that commercialisation than the composition of the trust boards appointed by, or in concert with, the Secretary of State. A study of the expertise and backgrounds of those appointed to the boards shows that they are overwhelmingly representative of Conservative interests. One third are directors of private companies—or 25 per cent. in some cases. Others are solicitors and accountants; only a tiny percentage have medical expertise, or expertise in the national health service.
  Moreover—as was mentioned here earlier today–66 of the trusts are chaired either by a Conservative or by someone connected with a company that has made a donation to the Conservative party. The party, and Tory front organisations, have been given nearly £2 million by companies whose directors were appointed by the Secretary of State and now sit on NHS trusts. Some trusts, for example, are tarred with the brush of a company—Tarmac—whose interests and expertise have nothing to do with health, but are in construction and road building; although, by coincidence, it is the company which gave £413,500 to the Conservative party between 1979 and 1992.
  Tarmac is well represented on the NHS trusts. Brian Baker, chairman of a trust in the west midlands, was the managing director of the company until last year; Lord

  779
  Stafford, from another division of Tarmac, is a director of the mental health foundation of the mid-Staffordshire trust.
  I must concede that Sun Alliance has an interest in people's growing insecurity about the future of our health service, and in its disintegration. Its former chief executive, a Mr. Addison, is a director of Croydon community trust. Sun Alliance has given a total of £478,000 to the Conservative party. George Kennedy, a director of Kent and Canterbury hospitals trust, was chairman of a division of Smiths Industries. It has donated more than £100,000 to the Tory party. The largest corporate donor to that party, United Biscuits, is represented on the board of the Great Ormond Street hospital for sick children by its chairman, Sir Robert Clarke.
  Hon. Members who have retired from the House or from the European Parliament, or who may be active in the House of Lords, can often be assured of a place on one of the Secretary of State's NHS trusts. The beneficiaries of her patronage include Sir Timothy Raison, Sir Robert McCrindle, Lord Jenkin—a former Conservative Health Secretary—Lord Hayhoe, Baroness Cox, Maureen Hicks, Tony Favell and Lord Wade. Only yesterday, I heard that the former Member of the European Parliament for Lancashire, Central—a Mr. Michael Welsh, who presumably lost his seat as recently as June—is now to chair the Chorley and South Ribble NHS trust.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: I shall be pleased to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Rowe: I thank the right hon. Lady. The tenor of her arguments suggests—
  Mr. Terry Lewis: Only a tenner? You are cheap!
  Mr. Rowe: I understand the attraction of apparent illiteracy to certain hon. Members, but it is a pity that they do not understand plain English.
  The right hon. Lady's argument suggests that, were she or any of her Front-Bench colleagues to lose their seats at an election, they should not be given any jobs in which their expertise and experience could conceivably be of any public value. Is that really what she means?
  Mrs. Beckett: I do not intend to be drawn into that argument. Let me merely observe that I have lost my seat in the past, and no member of the Conservative Government offered me anything. The hon. Gentleman's assumption that we apply the same standards as the Government is not borne out, certainly by my experience.
  The hon. Gentleman made a similar point the last time these issues were debated, and I understand from what he has said that his wife has health service expertise, I have no quarrel with people whose political persuasions are different from my own—people across the board, indeed—who have expertise, knowledge and experience that could be valuable to the health service, and who are given positions on NHS trusts. I must tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that anyone who scrutinises the information that has
  780
  been dragged out of the Government piece by piece will not get the impression that the community, in its broadest sense, could conceivably be said to be represented.
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): If the right hon. Lady really wants more of her supporters to join NHS trusts, the best thing that she can do is say that she supports those trusts. Will she take the opportunity today to acknowledge that trusts are working and are good for patients? Will she encourage her supporters, and congratulate them on the good work that they are doing in the trusts?
  Mrs. Beckett: That was an interesting intervention. I know that the Secretary of State has made that point repeatedly in the past. She knows that we oppose NHS trusts; nevertheless, while they exist we want them to work in the way that gives the best value to the community.
  I am interested to note that the Secretary of State's definition of a person who is fit to serve on the boards of trusts is someone who agrees with her. That is apparent in their membership. Our information is inevitably somewhat anecdotal, because the Government do not publish proper information about the qualifications of those on the bodies concerned. However, I know of many Conservatives with years of experience, much expertise and a record of serious service to the NHS, all of whom have been swept out of sight in those bodies because their devotion to the NHS might outweigh their devotion to the Conservative party, and because they will not do precisely what the Secretary of State says.
  What the right hon. Lady has said is very revealing. Yes, making the trusts broadly publicly representative will mean including members of other parties, but it should also mean including people of different shades of opinion from the Secretary of State, who tell the truth about what is happening in the NHS rather than slavishly repeating whatever she says.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has a particular interest in these matters, but the spouses of other Conservative Members have been given positions on hospital trusts. They include the husband of the Secretary of State for Education, the wife of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), the wife of the right hon. Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow), the wife of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and the wife of the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner). As I have said, that is just the information that is available to us now.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Is not it grotesquely unfair for the Opposition repeatedly to attack my wife for being appointed to a trust when she has spent all her life working in the health service and did a great deal of service for no payment in the Southend health authority and whom I met when I was taken to Westminster hospital as one of her patients? Is the right hon. Lady aware of anything inadequate about her qualifications for chairing a trust? Is she aware of anything inadequate in the record of the Southend community care trust? Is not it dirty and unfair to mention my wife's name repeatedly when she has had no job other than working in the health service as a fully qualified person?
  Mrs. Beckett: I am not attacking the hon. Gentleman's wife as an individual or her expertise. I did not know her background, but now I do. I named her because she is one of a string of known Conservative party members and supporters appointed to boards. It is an indication of the way in which the structure of the health service is being packed with people who, whatever their other expertise and experience, are Conservative party supporters. The hon. Member for Southend, East must be well aware that the vast majority of them have no experience in the health service.
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: No, I have not finished.
  There would be nothing wrong with people such as the hon. Gentleman's wife having a place on these trusts were they balanced by people of similar experience from right across the community. There would be nothing wrong if people who had that knowledge, expertise and understanding were much more widely represented on the boards. If the hon. Gentleman's wife has any sort of medical or health service background, she is one of a tiny percentage—between 4 and 6 per cent. We are attacking not the individuals but the nature and overall composition of the boards and the Secretary of State's decisions about the people she puts on them.
  Mr. Malone: The right hon. Lady cannot have her argument two ways. She refers consistently to the wives of hon. Members and then concedes that they are perfectly well qualified to serve on boards. Will she undertake to the House that she will stop referring to them in the future? That would be the decent thing to do.
  Mrs. Beckett: The Minister is missing the point, no doubt deliberately. My point is not that these are people with or without expertise in the health service. My point is that the only people appointed to serve on these boards have a known political allegiance or have no knowledge or understanding of the health service.
  Mr. Malone: The only people?
  Mrs. Beckett: Not the only people but the vast bulk of them. There is a tiny number of people of a different political persuasion. There is a sprinkling of Liberal Democrats and a slightly larger sprinkling of members whose political orientation is towards the Labour party. The Minister knows perfectly well that what we are saying is true. He knows, too, that this information has had to be dragged out of the Government inch by squealing inch. He knows that the boards are packed with people who can be relied upon to do the Secretary of State's bidding. If the Government have so little to hide why have not they been prepared to publish these lists until we dragged the information out of them?
  Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mrs. Beckett: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I want to go on to a different point. I have sympathy for him, but he has made his point.
  Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. If the right hon. Lady is not giving way, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
  Mrs. Beckett: I would give way to the hon. Gentleman if I had not already done so.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) has revealed in a survey, almost £20 million a year is being spent by the national health service on payments for these chairmen and non-executive directors of trusts. This morning on the "Today" programme the Secretary of State was sniffy about our concern over these issues. If I recall correctly she said that they were receiving "insubstantial sums". Well, I recognise that for people in the position of some of the directors involved, the sums they receive—£15,000 or £20,000 for the chairman of a trust—may not be regarded as substantial. I remind the Secretary of State that although a non-executive director on a trust can hope to earn £12 an hour for an eight-hour week working for that trust, a nurse on the middle range of pay can expect to earn £5.79 an hour for a long 40-hour week.
  Although it is claimed that everything about the appointments has been open and above board, we all recognise that that is not the case. If declarations of interest were made initially, they were certainly unpublished and had to be dragged out of the Government by my hon. Friends who preceded me in this post. Now that they are being published, we see how little experience of and contact with the NHS some board members have had and we are starting to see some more direct conflicts of interest. The chair of Trent regional health authority, which covers the area that I represent, is a board member of a company called Takare plc, the business of which is nursing homes. Therefore, it has a direct financial interest in reducing the role of the national health service.
  My predecessor wrote to the Secretary of State, who was too busy to reply. One of her junior Ministers replied, shrugging off the concern. The Minister offered not his own view about whether there was a conflict of interest but said that Mr. Ackroyd believes that
  "there is very little risk of any conflict of interest arising between his position as Chairman of Trent Regional Health Authority and as a Director of Takare".
  He would say that, wouldn't he? I have heard that before.
  In that context, the Government's announcement that they will finally respond to demands from the Opposition and set up some sort of independent body to review and monitor standards in public life is welcome, but it remains too little, too late. It is not clear to me that it will address, or that there are other steps to address, the questions that I put to the Secretary of State this morning. We want to hear from her whether the Government propose to establish a central register of quangos so that we know of all the bodies that exist. We want to know whether the Government propose to establish a register of the names of every board member of each quango and the qualifications of those members for board membership. We want to
  Know whether the Government intend that the same

  783
  standards as apply to surcharge and other safeguards in local government will apply to quangos, because, even more than local government, these bodies are involved in the use of public money and it is right that they should be dealt with in the same way.
  The Secretary of State sometimes seems to imply that because, by the standards of those involved, the money is so slight, it does not matter that it goes overwhelmingly to people involved with the Conservative party. Although she tries to pretend that there is no real problem, the Government have already made some changes in the way that the matter is handled by insisting that interests are declared. Today, it appears that perhaps they are making more. The concern that is reflected in those changes is felt much more widely outside the ranks of the Government than they sometimes recognise. The Conservative leader of Wandsworth council, in putting forward a proposal opposing the closure of Queen Mary's hospital in Roehampton said that
  "health care decisions are too important to be left to unelected quangos."
  I did not think that I would ever agree with the Conservative leader of Wandsworth council. Clearly, today is a first.
  Apart from the accountability of public money, we are concerned about its use. We want to see the money used in the front line to provide the maximum and best possible patient care. Under the Government's waiting list initiative, trusts are being encouraged to use the private. sector even though the cost of treating patients there is, on average, £1,552, which is more than five times the cost in the NHS. For a high level of psychiatric care the national health service cost is on average £46,000 a year whereas, according to the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, some private hospitals are charging£70,000 or £80,000 a year for similar care.
  Of course, those are rough and ready approximations. However, there seem to be some strange exceptions to the pattern. For example, the Health Care International hospital in Clydebank has received £40 million of public money, which has doubled from an initial estimate of £20 million, and that was enough, to treat patients from beyond these shores and, it was claimed at the time, create 4,000 jobs into the bargain. That project, however, has employed only 400 people. I understand that, far from treating patients from overseas, as was intended, the hospital is treating patients from Birmingham and Manchester on a cut-price deal basis. I shall refrain from wondering whether the geographical origin of someone in Clyclebank is a matter of concern. What really worries Opposition Members is the widespread rumour that such sums of public money have already been spent on a hospital that everyone in the locality concerned with health care said was an unnecessary investment and that the Government are coming under pressure to put in further public money to rescue a collapsed private sector initiative.
  The Secretary of State keeps telling us how open, honest and transparent the Government are in their NHS policy, so I am sure that it is an aberration that the eight
  784
  questions tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) came back to her yesterday without a substantive reply on what is happening in relation to the hospital or the Government's intentions.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: The Secretary of State is not listening.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that she does not wish to take heed of the question that I am directly putting to her. I hope that she will tell us that the Government have no intention of putting further public money into a purse that has already had far too much of it.
  The Secretary of State says that she has declared war on bureaucracy. It is obviously serious because she has taken on thousands of bureaucrats to help her fight it. There has been a 57 per cent. increase in the number of practice managers, but the number of general practitioners has decreased. The number of health managers has tripled, so we have a huge standing army of non-medical staff being paid large sums of money to think up new ways of saving money.
  I can provide the Secretary of State with one new way of saving money without any difficulty. The Government should abolish tax relief on private health insurance. If they did that, £85 million could be available at a stroke. That would go a long way to restoring free eye and dental checks, which would be of far greater value to most of the British public.
  In 1989, there were 4,540 managers in England, whereas in 1993 there were 20,000. Manager numbers are rising by 13 per cent. a year, but the number of nurses is falling by 1 per cent. a year. Department of Health expenditure on management consultants totalled £20 million in the days before this permanent revolution, but it was £66 million in the last reported year of 1993. It is being suggested that the cost of local pay bargaining that is under consideration could run to an extra £40 million in new bureaucracy. The Secretary of State's permanent revolution has led to an explosion of bureaucracy and waste, which is associated most directly with trust management and with GP fundholding.
  I see the Secretary of State, presiding as she does over this permanent revolution, as the Madame Mao of the health service. She attacks the authority of medical staff. She banishes or sacks people who disagree with her. Parliament and the public have to seek information through a system of Chinese whispers. She turns for support to the now highly politicised managers of the health service—a group of involuntary Red Guards who are obliged blindly to follow the dogma of the internal market. Increasingly paranoid, she and her Ministers treat the medical profession as conspirators and as harbingers of counterrevolutionary values, rejecting their advice and tossing aside their experience and judgment.
  Despite what the Secretary of State said at health questions, it is known that gagging clauses are widespread in contracts issued by health service trusts and that people who dare to speak out risk disciplinary action. Evidence has been found of telephone bugging. All hon. Members hope that that was an exception. As Dr. Brian Boughton, a senior consultant of the South Birmingham health authority has observed, there is now a climate of fear among staff in the health service and especially among those staff who are critical of the effects of Government policy on patients. In a rather sinister phrase, he told The Birmingham Post that

  785
  "these people are being removed from the scene."
  That was certainly the experience of Ian Mahady, the clinical director of obstetrics at Burnley general hospital. He is a highly respected and experienced senior consultant who happens to be critical of the Government's reforms. He was sacked and asked to clear his desk within three hours.
  The proposal for performance-related, locally determined pay is another step in the permanent revolution, which, against this background, can be guaranteed only further to weaken morale. We hear that Ministers have had to put those plans on ice because the national health service trusts announced that they were not ready for the move. It is clear yet again, and particularly clear if that was the reaction of the trusts, that the proposal has been bandied about without thought or consideration, let alone debate.
  The chairman of the Federation of National Health Service Trusts, Rodney Walker, has said that managers are confused and uncertain and that
  "it is one thing for Government to set the agenda and say there you are then, but it is a quite another to embark individually from scratch on such a profound course."
  That was yet another criticism from someone who was trying to make the Secretary of State's changes work and an example of what is happening in practice.
  Perhaps the most succinct critique of the Secretary of State's role came from the Daily Express, normally a slavish supporter of the Government. An editorial written during the Conservative party conference deplored the brutality with which the Secretary of State was destroying our health service. It stated:
  "We don't want our centres of excellence, our Guy's and Bart's hospitals, chopped up and sown together again under some new name which satisfied the demands of Virginia's managers on tightening up resources … Imagine the uproar if she were to become Education Secretary and decide to do away with Oxford and Cambridge." [Interruption.]
  No heckling please.
  The editorial continues:
  "The NHS is not about numbers. It's about people and people don't want managers to decide where and when they are going to have their hip operations. They want doctors and nurses and hospitals near to where they live, where staff are not too tired and over-worked to give them the treatment they deserve."
  We want the outcome of the debate to be that the Secretary of State and her colleagues stop tinkering with our health service and start listening. They should stop repeating bogus statistics about the number of people treated, like some demented mantra, believing that, if chanted long enough, it will ward off evil reality. The Secretary of State knows that episodes of consultant care are distorted by patients going for an operation from one ward, coming back from it to another and being counted twice. The figures mean nothing and the Secretary of State is aware of that.
  Opposition Members ask the Government to start listening to passionate words like those of Dr. Macara of the British Medical Association. The Government must hear these things, but they seem to go in one ear and straight out the other. Speaking about our health service last July, Dr. Macara said:
  "There is despair in the air today. There is despair about the mood of alienation and demoralisation in the NHS."
  786
  He goes on to say:
  "Co-operation has been supplanted by commercial competition. There is an uncontrolled ill-managed internal market pitting purchaser against provider, fund-holding GP against non-fund holding GP, GP against consultant, junior against senior, hospital against hospital, and all to serve a perverse philosophy of winners and losers … Money does not follow the patient"—
  the Government's justification for the changes—
  "the patient has no choice but to follow the money until it runs out."
  Later in his remarks, he says that
  "we must all face the facts. Government must acknowledge that their 'huge national experiment', as the new Chief Executive of the NHS has described it, has failed them and failed the nation."
  Opposition Members oppose both the commercialisation and the fragmentation of our health service. Since the NHS trusts and GP fundholdings are agencies of fragmentation, we oppose them and wish to see them replaced. Like the British people, we reject the drift towards privatisation and we are appalled at the attitudes that it is already engendering—attitudes such as that revealed in July concerning the business plan for Charing Cross hospital. When that hospital decided to try to poach the leading consultant from the Royal Marsden, Mr. Nicholas Breach, one of the criteria taken into account was that that act would
  "assist in destabilising a competitor."
  What kind of attitude is that in a health service that is supposed to be providing patient care? I will tell the Secretary of State—it is an attitude fostered by everything that the Government have done by introducing their reforms.
  We are engaged in the process that the Government have shirked; a process of thorough and lengthy consultation, which includes representatives of patients and staff at every level. When our consultations are complete, we will come forward with proposals to re-establish a health service that can provide access to treatment on the basis of medical need rather than ability to pay. We will reestablish a health service that is available in every part of Britain because that is what the British people expect of our national health service and what this Government have put at risk.
  We in the Labour party created the NHS and that is why we can be trusted to modernise it, but only a new Labour Government can give Britain the new health service that it needs.
  5.10 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'notes that since the introduction of the Government's health reforms the number of patients treated has risen, waiting times fallen and quality of care improved; welcomes independent support for the reforms from sources such as OECD; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to continue policies which uphold the values and ethos of the NHS, further reduce administrative duplication and waste and deliver a flexible service able to respond to the changing needs of patients.'.
  I warmly welcome the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to her new responsibilities. I must say that the literature does not bulge with her previous utterances on health. The best that can be said of her speech today is that she was making up for lost time. The second best thing that can be said is that she has been

  787
  given her new job as an essential political sweetener, as Barbara Castle might have described it, for the trade unions.
  True to form, as Opposition Members will soon realise, the right hon. Lady, sponsored by her trade union, spoke at length about staff, but spoke not once about patients. That is always the case with Opposition Members who are sponsored by people who work in the railways or in the health service. Those hon. Members are blinkered to the needs and interests of patients.
  Ms Hilary Armstrong: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I should like to make some progress, but I shall then happily give way.
  I had hoped that today might have proved third time lucky, because as long as I have been at the Department of Health there have been three Labour party spokesmen on health. I kept hoping that the Opposition might offer a policy, but from what we have heard today they are off consulting again. It is a great tragedy, however, that the right hon. Member for Derby, South did not take the opportunity here and now to say that she supports trusts and recognises their work and the fact that they are doing good for patients. It was her predecessor but two, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who said that he did not believe that trusts would treat more patients. That was the test that he set at that time and they have passed it, because they are treating more patients than the numbers treated under the old system. Let me give the right hon. Lady a small piece of advice: she should take the opportunity to modernise the health service, accept the world in which we live and support the trusts and the work that they are doing.
  The right hon. Lady began by challenging the Government's commitment to the NHS. Perhaps I could remind her of some facts. Under the Government, NHS spending has risen from £7 billion to £37 billion, a 64 per cent. increase. That is a remarkable figure. More than that, a new multi-million pound hospital project has been completed, on average, once every eight days.
  The right hon. Lady wondered how anyone with any experience of the construction industry could have any part to play in a trust. Let me tell her the answer. Because we have one of the largest capital and building programmes of any organisation, we certainly need people with skill and expertise in the construction industry.
  Ms Armstrong: On that specific point, is the right hon. Lady aware that patients and prospective patients in my constituency are now facing the worst of all worlds with the rundown of their hospital at Shotley Bridge? Now her Government have delayed the building of a new hospital, which, in any event, is 14 miles away, because they have said that private companies must make a successful bid to plan, build and manage all but the core services of that new hospital. That will inevitably lead to a delay of at least a year and, in the meantime, the trust has said that services at Shotley Bridge must continue to be wound down. Is that looking after patients and their needs?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I regret that I gave way to the hon. Lady at that moment, because I shall address later that precise issue of the private finance initiative and the
  788
  importance of considering that option. It would be better to deal with it at that stage in my speech rather than at this particular moment.
  Mr. Keith Mans: The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) will have to sit there and wait.
  Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed.
  I must ask the right hon. Member for Derby, South to consult her sources again because in the past 10 years alone 8,000 more hospital doctors and dentists have been employed as well as 3,000 more general practitioners—a dramatic increase in their number—and 18,000 more qualified nurses. Let me remind her that while her party cut the pay of nurses and doctors, we have paid nurses 65 per cent. more in real terms and doctors 35 per cent. more. We are proud of our record because it contrasts and compares extremely well with that of any other previous Government.
  Above all, I remind the right hon. Lady that that investment has been generously repaid by results. Our policies have delivered a handsome dividend of better health, longer life and higher quality care. Since 1979, life expectancy has gone up by more than two years. In the past 10 years, the number of children dying at birth or within the first year of life has fallen by two fifths and the number of people dying under the age of 65 has fallen by one fifth. Those are dramatic achievements.
  Mrs. Barbara Roche: Does the right hon. Lady agree that that handsome dividend has been paid just to the private sector? In my local health authority, New River, to date more than £500,000 has been paid to the private sector because there are not enough beds for mental health in-patients in the NHS. As a result, 79 of those patients have been sent far away from their homes. The beneficiaries have been, once again, those in the private sector.
  Mrs. Bottomley: What we see from the Opposition is their virulent loathing of the private sector. For all the eau de nil, the modern Labour party style and the Opposition's apparent belief in a mixed economy and working with the private sector, they are obsessed with the ownership of the means of production. That is the only issue that matters. It is the clause IV mentality. It is not a coincidence that Unison sponsored the health debate at the Labour party conference and that Unison voted to support clause IV. It is no coincidence that the right hon. Member for Derby, South is sponsored by a union that wants to retain clause IV. At heart, that is the issue for the Labour party, but the issue that we mind passionately about is benefits for patients. We are proud of all that we have achieved for patients. We are proud that the average waiting time has halved—
  Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South)rose—
  Mrs. Bottomley: I am still replying to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), but I would be happy to give way to the hon. Member in a moment.
  We are proud of the increase in the number of community psychiatric nurses. We are proud of the improvements in services that are now taking place. Today is a

  789
  good day for the NHS, because new figures from the Government's statistical service show that in the past year alone—
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Bottomley: If the hon. Member will allow me to complete my sentence, I shall then give way.
  Only today, new figures from the Government's statistical service show that in the past year alone, NHS hospitals treated an extra 455,000 patients. That is a 4.7 per cent. increase. It is twice the annual average achieved in the 1980s and five times the annual average increase achieved under the Labour Government. It represents a dramatic increase in the quality of care received.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The right hon. Lady touched on community care by referring to the number of psychiatric health visitors. How many persons are in prison in England and Wales, and what advice has she had from the medical units in those prisons?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will know that I cannot instantly tell him the number of people in prisons. However, I can tell him very strongly that, for more than two years, I have been saying that we should target resources and care on the severely mentally ill. I have also been saying that we need supervision registers, which are really mental health priority lists, to ensure that, with the great expansion in services for the mentally ill—that is a priority for the Department but also a personal priority—we shall ensure that those resources are focused on the most severely mentally ill. In co-ordinating the improvements and tightening up care in the community wherever possible, it is extremely important to co-operate closely with social services and the Home Office.
  Mr. Boateng: On benefits to patients, is the right hon. Lady aware that in the Central Middlesex hospital trust, which is not alone, matters are now so bad that the trust charges patients and nurses for using the car park? The only people exempt from those charges are the managers, who have their own spaces. Is not that typical of the level to which she has now reduced the national health service—a service that cares only about money and managers?
  Mrs. Bottomley: When the right hon. Member for Derby, South considers other health services, she will realise that the NHS is remarkable in its lack of charges. We have no charge to go to a GP or to hospital and few charges for prescriptions, and we have £100 million more than when the Labour party was in power. It is sometimes appropriate to charge for car parking, not least because many people use hospital car parks for a great number of purposes. Where that can result in further developments and improvements in health care, it makes a sensible contribution. I cannot confirm the precise arrangements at the hospital mentioned by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), but I should be surprised if managers uniquely had free car parking spaces. That would not have my support.
  Mr. Rowe: In the long distant mists of time when there was a Labour Government and I was a civil servant working for them in Scotland, there was a hospital called
  790
  Ninewells hospital, Dundee. In the absence of someone on the board who understood construction, it overran its costs by well over three times. When it was opened, all the consultants insisted on having named spaces in the car park. Those were removed after two months because they simply revealed how seldom they were there.
  Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My excellent Minister of State, who has experience north of the border, well remembers the example that he gives. It makes the precise point about why many of the appointments in the health service help us to develop our skills in sectors where, frankly, we have not always been as good as we should have been. We have first-rate doctors and nurses, but in many other sectors the NHS has not had the quality and calibre of expertise that we should have in an organisation that spends well over £100 million a day.
  It may surprise the right hon. Member for Derby, South to know that the Conservative Members judge the NHS not by who is appointed to it but by the results. We take great pride in those results, which have come about following the reforms that we have introduced. We appoint people to health authorities and trusts for their ability to get the job done, whether they are the wife of the my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) or any other member of society. We want to get the job done and to improve the efficiency of the service and the quality of care to make services more responsive to patients'needs. Our excellent non-executives are helping the health service build on its already formidable record of efficiency.
  Mr. Richard Burden: As the Secretary of State is interested in results, does she consider it an acceptable result of the health service reforms that in Birmingham, at a time when hospital wards are being shut and beds being closed, heart patients are being asked to travel 300 miles to a private hospital in Glasgow, Health Care International? Do not people have the right to be treated in their own communities where their families can visit them?
  Mrs. Bottomley: Once again, the hon. Gentleman has singularly failed to identify what really matters to patients, which is how long they wait. Patients want to be treated as soon as possible. Before the reforms, 200,000 patients were waiting for more than a year. That number is now down to 60,000. We said that we would bring an end to the two-year waiters; we did so. We then said that we would bring an end to the 18-month waiters for hip, knee and cataract operations; we have done so. Moreover, we have extended that 18-month guarantee across the board from next year. In the area where the hon. Gentleman lives, the health authority is going for a commitment of a maximum of nine months' waiting. I should have thought that he would pay credit to all those people who are leading the country and delivering a nine-month guarantee for new patients. Those patients are being offered an opportunity to have their heart operations sooner. If they do not want that, they need not do so. If I lived in that area, I would much rather take the opportunity of being treated than linger so that the hon. Gentleman could satisfy some ideological dogma.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My constituents like not only a short waiting list but, if possible, a short stay in hospital. That applies particularly to

  791
  women, as long stays in hospital disrupt their domestic arrangements. If they can go to a day hospital, they are absolutely delighted.
  Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I commend to my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Derby, South a recent article in the British Medical Journal about the dramatic change in health care, not just in this country but in every country in the world. The rapid advance of micro-invasive techniques, endoscopy, new scanning techniques and new medical treatments mean that people need not automatically put on their pyjamas when they go into hospital but can be treated on a day basis and return home.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As they are in Lancaster.
  Mrs. Bottomley: As they are in Lancaster, as my hon. Friend says.
  However, we must have a service that is forward looking, responsive and flexible—
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I shall try to make some headway now. I have already given way twice as much as the right hon. Member for Derby, South did, and I shall try to come back to the hon. Lady in a moment.
  The NHS is world renowned for its quality of care, teaching and research. That is important and we intend to build on it. We are recognised internationally as having taken a lead in preventive health with "The Health of the Nation" White Paper, which was commended by Sandy Macara at the BMA conference. I was surprised at the element of the speech which the right hon. Member for Derby, South quoted. It seems to have slipped her mind that he said how much he commended "The Health of the Nation" and that we should make progress. He emphasised the importance of doctors in management, and we agree. He emphasised the importance of looking at effectiveness and outcomes, and we agree. He emphasised the importance of looking at health needs, not only health demands, and we agree. We agree on those and many other sectors, and that agreement and working together have characterised our relationship with the professions in recent years.
  It is important that we recognise all that has been achieved, but also that we build on it and seek further improvements. Our family doctor service is seen across the world as a model of its kind. That is important and we shall build on it. The NHS is facing a medical and technological revolution that will dwarf the management changes that have taken place. New techniques, new drugs, an aging population and rising expectations all place immense pressure on the service. They will dictate new patterns of care, new challenges and new ways in which we view the health service and its achievements.
  We need a flexible service, able to respond to those challenges—not clinging on to the past, but moving to the future. We need to liberate the innovators; to release the
  792
  talents from our doctors and nurses, our technicians and scientists. That is the aim of our reforms, and that is the dividend for patients that we have been delivering.
  Dr. Lynne Jones rose—
  Mrs. Bottomley: I am tempted, but I shall not give way. I must make headway.
  Dr. Jones: I want to make an important point.
  Mrs. Bottomley: If I do not make headway, other hon. Members will not be able to speak and I shall be severely rebuked later.
  I give the right hon. Member for Derby, South credit. She is at least conscious of her limited grasp of what has been happening in the NHS. When asked by Matthew Parris on BBC "Breakfast News" this summer whether she would keep any elements of the Government's health reforms, she replied:
  "Yes that's a good question Matthew. I am trying hard to think whether there are any I would wish to preserve. I can't call one to mind at the moment, but don't hold me to that because I might realise afterwards that there was something that they have done that has been beneficial."
  Conservative Members would be glad to help the right hon. Lady out of her difficulty. Scores of changes to the health service are beneficial to patients. We shall let pass no opportunity to tell her about them.
  The right hon. Lady has been given an onerous brief by the Leader of the Opposition—to modernise her party's policies, to make them more positive and to bring them up to date with the reality of the new NHS. Oh dear; no wonder we are told that she is so miserable, and no wonder she has had such difficulty today.
  The right hon. Lady's predecessor, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), spent two and a half years deciding what he opposed and fudging what he supported. He opposed GP fundholding. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady will hold that opinion. Seventy-four per cent. of patients in the area where she lives already have the benefit of GP fundholding. There is only another 25 per cent. to go and they will all have a top-tier service—but no, I suppose that it has to be equal misery for all in the right hon. Lady's book.
  The right hon. Lady's predecessor opposed competitive tendering. He opposed pay beds in spite of the new modern Labour party. Then he went to Blackpool, boasting at the Labour party conference that a Labour Government would abolish trusts. He lapped up applause from union delegates. He basked in their admiration for his dogged refusal to accept the Tories' agenda. What was his reward for that ideological triumph? Two weeks later, he came fourth from bottom in the shadow Cabinet poll and was sacked from the position of shadow Health Secretary by the Leader of the Opposition.
  Oh dear. It falls awkwardly to the right hon. Lady, who scarcely has a reputation as a moderniser of her party, to pick up the pieces, but she has frankly inherited a time capsule. While all around her is going forward, she looks backwards to the old days. In the meantime, independent commentators, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-peration and Development, recognise that Britain, whose NHS has long been the envy of the world, is now setting the pace in health care reform. The Labour party wants to

  793
  go back to the oppressive, centralising state control that has been rejected, not simply here, but throughout the world.
  The challenge is to seize the reforms and to build for the future. I suggest the following to the right hon. Lady:
  "Central planning was not a conspicuous success in the health service; decentralised sources of information close to local needs, like GP fundholders, may provide a better base for long-term decisions than a centralised planning agency."
  Those are not my words, but those of Professor Julian Le Grand, the founder of the Socialist Health Group and one of the foremost advocates of our reforms.
  The right hon. Lady will have to decide whether she will abolish 419 trusts when almost every hospital is now a trust, and doctors, nurses and managers are using the freedoms of trust status to innovate and to improve benefits for patients. Is she serious about abolishing fundholding? Does she believe, for example, in decentralisation, or is she more interested in the doctrinaire pursuit of uniformity over diversity? Is she really committed to patient power and patient choice—there has been no evidence of that today—or is she simply a poodle of the trade union movement?
  I challenge the right hon. Lady: if her commitment to patients is genuine, she should renounce her sponsorship by the Transport and General Workers Union, so that we may be sure in whose interest she is speaking. Does she want to? No; there is silence.
  The right hon. Lady resorted to the old scares and smears about privatisation. She produced no new evidence—simply peddled more of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described as the most insidious lie in politics. That privatisation scare story, which she regurgitated today, discredits the Labour party and dishonours the truth. Labour Members have been running it for years; they paid the electoral price for it in 1992 and they will pay the price again.
  Mrs. Fyfe: The right hon. Lady claims that Opposition Members are wrong to say that the health service is being privatised. What else does she call it when the Secretary of State for Scotland gives £30 million and more to a private hospital that is allegedly built to take overseas patients and, when it fails to succeed in that objective, survives by moving in patients from Manchester, Birmingham and anywhere else that it cares to dip into when it cannot obtain patients of its own from overseas? How can one plan for a national health service and national health service care of patients when that is allowed to happen?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I think that the hon. Lady knows that there is everlastingly a call for inward investment in Scotland, and it was in that context that the Secretary of State made that decision. It was not money that came from the health budget, but the hospital is providing health care for many NHS patients, and I care about patients. The Labour party's real agenda is not about patients; it is not about the so-called public alarm. It is about trade union power; it is about the old clause IV preoccupation.
  Let me make it clear, as the Prime Minister did at Bournemouth, that the Government will not deviate one dot or comma from the fundamental underlying principle of the NHS. Care is provided for everyone on the basis of clinical need, regardless of ability to pay. However, where
  794
  there are benefits to be gained for patients from working more closely with the independent sector, we will pursue those benefits. Where there is scope for innovation, flexibility and choice, we will let those qualities have their head. When we can secure additional investment in the NHS through private finance, we will seek to reap those opportunities soon.
  We spoke during health questions about the importance of the private finance initiative. We welcome the extra resources that result from that initiative. We want a modern service for patients. We also welcome the £1 billion of efficiency savings that have been secured as a result of market testing.
  Ms Armstrong: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I have already given way to the hon. Lady, and it was not very rewarding.
  The Labour party would deny NHS patients that money and the benefits from it. The price tag of that is all for the Labour party's blinkered dogma; another little sweetener promised to the unions. The Labour party must make up its mind. Who was it, as I said earlier, who said that the Government had to ensure that the public and private sector worked together? I may have given the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) the credit, but I was quoting the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I have promoted him in that short space of time—not before time.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: It happens all the time.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: The Secretary of State was reaffirming the Government's commitment to equity—to equal access to care. Would the Secretary of State care to say why there are such wide differences in health among people from different social classes in different parts of the country, why those health inequalities are widening, and what the Government intend to do to narrow them?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman needs only to look at "The Health of the Nation" strategy. That is designed precisely to ensure that we consider variations in health, so that we can make progress. I do not accept the view almost espoused by the Labour party that somehow it is so distressing for the healthier to become more healthy faster that one would rather hold them back than see progress throughout the range.
  There have been major improvements in maternal and child health for all social groups, for all income groups and throughout the country. That is the significance of the distinction between the purchaser and the provider—that the health authority is tasked with assessing health need and setting priorities. It is one of the many reasons why we would never turn the clock back to a monolithic, bureaucratic health service, as espoused by the Labour party. It does not allow the flexibility for local strategies and approaches to tackle the specific health needs of different parts of the country.
  When looking at its agenda, the Labour party will have to come to terms with fundholding. I have already said that in the region of the right hon. Member for Derby, South, 74 per cent. of patients benefit from a GP fund-holder. We recently announced that we shall extend the scheme—lower the list entry size, widen the range of services available and introduce new community fundholding schemes—to give even more practices the chance to

  795
  experience its benefits. We have pledged to level up and extend the benefits. We will deliver that pledge to the patients of this country so that they see similar improvements.
  I would commend to the right hon. Lady the new, independent evaluation of fundholding by professor Howard Glennerster. A first-wave fundholder states:
  "For the first time, we had managed to get to talk to consultants about the standard of care they were giving our patients".
  That is the essence of the scheme—clinicians talking to clinicians about patient care.
  Fundholding is rewriting the rules in the patients' favour. That marks, as Professor Glennerster states,
  "a shift in the balance of power back to general practice for the first time this century".
  General practitioners like it, patients like it and we like it.
  Mr. Malone: Labour Members do not like it.
  Mrs. Bottomley: They do not like it.
  Nowhere is the Government's commitment to patients more obvious. Nowhere is it having a more dramatic practical effect. The Labour party takes a vindicative approach and always wants to level down, not up.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady and want to pick up something that she said earlier when talking about the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). The Secretary of State said that 74 per cent. of my right hon. Friend's constituents came under GP fund-holders and that soon all of them would have a top-tier service. Will she explain what that means? Does it mean that other people do not receive a top-tier service?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The key point about GP fundholding is that when the GP is in control and autonomous, and has control over the budget, he is able to secure improvements and has a flexibility and responsiveness which, with the best will in the world, is almost impossible to achieve unless he is in the driving seat. GP fundholding is a voluntary scheme, but we have made it as simple as possible for more GPs to join.
  I simply commend again Professor Howard Glennerster's book in which he talks time and again about the commitment of GPs who come into fundholding and the benefits that they have been achieving, not just for their own patients, but for all patients in primary care. Their relationship with the hospital has also benefited.
  The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) should talk to Dr. David Colin Thomé in Runcorn who fought as a Labour candidate in a previous election. He is a champion of fundholding and has pioneered changes and improvements for patients. Were the hon. Gentleman to spend time talking to that doctor it would be difficult for the hon. Gentleman to come away with any other view than that the future lay in fundholding and all GPs should pursue that option.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I recall calling to my right hon. Friend's attention the fact that in my district the hospital fundholders had carefully husbanded their resources. When the trust was beginning to run out of funds at the end of the year, the patients of the fundholders were still able to be admitted. My right hon. Friend was good enough to give the hospital another£250,000 to
  796
  catch up, but it was because the fundholders had carefully spread their resources over the year that their patients benefited.
  Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has it. With that, I will try not to take any more interventions.
  The important subject that we have been debating today is that of accountability. The Labour party has failed to grasp the fact that, under the old system, accountability went by the board. There was little information, less transparency and an opaque and impenetrable bureaucracy where no one knew what was happening or what anything cost, and few people even bothered to ask. Decisions were taken, not just behind closed doors, but behind closed doors tens or even hundreds of miles away. There has been a dramatic change—health authorities and trusts have clear and separate roles and identities.
  The patients charter sets out for the first time patients' rights in the NHS and their means of redress if things go wrong. We have opened up the service to independent, external scrutiny through the Audit Commission. We have thrown the light on the health service. We have dramatically improved openness and the information available throughout the service.
  Mr. Denis MacShane rose—
  Mrs. Bottomley: We have reinforced our deep and abiding commitment to the values and ethos that underpin public service in the NHS. We expect from the service the highest standards of both personal and corporate conduct. That is why when Sir Adrian Cadbury first published his report, I invited him to meet me and a number of leaders in the health service to discuss the principles of corporate governance. I believed that they were appropriate to the NHS and took steps to introduce them. In April this year, after widespread consultation, I issued codes of conduct and accountability for trust boards and their members that closely followed the Cadbury principles. They represent a landmark for the health service.
  For the first time, we have set out the need for audit and remuneration commitments to ensure the proper stewardship of the vast resources at the disposal of the health service. For the first time, we have required members' relevant interests to be declared and established in registers of those interests. Throughout the years of health appointments, which have changed little since 1948, we have never before had registers of interests and proper codes of accountability and conduct. Those codes have been widely welcomed by Sir Adrian Cadbury, the Audit Commission, the Public Accounts Committee and, not least, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who chairs that Committee.
  The Labour party talks a lot about accountability in a sort of Islington dinner party way. But when it comes to the accountability that really matters to patients, it changes its tune. We have increased accountability by bringing decision making closer to patients through local health authorities and trusts. The Labour party resisted it. We have set in hand an information revolution throughout the service—through annual reports, annual accounts, access to medical records and other means. The Labour party carped and criticised. We published the information that patients and the public want about their local hospital in performance tables. The Labour party poured scorn on

  797
  that initiative. Time and again when we make information available the Labour party does not seem interested in what the patient wants to hear.
  The right hon. Member for Derby, South made a number of disparaging remarks about appointments to health authority trusts. I am sorry that she comes to the job so encumbered by that prejudice. I am sorry that she finds it necessary to attack non-executives with business back-grounds in the same way as she goes for knee-jerk attacks on managers. We need the skills of a great range of people to deliver the improvements in patient care.
  When we consider the number of patients being treated now, we have to pay tribute to all those whose different talents, skills and expertise have made that possible. Sir Adrian Cadbury took a similar view; his report welcomed the role of strong non-executives who bring the insight of an outsider into the NHS. We endorse his view. Anyone who knows anything about running a service that spends £100 million a day would endorse that view.
  If the right hon. Lady wonders why she can identify fewer of her supporters on NHS trusts, I have already today made the reason only too clear. If she constantly denigrates and attacks the non-executives on NHS trusts, what encouragement is that to members of the Labour party who want to undertake that sort of public service? Can the lack of supporters on NHS trusts be anything to do with the Labour party's history of putting the frighteners on its members who seek to serve on trusts—as we saw before the last election? Is it any wonder that the hon. Lady cannot succeed in getting Labour members onto trusts when she pledges to abolish trusts given half the chance?
  The right hon. Lady and the Labour party politicise trusts by making them part of the party political debate. Everywhere else they are part of the landscape, not part of the debate. Unlike the Labour party, we appreciate the talent that is brought to the trusts by non-executives and leaders of the profession such as Dame Margaret Turner Warwick, a former president of the Royal College of Physicians and now chairman of the Royal Devon and Exeter trust.
  My challenge to the right hon. Lady is to turn the clock forward and to recognise that trusts are good for patients and staff. She must recognise that there is a place on health boards for people of genuine merit who will bring to them their skills, experience, energy and commitment. She must accept that serving on a trust is like being a magistrate—it is something in which people of all political parties should be engaged as a form of public service. That is not a party political statement: it is a statement of fact.
  Let me now reveal some of the Labour party's hypocrisy. The policy of appointing chairmen has changed very little since 1948. We have reduced, and are reducing, the number of appointments as we streamline authorities and boards and make them decision-making groups. Does the right hon. Lady know which party, before our reforms, nominated three disqualified Lambeth Labour councillors
  798
  to the West Lambeth health authority? Which party put forward its three prospective parliamentary candidates as its nominees for the Greenwich health authority?
  Mr. Nick Raynsford rose—
  Mrs. Bottomley: Which Secretary of State sacked—
  Mr. Raynsford: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State to decline to give way to me when naming for the second time today an hon. Member of this House?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is entirely a matter for whoever has the Floor to decide whether to give way.
  Mr. Raynsford: She is frit.
  Mrs. Bottomley: No; she has given way much more often than she ought to have—
  Mr.Raynsford rose—
  Mrs. Bottomley: However, in the interests of neighbourliness to my husband, I shall give way.
  Mr. Raynsford: Does the Secretary of State think it right that people who have been proposed perfectly legitimately by a local authority, and who have a deep concern for that authority, should be replaced, for health authority membership, by double glazing salesmen—because that is what her party did? Does she think it right that the Greenwich health authority subsequently reduced the health situation there to chaos—so much so that when her appointee in the region visited recently he had to recognise that the whole system was not working, and the chair and chief executive of the local healthcare trust have had to be replaced? Is the right hon. Lady proud of that record?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is being extremely mischievous. He must know that Rosie Barnes, a former Liberal Member of Parliament, serves in his part of the world. He may also like to know that two Labour councillors serve on the Leeds community and mental health trust. Of course there are times in particular hospitals when certain management issues need to be tackled and some key people need to be replaced—that has nothing to do with the system of appointments—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House will be aware of my views on seated interventions. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) has been allowed to intervene; I do not expect sedentary interventions to follow.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I had expected the hon. Gentleman to deny that the Greenwich authority proposed three prospective parliamentary candidates as its nominees for the health authority. I wonder what their agenda would be? David Ennals, a former holder of my office, sacked 32 health authority chairmen purely and simply because they did not support the Labour party. Where is the integrity, the accountability or even the common sense in that?
  We believe that the service benefits greatly from its non-executives, whatever their party. That is why we are establishing an even more transparent and accessible system. We are widening the pool of candidates, drawing in people from an even broader range of backgrounds and expertise. We have already greatly increased the number

  799
  of women on trusts and in health authorities, and we have encouraged people from black and ethnic minorities. We are advertising widely for applicants, and independent panels of trust and authority members will sift and scrutinise applicants to ensure that the best people continue to be selected.
  I share the Prime Minister's absolute commitment to the highest possible standards in public life, and we shall participate fully in the committee that he has announced today, but I believe that it will be found that the systems that we have set in hand in the health service are models to follow. If they need modifying in any way we shall not hesitate to modify them. Already, we have embraced the Cadbury principles, we have opened up our system of finding people to serve as non-executives, and we have made enormous progress. We need only one thing more—we need the Labour party to take the frighteners off the people who serve on the trusts and to support them.
  The real dilemma that the right hon. Member for Derby, South faces is how to tackle the feud raging in the Labour party over who should run the health service. She should act now to stop that feuding. She must say what her policy is. Does she seek to re-open the 1948 debate? Does she favour a local authority takeover of the NHS? Such a takeover would be deeply unpopular. Who believes that Derek Hatton running Merseyside would have had anything like the success of Sir Donald Wilson? Perhaps the right hon. Lady has a lingering affection for David Bookbinder in Derbyshire? We believe that the task of the health service is to serve patients, not to get tangled up with local authority control and involvement.
  This was the old battle that Nye Bevan fought with Herbert Morrison, and it would be a great shame if the Labour party reopened the feud—but that is the problem that the right hon. Lady will have to deal with urgently in her party. Her predecessor was clearly moving in that direction, and we wait for the uncertainty to be resolved.
  The Royal College of Nursing has said that it believes that equity, one of the founding principles of the health service, would be undermined by local authority control of health services. If the right hon. Lady will not take my word on the issue, let her listen to Christine Hancock, who has said that such a proposal would at best block progress towards achieving the highest standards of care and equity throughout the service and at worst be the end of a national health service.
  So if the right hon. Lady wants to reopen the wounds that were patched up in her party 40 years ago, let her say so—but let her also recognise the massive increase in bureaucracy that such policies would bring about. Let her confirm that, while the Government are abolishing regional health authorities, a Labour Government would bring them back. Let her come clean about her party's proposals for regional government; bureaucratic tentacles would then be wrapped around the health service. Let her admit that by abolishing trusts the Labour party would be reinventing the old command and control bureaucracies that we have swept away.
  We will take no lessons from the champions of bureaucracy in the Labour party. They are committed to cumbersome regional bureaucracies; we want to sweep them away. We have cut the number of health authorities by 70. We shall reduce their numbers further by enabling family health services authorities and DHAs to merge. We have also reduced the number of regions, before their abolition.
  800
  Over the past year alone, administrative savings at regional and district level have led to an extra £34 million being invested in patient care. During the summer, I visited every region and spoke to every trust and every health authority chairman, and I heard about the savings that are already being secured: £4.7 million in Northern and Yorkshire, £6 million in South West, £15 million in the two Thames regions—all by streamlining.
  I have already mentioned Sir Donald Wilson in the north-west saving £8 million by streamlining and investing the money in better primary care in Liverpool's most deprived area. I cannot remember when Liverpool last saved £8 million for anyone.
  All trusts must be accountable for what they spend on management and for how they spend it. That is why I announced that all trusts will publish their management costs in their annual reports so that the public can see and compare the figures. They will be published alongside the performance tables so that people can see the added value that management is bringing to the NHS. That is better than indulging in knee-jerk attacks on managers.
  All I ask is that we are judged by our results. The achievement of the reforms has been to put the right structures in place for a flexible and responsive service. The reforms have been tried and tested in practice and endorsed by independent evaluation, by the OECD and by experts and commentators. All over Britain, NHS staff have worked hard for those changes. They take pride in their work and want to realise the full benefits. The last thing that they want is the Labour party's recipe for a return to a centralised and inefficient bureaucracy.
  Our policies are delivering results by which we shall be judged. We are prepared to be judged by the 3,000 more patients being treated every day in trusts, by the growth in childhood immunisation, by the improvement in the health of the nation, by the innovations in quality care which are to be seen in our health centres and hospitals. We are also prepared to be judged on our record in reducing waiting times, junior doctors' hours and the size of GP lists.
  We offer progress for patients. Our policies present a chance to tackle the problems which remain and to rise to the challenges and pressures that lie ahead. Labour is backward and inward looking. It looks back to the failed structures of the past and inward to its own vested interests. It is the old Labour party with old, failed and discredited policies. We have created a new national health service for a modern world, and I commend it to the House.
  6 pm
  Mr. Stephen Timms: Many facets of the health service worry hon. Members, and some of those worries have been mentioned in the debate. Since my election in June, I have had the opportunity to talk to many people who work in the health service in Newham and to patients who depend on it, and I have discovered enormous unhappiness about the state of the service. People are worried about the unexplained and steady rise in emergency hospital admissions. They are worried about the falling number of visits to dentists and opticians, because that means that problems which would have been found in check-ups now go undetected until they are far more serious.

  801
  People are worried about proposed changes to the rules for pharmacies, because it is widely felt that they will drive many local chemists to the wall. Health officials are frustrated by restrictive rules on new medical premises, which are delaying improvements to primary care in London.
  Above all, people feel that enormous decisions are being made by an invisible and anonymous bureaucracy which could not care less about what people think. The Prime Minister's pledge a couple of weeks ago that the health service would never be privatised has been mentioned in the debate. Will the Secretary of State stop the bureaucrats behaving as if the health service has already been privatised?
  People want the Government to listen. The August King's Fund report hit the nail on the head about the effect of the changes in London. Dealing with the Government's policies, it stated:
  "The effect on public confidence has been severe. Patients have a confidence in their nurses and their doctors that they do not have in the managers and politicians. With tense negotiations continuing behind closed doors, most staff simply do not know where they stand. Public confidence has plummeted."
  Just after I was elected, I contacted the local health care trust to inquire about the delay in carrying out an operation for an elderly constituent. The reply took some time, and when it came it was just an apology that the trust could not tell me anything. The operation was contracted out to a different health care trust, and although the patient had seen the consultant in our local hospital and was, as far as he was aware, a patient there, it could provide no information at all about when the operation would be carried out. People inside the service do not understand what has happened, let alone the patients.
  A much more serious issue has arisen in east London about the future organisation of community health services. The City and East London family and community health services, or CELFACS, was set up to manage community health services in the short term after their separation from the new acute trusts, and to review the longterm options for their management. Nobody was too surprised when, no doubt after due and careful consideration, CELFACS recommended that the best option was for it to run the services.
  The proposal went out to consultation and overwhelmingly, those who were consulted preferred an alternative structure with locally based trusts for Newham, Hackney and the City and Tower Hamlets. Their experience was that the CELFACS organisation was an unresponsive, top-heavy bureaucracy and which adopted a narrow and inflexible approach to services, which has failed to reflect the different needs in the different areas of east London. In the view of those involved, it is not an appropriate body to run community health services for so large an area.
  I know that, in Newham, staff put in enormous effort on top of their existing heavy work loads to develop the local trust proposal, and the same happened in Hackney and the City. However, it was clear that, despite local strength of feeling, CELFACS had, quite properly, strong support from a small number of senior health managers, which, of course, included those who were running CELFACS.
  802
  The issue went to the district health authority, which voted narrowly for the locally based trusts. The voting was four to three, all the non-executive members of the authority supporting the locally-based trusts while all the managers, the executive members, favoured CELFACS. One might have expected that that would be that, but the matter then appeared on the agenda of the executive committee of the regional health authority, comprising only authority managers. Predictably, they overruled the district view and recommended the CELFACS option. We gather that that has been forwarded to the Secretary of State as the final recommendation.
  The Secretary of State alleged that Opposition Members denigrate non-executives. I do not denigrate them at all, and in the instance that I have cited, they were certainly carrying out their task conscientiously. But they were overruled by managers who are a step higher in the bureaucracy, and who have forwarded a different view to the Secretary of State.
  I hope against hope that the Government will not simply rubber-stamp the view of the regional executive, because that would unleash a tidal wave of cynicism among the practitioners on which the services depend. It cannot be right to impose on those who will deliver the services the views of a small group of managers for what, as far as I or anyone else can establish, is no good reason.
  Is it not time that the Government adopted the motto, "Front Line First", not just for defence but for other public services? Constantly consulting the front-line providers and then ignoring them, preferring instead the views of managers, is terribly damaging to the services. That process is not the right way to make decisions about our vital public services. It is not so much the decision that is the problem as the transparently unacceptable way that it has been arrived at.
  At the start of my speech, I asked what the Secretary of State proposed to do about managers behaving as if the health service were already a private corporation. I hope that, at least in this instance, she will overrule them.
  Finally, I should like to address the issue of decision-making on the allocation of resources. I welcome the publication last week of the long-awaited York university report, with its recognition at last of the need for adequate funding for deprived areas, reversing the recent trend to take resources away from them. Earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) asked the Secretary of State which were the top 10 deprived health areas in London. My hon. Friend was told that my borough of Newham is the most deprived.
  All the key indicators show that the severity of health problems in Newham justifies additional resources. Those problems relate to perinatal mortality and infant mortality rates, the standardised fertility ratio, the hospitalisation rate, the rate of HIV infection affecting children and families, income levels, and simply the need to provide translators to communicate with many people in the borough who can speak no English.
  Government figures show that Newham has the most severe deprivation in the country, but its capitation has been cut, while capitation to other parts of the same region with much better starting points in terms of quality service provision has been raised. I have no problems about raising the funding for other areas, but it should not be done at the expense of areas that are acutely struggling.

  803
  In publishing its research, York university rightly commented that the old formula produced in the early 1990s has resulted in a shift of resources away from poorer and sicker areas. Our family health services authority, the City and East London authority, has the highest level of deprivation in the country, but the FHSA spending per head in Newham was less than in Dorset, Cornwall, the Isle of Wight or Lincolnshire. Our services have far greater needs to contend with, yet they have been allocated fewer resources. That problem has been made worse since 1990. Again, that cannot be right.
  I am delighted that the research by York university has vindicated what we have been saying for a long time. Can the Secretary of State now assure us that the findings of the York research will be implemented in full, allocating additional resources to the inner city areas where they are needed? Will she refute reports that efforts are being made to find ways of avoiding the implementation of the York university recommendations?
  What will be done to put right the distribution of resources for primary care? Precisely the same problem exists there, with poorer and sicker parts of the community receiving inadequate resources. Is that problem now to be addressed?
  People must be able to see who is making the decisions that affect their health service and to know the reasons for decisions that affect their lives and their futures. Inexplicable decisions cannot be allowed to continue descending anonymously from invisible layers of bureaucracy—a faceless, bureaucratic brick wall.
  The country desperately needs the Minister to go some way to dispel the tide of cynicism and despair which, as anybody who speaks to those involved will report, is engulfing the health service; to acknowledge there are real problems to overcome instead of simply continually telling us that there is not really a problem at all; to make it clear that the Government are listening to what people are saying, not simply dismissing it; and to announce that the Government are prepared to change their mind where plainly they have been wrong.
  6.11 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in today's important debate. We live in a country with a health service which is the envy of the world, where care is universally available and provided economically, where standards are improving and waiting times are falling, as measured by every available parameter.
  Yet Opposition Members do nothing but criticise and demean, destroying morale in the service and damaging the confidence of the public. Today, we are seeing a new tactic, calculated insidiously to undermine the jewel in the crown of world health care: criticism of the innovative ways in which the health service is seeking further to increase the funding available for patient care, and criticism about accountability and management and its costs.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already clearly explained in national terms the misrepresentations in the Labour party's assertions, but I should like to explore and answer those issues using a local example.
  My constituents use the services of East Hertfordshire NHS trust, a second wave whole-district trust which, since its creation in April 1992, has offered high-quality care
  804
  economically and efficiently. It has innovatively developed its facilities, and has expanded the capital available to it by partnership with the independent sector.
  For example, the trust required a magnetic resonance imaging scanner, the latest technology for visualising internal body structures. A partnership was established with a private company, and a new unit was built in the grounds of the Queen Elizabeth II hospital. Scans are now rapidly available to health service patients more cheaply than the trust could otherwise have obtained them.
  The company involved is contracted to provide the latest upgrades in equipment at no cost to the trust, and the trust receives a share of the proceeds of the work that is undertaken. For health service patients, therefore, the huge benefits of rapid access are obvious, while for the trust there is the availability of a major clinical resource that it would not otherwise have. That is not the creeping privatisation which the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) presages, but a valuable symbiotic relationship for mutual benefit and better patient care.
  Opposition Members should never forget that the health service exists to provide care for the people of Britain, not to act as a sounding board for those who would use alarmist statements for political ends.
  The Opposition parties claim that, in some way, the trusts and general practitioner fundholders are not accountable. Such an accusation is entirely without foundation. The trusts and fundholders are accountable, both to the populations they serve and to the principles of ethical activity that govern all business behaviour.
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: How?
  Mrs. Roe: I shall explain.
  Trusts are monitored by regional health authorities, and their activities are examined in great detail by both internal and external auditors. The chairman and non-executive directors of the trusts, who are local residents, monitor executive activities and decisions. Trusts must publish an annual report, and the public have access to the senior management teams at a statutory, publicised annual public meeting, where they can question the report and ask about any other issues of interest and concern.
  Mr. Steinberg: If, at one of the meetings, the general public, after seeing the information, decide that they do not like the membership of the trust or the way in which the trust is being worked, can they get rid of the members of the trust?
  Mrs. Roe: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has never attended one of those meetings. The people who attend them in my area find that they get satisfactory answers, and that the queries they raise are investigated. Furthermore, patients who have any cause for anxiety can write directly to the chief executive of the trust, who has the responsibility for investigating and personally responding to any complaints or worries.
  As for fundholders, they are accountable to their family health services authority and to the regional health authority, they undergo statutory regular examination of their financial activities by auditors and, most importantly, they are accountable to their patients with whom they work all day and every day.
  Such public sector accountability is comprehensive and effective, and compares favourably with the accountability, for example, of many trade union organisations,

  805
  which work furtively, espousing individual rights on the one hand while stoically maintaining secret block voting and decision-making on the other.
  In addition, the trusts and health authorities work within the codes of conduct expected of the most ethical businesses. Public organisations must be open and accountable, and everything they do must stand the test of public scrutiny.
  The Government recognised that requirement and are to be congratulated on their vision and determination to introduce the principles of Cadbury into the medical services. The code of conduct and accountability, which was published last spring, defined the information for the annual report, outlined the decisions to be taken at board level, reviewed the mechanism for financial and performance reporting, and introduced a declaration and register of interests.
  For the Opposition to declare that there is anything less than openness and full accountability within the health service is to fail to understand the high and ethical standards demanded of and received from the trusts, the fund-holders and the health authorities.
  A business with a £37 billion turnover needs effective management. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already informed the House how that has been achieved nationally and how the Labour party propaganda has been used in an attempt to disseminate misinformation about management costs.
  I am in accord with the former shadow spokesman for health, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), when he stated in the Health Service Journal earlier this year:
  "Managers—at whatever level—are not the enemy but the lubricant of the service".
  They administer and deliver the service economically and more effectively than anywhere else in the world.
  Again, I can cite the East Hertfordshire NHS trust used by my constituents. Its team of senior managers account for only 2 per cent. of the pay bill. Using the much broader definition of "management" as described by the Audit Commission, the trust has recently been examined and found to have total management costs of 5.9 per cent.
  That figure—among the lowest in the North Thames region—compares with an average figure of between 7 and 8 per cent. for trusts and, using the same criteria, an average figure of about 14 per cent. for an industry with an equivalent turnover. Therefore, since the introduction of the reforms, there has been a doubling of the increase in the number of patients treated in the secondary care sector, in the face of management costs about half that of industry. Surely that is a truly remarkable success story.
  Our excellent health service is not in decline, not over-managed, not unaccountable, not subject to insidious privatisation; it is developing, expanding, introducing innovative and exciting ideas, and working with the independent sector to expand further the facilities available for the population.
  It is doing all that in an open and accountable way, with management costs that are modest by any standard and on which there is continued pressure for reductions to ensure that an ever greater proportion of national health service funding goes into clinical care. There is no public
  806
  alarm about the health service, just a genuine belief among the overwhelming majority of the population that the care they are receiving is continuing to improve.
  To fail to consider the care and treatment of patients and to use tactics designed to alarm and confuse is a cheap trick by the Labour party. Let Opposition Members whinge and whine, bereft of genuine cause for criticism or complaint. For me, the health service is a source of great pride; for my constituents, a service which is ever better; and for the country, a universal provider of care that is second to none.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I do not think that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) is right in her assessment of the changes in the national health service. However, I do not think that she is wholly wrong, either. She was right to say that some benefits have resulted from the administrative changes over the past few years. She was certainly right to say that the issue is not the involvement of the private sector, provided that the treatment for the patient is free at the point of delivery. That is the important factor. Nor is it bad to separate the purchasing and providing provisions. That is a sensible change which can be built upon.
  The hon. Lady takes a keen interest in those matters and does a sterling job in her role on the Select Committee on Health. However, I am sure that, in the quietness of her own thoughts, she would accept that the implementation of some of the changes could be improved—and, in some cases, improved significantly. The Government were wrong to try to achieve their targets within the time scale that they set themselves. The computerisation programme and the introduction of new technology, which I support, were done at a speed that anyone with an understanding of the implementation of some of the systems knows was wholly unrealistic. Because of that, some of the aspects of implementation have been more chaotic than they should have been. The Government should have made greater use of a system of pilot schemes. Different parts of the country could have tried different things in different ways.
  I hope that I carry the hon. Lady with me in saying that not every part of the country is necessarily always best served by trusts. Some elements of the centralised system have a coherence that the local delivery of services through trusts may not yet have. The jury is still very much out on that. If the hon. Lady is to be confident in her assertion that the new system is serving the interests of local people best, local people should have been given an opportunity to say whether they wanted to try it.
  I am not aware of any of the consultation processes, which are part of the statutory legislation, ever succeeding in persuading a trust applicant that it was wrong. I know that from my local experience— [Interruption.] The Minister may want to put me right on that when he replies. If there has been a public consultation on whether a trust should be implemented, which then showed that that trust was not wanted by the local community, which then resulted in the trust application being abandoned, I should be pleased to hear about it. I am not aware of the consultation process resulting in such an outcome.

  807
  I know that the Minister takes a keen interest in the Borders because he is always visiting his weekend cottage in God's own country in Roxburghshire. He is very welcome when he comes.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister did not make the same mistake as the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat).
  Mr. Kirkwood: I shall not be tempted down that road.
  The Minister knows that the Borders health board is going through a process of public consultation on whether there should be twin trusts to provide health care in southeast Scotland. I have to tell the hon. Member for Broxbourne—her writ on the Select Committee does not run north of the border—that there is widespread fear that the implementation of twin trusts would not improve, local health care. We have a very high quality of health care, mainly because of the standard of care produced by the professionals who work in the service. The health council carried out widespread consultation and there was a unanimous view that local people did not want any change.
  The hon. Lady is a fair person. The health council is an objective body with no Labour party axe to grind. If the result of its consultation is that local people want, their local health provision left alone, surely she accepts that it should be left alone. If a case cannot be made and if the public cannot be carried, they are entitled to keep the existing system and not have it replaced by the trust system. Otherwise, she would be sentencing every part of the country, whether it likes it or not, to the implementation of the new machinery. That would be wrong.
  The Government may well have a case on the provision of trusts and they may, in certain circumstances, improve health care—that might be true in inner-city centres—but I am not convinced that they are necessarily good for every part of the country. The local people should be allowed to have their say on that.
  The hon. Lady's investigations as part of the Select Committee are important in these matters. She will know that there is at least a question mark over the state of morale among nurses, doctors and health care professionals generally. The pace at which the reforms were implemented may have been responsible for some of that. I do not have a Labour party axe to grind— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) will have to wait for a long time before I do. I do not have any ideological hang-ups, but I believe that there are considerable concerns among health care professionals and that their morale is low.
  The Government's attempt to measure procedures, episodes and treatments by volume is a mistake. Of course, it is an important indicator, which must be taken into account, but the quality of outcome is also an essential part of the process of trying to evaluate whether the system is working. We tend to forget that aspect. We have just been trading statistics about the number of staff in place and the number of patients treated. I accept that there have been signal improvements in some areas, particularly waiting lists, which were far too long to start with.
  The argument about private versus public is sterile. We are spending far too much time looking at the mechanism when we should be spending more time looking at the quality of health care and the way in which it is being delivered. The debate is obsessed with structures.
  808
  My final point to the hon. Lady for consideration in a quiet moment is that she is wrong to say that power has been devolved from central command all the way down to patients. Power has been devolved down the line and is now in the hands of providers, but they are not necessarily the same as patients. We have a long way to go to persuade people that, just because there is more empowerment at the level of provider, we can be confident that that meets with the accords, wishes and needs of local people. I am sure that outside the confrontational atmosphere of the Chamber, the hon. Lady will acknowledge that there is some truth in some of the things that I have said in response to her interesting speech.
  I declare an interest. I am a member of the Royal College of Nursing panel and have been for a number of years. It is one of the more fulfilling aspects of my work in this place. I get to meet real people who work at the front line of the NHS, a contact from which I benefit. I am also grateful for the expertise and briefings from which members of the panel from both sides of the House benefit.
  The Royal College of Nursing rightly identifies the future of long-term care for older people as being one of the issues that comes into the category, or could come into the category—I know that such loose language annoys Ministers—of creeping privatisation. There is much confusion at present about who should pay for continuing care for the elderly. We all know that in recent years there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of NHS continuing care beds and, as a result, a rapid growth in private nursing homes.
  There has been an absence of any sensible, coherent and orchestrated debate at the hands of the Government. That is a dereliction of duty. I do not run away from the fact that tough decisions have to be made. They may involve getting the community at large to face up to family responsibilities more rigorously than happens at the moment. Those are not easy questions, but the Government have introduced the changes by stealth. That is not in the interests of arriving at a national consensus on how to cope with such matters.
  The Government are sloughing off responsibility and increasingly local authorities are expected to take responsibility for continuing care. As a direct result, more patients previously funded by the NHS are now to be means-tested and needs-assessed before they have any guarantee of continuing care.
  The lack of clarity in the past few months about who should fund continuing care is causing much anxiety, particularly for elderly and disabled people and their relatives. Those anxieties were fuelled by the draft guidance that was published in August 1994 by the Department. It proposes that local authorities and health authorities should, between them, decide which elderly people are eligible for state-funded continuing care and which are not. That is an abdication of responsibility.
  The Government should give a much clearer steer on what they expect to happen in such circumstances and what the future will bring. The RCN's particular worry is that continuing care, if it consists of anything, consists of intensive nursing. It is right to say that that should be the clear responsibility of the NHS. The draft guidance, in describing the elements of continuing care, talks about the NHS focusing only on medical needs in future. It fails to acknowledge the crucial contribution of nursing to the continuing care process. The Minister may not have time

  809
  to deal with that question tonight, but I hope that he will address it seriously. It is a legitimate question, which is not being properly tackled.
  I welcome the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to her new position. The health portfolio can in no way be described as middle-ranking. Health is a crucial issue and the right hon. Lady is an experienced parliamentarian. I have enjoyed doing business with her in the past and I look forward to continuing that relationship in future. The Secretary of State was a bit churlish in her welcome to the right hon. Lady, but that is a matter for her.
  The right hon. Lady made some important points about the need for more accountability in trusts. I was interested in the experience of the hon. Member for Broxbourne, who has for some time had a trust in her constituency, an experience which I do not share. Leaving aside the party political arguments which are valid and will continue, urgent efforts need to be made to satisfy the public that there is genuine accountability in some of those bodies.
  There is a wider concern. There are ways in which the need for accountability could be addressed by creating more user groups and voluntary organisations and in which the independent sector could take a more direct interest in trusts. More than anything else, greater accountability could and should be achieved by making trust meetings more accessible. They should always be held in public. I cannot for the life of me understand why health boards, trusts and so on are allowed to meet in private. That is a dereliction of duty on their part and an abdication of democracy.
  Annual reports and annual meetings are valuable and welcome, but the trusts should make far more effort to achieve a much more open style of management. It is up to them. Unless the Minister tells me that they are precluded in some way from adopting an open style of management, they have the power to do so. They have a responsibility not just to feed information up and to be accountable to the Secretary of State but to reach out and contact the public whom they seek to serve. People with more direct experience of trusts in the constituency can put me right if I am wrong, but I see no evidence of that.
  The right hon. Member for Derby, South referred to the increase in bureaucracy. To a certain extent, that is inevitable. If there are purchasers and providers, there are now two sets of management where previously there was one, so there must be an increase in management. The right hon. Lady contrasted the 2 per cent. drop between 1992 and 1993 in the number of nurses and midwives with the 13 per cent. increase in senior managers during the same period.
  I was disappointed that the Government did not do more to encourage health care professionals to go into those management roles. If more doctors and senior nurses had gone into trusts as managers, many of the public fears that we are now experiencing and with which we are having to cope would have been substantially allayed. Bureaucracy is a matter which should be addressed.
  I fear that the climate of fear, to which reference has been made, is creeping into the national health service in a way that I would never previously have thought possible. Members of staff are beginning to say that they would like to come to my public meetings and say what they
  810
  think, but they have their jobs to consider. Such a suggestion would have been strange, foreign and unheard of 10 years ago. However, such people now fear for their jobs and that is a bad thing.
  Finally, I make a plea to the Minister, who I am glad to see is making assiduous notes. I am also pleased to see his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). I have a completely lunatic situation in my constituency. Recently, the Borders health board entered into an arrangement with a bona fide, non-profit-making partnership to run a nursing home, using an NHS hospital at Drumlanrig in Hawick that looked after old people. The Minister knows what I am talking about. The board signed a contract with the non-profit-making organisation to deliver residential care in that NHS hospital, which, apart from a couple of acute beds, was denied to the health service.
  As part of that contract, the organisation undertook to build a 36-bed residential unit costing millions of pounds. It was to be a state-of-the-art and most welcome addition to the town's residential care needs. The week that it opened, the health board announced that it was beginning consultations on a number of options, the preferred one being to turn that residential home into a community hospital.
  However one explains the management processes, from St. Andrew's house to the health board and local care in Hawick, that development makes no sense. The town has waited years for that brand new home, providing 36 places and state-of-the-art care, yet the week that facility opened, the health board said that it wanted to turn the home into a cottage hospital.
  The Minister of State has not been in his job long, but I know that he has close connections with health care professionals and meets them most weekends, if he gets home at weekends these days. One does not need to be an expert to know the difference between a cottage hospital and a residential home. It is scandalous to suggest such a proposal, and that a town the size of Hawick, with 18,000 souls in the immediate vicinity, should be denied a custom-built primary care cottage hospital for the future. If Ministers are to be believed, primary care is the aspect that will be enhanced and developed in future. To provide a town the size of Hawick with a cobbled-together arrangement, with a residential unit being converted the week that it is opened, makes no sense.
  I hope that Ministers from the Scottish Office—and I note that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is taking an interest—will investigate that matter and can give an assurance that the Borders health board will be given the opportunity, facilities and capital consents that it may require to ensure that Hawick will have both the residential care unit and the cottage hospital that it needs in the years ahead.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) made a thoughtful speech, and I will take up his point about guidance relating to long-stay patients. I had a similar problem in my constituency.
  Leicester has seen the closing of the Carlton Hayes and the Towers long-stay mental hospitals. Members of the Carlton Hayes action group visited my surgery to express

  811
  their concern about the future for long-stay elderly patients and about the Department's so-called guidance. Their fears were allayed because the health authority's chief executive displayed sensitivity, met patients and their families, and was able to interpret the rules in a way that neither offended the patients' long-term hopes nor breached the guidance, to reach a compromise that was entirely within the rules.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said that there should be openness and contact between health authority managers and patients and their relatives. That point was well made, and was well satisfied in the case that I cited. I commend to my hon. Friend the Minister the sensible handling of that problem by the chief executive of Leicestershire's health authority. That problem was solved thanks to sensitive and sensible behaviour by all parties. I am grateful to the Government for providing rules that allow for flexibility.
  It is the duty of all who comment on the Government's behaviour and reforms to consider what has been achieved rather than to put up Aunt Sallies. I will outline some of the good developments that have occurred over the past few years thanks to the reforms. National health trusts treat 3,000 more patients every day than before the reforms were introduced. Since April 1991, the number of hospital in-patients has risen by 1.3 million a year, and out-patient attendances have increased by 2.1 million. The population of Leicester is about 650,000, which gives some idea of the scale of the increase in in-patients.
  Since the reforms, the number of people waiting for hospital treatment longer than one year has fallen from 170,000 to fewer than 65,000, and the average waiting time has been cut by half. A survey by the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts in June showed that nine out of 10 patients who had attended hospital the previous year had found the service very good, good or average, and three out of four had found it to be very good or good.
  I conducted a similar survey in m\y own constituency, by having questionnaires delivered to every household—and I have approximately 79,500 electors. There was a large number of replies, and the proportion of respondents saying that they were pleased with the performance of the NHS was even higher than nine out of 10. I hope that it is accepted by the House that patients are happy with the conduct of the health service. Members of the public and others nationally and internationally have also commented favourably.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the comments of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. I will quote a short passage from page 65 of its July report:
  "The command and control system of the NHS lacked flexibility, incentives for efficiency, financial information (and hence accountability) and choice of providers of secondary care … Consultants with lifetime positions in hospitals had little incentive to run a service more effectively. There was little incentive to use buildings economically as they had always been paid for by the Government … reliable per unit capital costs were generally absent."
  It added that
  "the reforms opened up possibilities to overcome some of the weaknesses of the old NHS"
  and highlighted the improvements introduced by NHS trusts and GP fundholders, who
  "do seem to have done a better job of purchasing than district health authorities."
  812
  It reported also that
  "recent national attitude surveys suggest some increase in satisfaction with the way in which the NHS is run, both among recent users of the service and among the population as a whole".
  That is confirmed by my local survey.
  My right hon. Friend mentioned also the remarks of the founder of the Socialist Philosophy Group, Professor Le Grand, who made this clear:
  "Central planning was not a conspicuous success in the old health service; decentralised sources of information close to local needs, like GP fund-holders, may provide a better base for long-term decisions than a centralised planning agency."
  I could not agree more. Professor Le Grand thinks also that "many, perhaps most" health policy analysts believe that the reforms have been a success. That view was attributed to him by The Times on 6 April.
  I suggest that the general picture is one of satisfaction and approval of the way in which the national health service reforms are delivering care to patients. The Government spend huge sums of money on the national health service on the taxpayers' behalf—£100 million a day. That is why a strong management is required to improve efficiency and services for patients. Some £1.5 billion in cumulative efficiency savings has been realised since the mid-1980s, when the Government began strengthening NHS management.
  The Government have taken tough action and will continue, I trust, to eliminate unnecessary administrative duplication and waste in the national health service. I trust that before very long we shall see the abolition of regional health authorities and the merger of many district and family health services authorities. I am pleased to note that already the number of regions has fallen from 14 to eight, and when eight regional offices replace the regions, they will employ a total of 1,080 people, as compared with the 3,900 employed in 14 regions two years ago. In the past two years, the number of district health authorities has been reduced by 70 to 111. That has meant that administrative savings at regional and district level have released a total of £34 million to date. That money, instead of being spent on teacups, trolleys and filing cabinets, can be spent on direct patient care.
  Earlier this month, my right hon. Friend announced that NHS trusts will publish in their annual reports how much they spend on management. To enable the public to see and compare those figures, they will be published alongside NHS performance tables.
  A further improvement is that general and senior managers now account for only 2.6 of the NHS work force and 3 per cent. of the wages bill. The vast proportion of the NHS wages budget now goes on staff who provide care directly to patients. For your information, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the proportion of NHS staff who provide care directly to patients has increased from 60 per cent. in 1981 to almost 66 per cent. now.
  One further improvement is that, earlier in the year, the Government published codes of conduct and accountability for NHS boards and other members, covering such areas as remuneration and declaration of interest. All trusts and health authorities have been requested to incorporate those matters in their standing orders.
  The whole flavour of the national health service reforms and the whole purpose behind them is to increase the priority of the patient as opposed to the providers of the service. We now have 419 NHS trusts in operation and there are good examples of those trusts in my own

  813
  area of Leicester. We have the Leicester Royal Infirmary trust, the Leicester General Hospital trust and the Glen-field trust. The three major acute hospitals are now all under trust management. Furthermore, the Fosse trust covers the community hospitals and many of the GP practices. The system is working and it is seen to be working, but the ultimate test of the success of the new arrangements is whether they have increased the quality and the quantity of patient care. I would suggest that that is precisely what they have done.
  Since April 1991, when the trusts began, the number of hospital in-patients has risen by 1.3 million a year and the number of out-patient attendances by 2.1 million—figures which I mentioned at the start of my remarks. In daily terms, that means that 3,000 more patients are treated every day. If that is not a benefit of the reforms, I do not know what is. Since April 1991, the number of patients waiting over one year for hospital treatment has more than halved, to under 65,000. That means that, since March 1988, the average waiting time for all patients has been cut by half—to 4.6 months in March 1994. Waits of more than two years have been all but eliminated, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm later. No one now has to wait for longer than 18 months for a hip or knee replacement or a cataract operation and 80 per cent. of patients are seen within 30 minutes of their appointment time, as set out in the patients charter. I can confirm that national figure from my visits to my local major hospitals, where one can see that the waiting times have been vastly reduced in the past few years. One can now go to hospital and expect to be seen at the time at which one is booked in to be seen—and that is under a national health system, not a private BUPA system.
  At the party conference earlier this month, my right hon. Friend announced that a new expanded patients charter will offer an even greater dividend for patients, with a new national standard for out-patient appointments and a maximum 18-month waiting time for every operation. Already, half the total number of patients are seen immediately; half the remainder are seen within five weeks; almost 75 per cent. are seen within three months; and 98 per cent. are seen within a year.
  Those improvements are a direct consequence of the Government's reforms. They flow from the reforms because the new system involves the devolution of decision-making power to local level: they give doctors and NHS managers living in the community the freedom to innovate and to improve patient services. The whole system is driven by the district health authorities and the GPs at local level—those who control the money that the trusts receive. They are developing ways in which to respond more closely than ever to the needs and wishes of the communities that they serve. The GP fundholding initiative in particular has involved a devolution of power to those closest to the patients.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that often when criticisms are made—and there may be some legitimate criticisms of some of the changes—it is also said that everything was perfect in the past? For example, people say that access to information was excellent and that identifying who was responsible for what was very easy, when in fact quite the reverse was true? In many senses, breaking everything down and
  814
  devolving it has made it much easier to identify who is responsible for the treatment and—now that the accounts are published—where the money is flowing. Does not my hon. Friend agree that that has been a massive improvement?
  Mr. Garnier: Yes, I do agree, and I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The responses to my survey in my constituency underline the point that my hon. Friend has just made.
  I wish also to commend the Government for providing better accountability in the national health service. That subject has been mentioned also by Labour Members, who have complained that that is not the case. I beg to differ from them and will seek to persuade the House that there is better accountability. The NHS reforms have already led to significant strengthening of the accountability of the health service to the patients whom it serves. That is the whole point of the national health service. It is there for the patients. It is not a job provider; it is a patient carer.
  The patients charter sets out in black and white the rights enjoyed by patients and the means of redress when things go wrong. The split between the providers of health care and the health care commissioners, to whom hospitals are accountable and whose role it is to promote the interests of patients, means that the service is now largely patient driven. Again, I have seen that in my constituency. I see it at my advice surgeries, where people thank me—quite unnecessarily, because I have not done anything— for the good work of the national health service in our local hospitals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] Hon. Members may scoff, but that is a fact. I am not in the business of misleading the House. Constituents of mine have come into my surgery time after time to commend the work of the national health service. It is fair to say that even the Opposition nowadays agree—the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire certainly agrees—that there is a case to be made for, and even a case for accepting, the need for a split between purchasers and providers of care.
  Hospitals are now much more accountable for the use of taxpayers' money through their contracts with health authorities and GP fundholders. Under the old system, few hospitals knew what individual treatments cost, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) has just pointed out. Few felt the need to know because they were not held properly accountable. Most people simply did not know how to find out information; there was a great black wall of bureaucracy which they could not penetrate.
  Mr. Turner: Talking of bureaucracy, the hon. Gentleman will have heard this week of the record pay-out in respect of a very serious accident that happened to a young man in Wolverhampton. Some £2 million of compensation has had to be paid or is to be paid. It has taken 14 years of bureaucracy for that case to be heard and settled. Is that the accountability in the health service and the lack of bureaucracy about which the hon. Gentleman is telling us? It has taken 14 long years—a scandal—for that case to be heard and dealt with. Where is the justice, accountability or lack of bureaucracy in that case?
  Mr. Garnier: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman must be taking part in a different debate. What is more, 11 of the 13 years to which he referred—or however many it was—were pre-reform. But I digress: I will

  815
  not be diverted by the hon. Gentleman. I have no doubt that, if he has a sensible point to make, he will try to catch your eye in due course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I see that the hon. Gentleman is now leaving the Chamber. No, he has returned, and is approaching the Front Bench. I am delighted that his intervention has led to instant promotion; I trust that he will go further.
  Decision making has been devolved to levels much closer to the patient, particularly—as I suggested a moment ago—to GPs, through fundholding. As I was saying before I was interrupted, those making the decisions are better able to assess patients' needs. More information is available to patients and the public than ever before, enabling them to make more important decisions.
  The Government's NHS reforms allow the Government and NHS managers to listen to the needs of the public. They have listened to those needs, as is clear from the example that I gave the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. I have no doubt that Ministers have that at the forefront of their minds. I am much fortified by the assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Conservative party conference that the national health service was safe for as long as he was alive and breathing: he is a young man, and I wish him a long stay in office.
  I am certain that, when the time comes, the national health service will be available to me in my old age. I trust that the Minister will continue his good work, and ensure that the public still have the confidence in the NHS that my constituents have shown—as I have no doubt they will.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: The gigantic programme of change brought about by the health service reforms will have implications for nearly every patient and member of staff. In Durham, the merger of the district health authorities, the abolition of the regional health authority and the plans for a new district general hospital represent an era of change unprecedented since the formation of the national health service.
  I am delighted that there is to be a new hospital in the city of Durham, and that the new regional office will be sited there as well: that will create many welcome jobs. But what is going on behind the scenes of these changes? Will these major developments enhance the range and quality of hospital services locally available to the people of Durham?
  The changes are market led, not customer led. The internal market is rapidly reshaping the health service, fundamentally changing the nature and quality of services and undermining the ideals that underpin the NHS—that health care is available to all, that money does not buy better or quicker treatment and that patients are treated locally if that is what suits them best.
  Let me refer specifically to the proposed new Durham hospital. I hope that the Minister will take careful note of what I am going to say. I am disgusted and outraged by the latest decision on how the hospital is to be funded.
  Soon after I was first elected to Parliament in 1987, plans for a new district general hospital were discussed—although the hospital had been proposed even earlier. Capital expenditure in Durham district health authority had been miserly over the years in comparison with that of other district health authorities in the region. For example,
  816
  Durham was among the bottom six of 16 districts, with a spend of less than £15 million in 1989; only £2.5 million extra was spent between 1982 and 1989. In contrast, Newcastle district health authority was allowed to spend nearly £59 million in 1989, £9 million extra being spent between 1982 and 1989.
  Even if we add the capital expenditure of North-West Durham district health authority—which is now part of the new Durham authority, and which was bottom of the table with a total spend of only £3.8 million in 1989, with virtually no increase since 1982—it is clear that both authorities have been allowed very little capital expenditure over the years.
  Until a few weeks ago, it seemed that at last—after seven years—the hospital was ready to be built. Detailed business plans were drawn up and it was a case of looking to the Government for the capital expenditure. However, the Government have dashed hopes that funds for the proposed North Durham hospital would be approved by the end of the year. They are now insisting that a private sector bid for planning, building and running all but the core medical services must be included with the business plan. That is completely contrary to what the authorities had already been told; the decision, which is now expected to delay the bid for over a year, has ruined the plans for the hospital and delayed them even further.
  The business plan had been prepared at a cost of about £500,000. It had forecast the start of building work by 1996, with patients being admitted by 1999. Not only have the plans been delayed, however; they have been forced down the road to privatisation. The hospital managers of North Durham acute hospital trust hoped to receive the plans for go-ahead this year and hoped that the first phase, costing approximately £44 million—building next to the existing hospital—would start even before 1996. For the hospital authorities now to be told that their plans have been dashed, and that a new financing system is to be introduced, is a scandal and a disgrace, and has set the hospital back further.
  Not only has the new hospital been delayed; all the money spent on plans—including the business plan—has been a complete waste. For the Government to insist that private money builds a hospital is nothing more than privatisation of that hospital, and privatisation of the health service in Durham. Whichever way we look at it, if the private sector builds the hospital the private sector will expect to profit from it after it is built. That means that the private sector will run the hospital, and that therefore the hospital will run on a basis of profit rather than health care.
  If the hospital is not making a profit in certain areas, its owners will insist that the managers drop the service concerned and dictate where profitable services may be found. That could lead to a cut in non-profitable services, such as care for the elderly, and to decisions on medical care being taken not by doctors and consultants but by property developers and business men. If that is not privatisation, I do not know what is.
  So much for the Prime Minister's statement at the Tory party conference that the national health service would never be privatised while he lived and breathed. The proposed new North Durham district hospital is being used as a guinea pig for new financing arrangements, and my constituents will have to suffer—now and later. I ask the Minister to meet me, along with other hon. Members, in

  817
  the Durham area, to discuss the new proposals; I should be grateful if he would give me some indication of his response this evening.
  Mr. Malone: I should be delighted.
  Mr. Steinberg: The speed of the Minister's response has taken my breath away, but I am glad that he has acceded to my request.
  Under the new regional structure, the NHS executive's new regional offices will be responsible for purchasers and providers of primary and secondary care. The executive, with its single structure of regional offices—each with no more than 135 staff—will take on responsibility for all policy development in relation to the NHS. At local level, health authorities will evaluate health care needs. Major objectives will be delivered through corporate contracts between health authorities and the NHS executive.
  Trusts are primarily accountable to purchasers for the delivery of care through NHS contracts. They will be held to account by the provider arm of the NHS executive regional offices for meeting their statutory financial duties: in other words, there will no longer be any democratic accountability in local health care provision. There will be limited direct monitoring by regional offices of certain non-financial aspects of trusts' performance which cannot be pursued through NHS contracts, including national policy initiatives such as Opportunity 2000 and junior doctors' hours.
  Once regional health authorities are abolished, all appointments to district health authorities, family health services authorities, new health authorities and trusts will be formally made by the Secretary of State. Far from localising decisions, we will see a considerable move of power to the centre and political domination by the Secretary of State.
  With the abolition of RHAs, the emphasis will shift from a regional picture to the performance of individual health authorities and trusts which are unaccountable. National health service executive headquarters will establish an accountability framework for the NHS to be set out in a statement of responsibilities and accountabilities. Chief executives of health authorities and trusts are to be designated as accountable officers who will be accountable to Parliament for the use of all funds in their charge. Purchasers will provide information to those interested in their activities, including Members of Parliament, the public and the press. By any stretch of the imagination, that cannot be a democratic or acceptable system of accountability.
  Undoubtedly, a hospital trust has the financial interest of the hospital ahead of the health needs of patients and the pay and conditions of staff. There is already a trend towards low-paid, casual work and job insecurity. The cost-cutting measures of the market depress pay levels and by that means providers can offer cheaper services to purchasers through being more competitive.
  The rosy picture of staff morale in Durham hospitals painted by the Secretary of State is not familiar to me. Recently, we saw the regional health authority attempt to buy off nurses in a grading dispute. The health authority offered a blanket £700 to each claimant in exchange for dropping the claim. It is nothing more than a cash-oriented scam. Many of the nurses waited years for a fair hearing
  818
  at a grading appeal to recognise their additional responsibilities. In today's health service, there appears to be little scope for fairness. The health authority did its sums and pressed nurses to drop their claims in an unprincipled attempt to cut its losses. The nurses were given a deadline to accept the offer and were advised that refusal could result in a two-year wait for their grading appeal to be heard. Many nurses accepted the cash offered rather than face a further delay. Almost 2,000 of the nurses had already been waiting for five years.
  That action is further evidence of the abandonment of long-established public service traditions in favour of the "money talks" philosophy that we see in the health service under this Government.
  One of the first staff-related decisions made by the acute hospital trust in Durham was to replace skilled staff with cheaper and fewer staff. Staff are being treated as disposable units and are being used to make savings by reducing wage costs and job security. Auxiliaries, ward clerks and ward aids were replaced by what are called team assistants. The team assistants are to be recruited from jobcentres and are not required to have any previous experience in the health service. They will receive in-house training, but the complete training course lasts only 11 months or even less for successful students.
  The new post will be more qualified than an auxiliary but less qualified than an enrolled nurse and most post holders will have no previous experience in the health service. The new post holders will not be offered Whitley council employment and service conditions. Their conditions will be imposed upon them. For example, they will have only seven weeks holiday a year, including time off for sickness. Any further absences after seven weeks will mean a loss of pay. Given the nature of the work and the stress involved, that is an erosion of the rights that they have enjoyed for years. I do not see that as progress through reforms.
  A further erosion of their rights is that the 37-hour working week will be stretched to six days instead of five. Although that means shorter shifts, it means that an extra working day will be imposed for the same money. There is to be an overall pay decrease and special duty payments have been scrapped for night and weekend work. There will be no pay structure except at the whim of management with increments being awarded on merit. A bribe will be offered to the present work force with a one-off payment if they sign away their Whitley conditions.
  A system of internal rotation has been introduced where nurses who previously worked only night shifts must now work day duty and vice versa. That is all at the whim of the sister in charge of the ward. To make matters worse, nurses who did two complete night shifts are now being forced to do five nights with four hour shifts, finishing at one o'clock in the morning. That means that nurses have to return home alone in the early hours of the morning. That is unsafe and has been forced upon them. The nurses who gave me this information pleaded with me not to reveal my source because they believed that they would be sacked.
  At a meeting, the chairman of the hospital trust indicated that workers' rights were important. However, it seems that the new system is being imposed without real negotiation and will be implemented regardless of trade union opinion. The guarantees given to me seem worthless. I wonder whether the guarantee that he gave about

  819
  not sacking anybody who spoke to me rings true. I would not dare take a chance and reveal any source of my information.
  Secrecy surrounds the appointment of board members to the newly formed health trusts in county Durham. I was notified of the trust membership of the community health service, acute hospitals unit and the ambulance service. I was not objecting to individual appointments, but I inquired about the process of selection. I was particularly interested in the full list of nominations that had been received for trust membership so that I would be able to judge the criteria upon which the successful board members had been appointed. I was astounded to be told by the management of each service that the list of nominations was privileged information and could not be released. That is disgraceful.
  Those boards will run the vast majority of health services for the people of Durham, yet I am told that secrecy surrounds who was considered and how the appointments were made. That contrasts dreadfully with local government, where councillors are selected by the people and all nominations are open to public scrutiny. The chair of the ambulance trust in Durham is a very nice lady. I have met her and I got on very well with her. However, she is a failed Tory candidate for local government. How and on what grounds was she appointed? What are her qualifications? We do not know because they will not tell us. Her qualification is that she is a supporter of the Tory party and she was appointed on that basis. That is scandalous.
  In my constituency, there has not been a single Tory elected to the district council, which consists of 49 councillors, or to Durham county council. However, two of the ambulance trust members are Tory party members. That is a slap in the face for the people of Durham, who consistently vote against Tory representation. They do not want the Tories, but they are lumbered with them.
  Mr. Michael Carttiss: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that in an area where one party is dominant, such as in Durham and in some parts of the country where, until recently, the Conservative party might have been dominant, nobody with a different political affiliation should be appointed to hospital trusts or any other body responsible for the health service? Is he saying that because the people in Durham are silly enough to vote Labour, no Conservative should be appointed there, even though some people in Durham do vote Conservative?
  Mr. Steinberg: The people who vote Conservative in Durham could probably be counted on one hand. I am saying that it seems strange that in an area that predominantly votes Labour, two Tories are placed on the board of the ambulance trust and one is made its chairperson. I am not against those individuals. In fact, I get on well with them. One was the leader of the Tories in Durham. My point is that when I asked for information about how and why those people had been elected, I was told basically to mind my own business. I can assume only that they were appointed because they were Tories. I would have been satisfied if I had received an explanation of why they had been appointed or if I had been given their credentials for serving on boards. The system as it stands,
  820
  however, is non-democratic and unaccountable and, therefore, it must change. It is perceived that the appointments of those people are a political favour. I am sure that Conservative Members cannot be happy with such a position.
  Mr. Rowe: I have a lot of sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman says. There is great deal to be said for being entirely open about trust appointments. In the early stages of the trusts, there is bound to be a presupposition that people who approve of trusts rather than those who do not will be appointed.
  Mr. Steinberg: That is a fair point. I was asked by the chairman of the regional health authority whether I would be prepared to propose nominees for the trust board. I duly nominated a number of Labour party members who would like to serve on trust boards. That was the last that I heard of the matter. No reason was given as to why they were not picked or why the Tories were. That must lead to suspicion.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: May I press the hon. Gentleman on this point? He said that he nominated a number of Labour party people. When he nominated them, did it occur to him whether those people would do an efficient job?
  Mr. Steinberg: I assure the hon. Gentleman that one of the members who I nominated was the former vice-chairman of the district health authority. He had been removed by the Secretary of State when the new district health authority was set up.
  Mr. Bayley: Purged is the word.
  Mr. Steinberg: Sorry, he had been purged. I nominated someone with a tremendous amount of experience.
  My relationship with the trusts is excellent. I work well with them, but they are not accountable. We do not know why the appointees were chosen and we do not know what their qualifications are for holding their positions. That is an unhealthy state of affairs. It can be put right only by a more accountable system in which trust members are elected by the people whom they serve. They should riot chosen by the Secretary of State for Health purely on the basis of the political party that they support—in this case, the Tory party. I do not wish my views to be taken as a personal slur on any trust appointees, but I believe, as a matter of principle, that greater public accountability is needed in this process.
  Patients do not have the freedom to attend a hospital of their choice. General practitioners cannot refer them to the consultant of their choice. I should like to give an example of an appalling problem that occurred in my constituency. A 70-year-old lady had a heart attack and she had to bussed to the next county to receive emergency treatment. When she became ill at midnight, she was attended by what I call a night-shift doctor from the GP's practice who was unable to obtain her admission to the local hospital. It refused her admission because it did not have a bed for an old lady who was having a heart attack.
  Her husband's wish to accompany her to an accessible hospital led to an inquiry in the next county, but that was also refused. Eventually, the ambulance took her to a different hospital in the county unaccompanied by her husband. Ambulancemen told the old gentleman that if he went with his wife at 1 o'clock in the morning, they could not get him back home. He had to wait at home while his

  821
  wife was shipped off to the end of the county. That is an outrageous and intolerable position. An elderly man was left grief stricken while his wife was shipped off to the other end of the county.
  Unfortunately, that is likely to be regular occurrence now that the hospital has been granted trust status. That is the sort of health care that the reforms have brought. Durham's hospitals should care for the people of Durham. The Government have wasted millions of pounds on expensive management studies and bureaucratic procedures in the health service, yet they have got the basic things wrong. Why should elderly people be treated like second-class citizens? Things are going from bad to worse.
  There is little distinction between private and national health care. No patient can be accepted by a trust hospital unless someone pays the bill. We are assured that the health service will not be privatised, but few people believe it.
  7.24 pm
  Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: Durham is a long way from my constituency, but I note that my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I welcome to his new post, has already acknowledged the points that have been raised and shown his willingness, and that of his colleagues, to listen to them. That is the new listening national health service, if I can call it that.
  A distinguished medical colleague said to me recently that
  "treating patients is a great deal easier than running the national health service."
  As a physician, I acknowledge the difficulties addressed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
  When I became a medical student 30 years ago, I could not possibly have imagined the nature and pace of change, either professionally or administratively, especially in the past few years, but changes there had to be. For far too long, the NHS thought itself immune from challenge. Indeed, any challenge precipitated the wheeling out of Nye Bevan and was portrayed emotionally as a betrayal of the ethos of those people who set up the NHS.
  Those of us who worked in the NHS knew otherwise. Paternalism, from consultants downwards, had too often turned into a patronising attitude. Patients were led to believe that they should be grateful to be treated at all. Often, scant attention was paid to the timing of their appointments and admissions and they were often treated less well as people than one would expect. If that sounds over-critical, I should balance it by saying that those same patients received some of the best medical, nursing and ancillary treatment in the world.
  The publication of the White Paper "Working for Patients" was the watershed. New thinking had to be applied to a service which, as everyone had come to recognise, was subject to unlimited demands and that, paradoxically, increased in line with further medical and surgical sophistication.
  As new treatments became available, waiting lists inevitably increased. General practitioners felt frustrated and hospitals were overstretched. Hospitals often found themselves in the wrong place because of demographic
  822
  movements and changes in catchment areas. Rationalisation, particularly in London, was long overdue. Therefore, the Government, introduced new concepts, initially perhaps rather tentatively, which soon gathered a momentum of their own.
  The achievements are worth restating. NHS trusts forced the introduction of proper management techniques and accountability. No longer were investigations ordered without regard to cost and usefulness. No longer were waste and poor stock-keeping tolerated. Attention was at last paid to the cost of stays in hospitals, which was linked appropriately to the development of day surgery, a theme that I have developed in the House before. Lastly, compulsory competitive tendering, introduced by the Government, promoted efficiency and ensured that the maximum resources were available for patient treatment.
  GP fundholders were another great innovation. I remember attending highly charged meetings in my constituency with GPs who were apprehensive about having to manage their own affairs and about making use of the purchaser-provider split in the internal market. I understood their concerns and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would also have understood them. Like them, I had grown up in the NHS, of which it really was true to say that doctors tended to know the value of everything and the cost of nothing. They certainly knew the value of all sorts of human and scientific factors but few of us knew the cost of anything, whether of a day's stay in hospital, of drugs that we prescribed, of dressings that were applied by staff or of investigations for which we daily wrote forms.
  Hon. Members know that the waves of NHS trust applications gathered a momentum of their own. I welcome the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health at the party conference that, in response to demand, the threshold for GP fundholders would be lowered to 5,000 patients on a list. Those changes truly represent market forces at work as doctors and, more importantly, patients see the benefits of the reforms. I can speak personally of those benefits because I and all four members of my family have been in-patients under the NHS at Bart's hospital during the Government's term of office.
  Who did nothing but carp and criticise? The Labour party and, I am ashamed to say, my union, the British Medical Association. The classic socialist arguments were trotted out. The changes were described as creating a two-tier service as though all those benefiting from fundholding practices should be deprived simply because if everyone cannot benefit, no one should benefit. I suspect that that type of egalitarian thinking will survive in the Labour party long after any cosmetic surgery has been carried out on clause IV. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) appears to be nodding in agreement.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: Our argument is that everyone should be treated the same.
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes: That is our aspiration as well. The hon. Member was obviously not listening to what I said. The Labour party has always maintained that one

  823
  cannot have a two-tier service during a transition that provides a one-tier levelling up. Over the years, socialism, on the contrary, has persistently been all about levelling down.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I must say that what the hon. Gentleman said did not sound like that to me. When he talked earlier about the difference between value and price, which was more important to him?
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I know that the hon. Gentleman was listening attentively, so he will know that I was talking about human values as opposed to financial costs.
  It is interesting to consider the attitude of the BMA in this saga. On Saturday 6 August, the British Medical Journal published a leader entitled:
  "Where now for the NHS reforms?"
  I suppose that as the BMA is producing its own magazine, it is not at the mercy of anyone else and its staff can write the sub-headings to any articles. The sub-heading to that leader was:
  "Making them up as they go along."
  If that sub-heading does not make that leader a political tract at first sight, I wonder what it does. The article stated:
  "For many managers and professionals in the NHS, this has meant a period of learning by doing in which the importance of GP fund-holding, NHS trusts, and similar initiatives have been discovered in the process of making the reforms work. Where these changes will take the NHS is unclear even (or perhaps especially) to those at the heart of government … To this extent, the changes introduced by Working for Patients are out of control, with development; being driven from the bottom up not from the top down.
  And yet. Despite the overwhelming evidence of confusion and inconsistency at the centre of the NHS, there are those who argue that the reforms are guided by a master plan".
  That is a load of gobbledegook, unworthy of the usual stringent editing of the BMJ. The BMA cannot have it both ways—it cannot criticise reforms instigated from the bottom up while, on the other hand, accusing the Secretary of State by implication of imposing some master plan from above.
  The article in the BMJ asked
  "What should be done? Firstly, Ministers should assess the founding principles of the NHS for their relevance today."
  I do not know how good the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is at her history, but I did a bit of research and found out that one of the main criticisms levelled by the Labour party has been directed at the Government's theme of money following the patient. I challenge any of the health intellectuals on the Opposition Benches to give me the provenance of that phrase. I am met with a lot of blank faces, so let me educate those hon. Members. That phrase came straight from Nye Bevan, who, when speaking about local hospitals, said:
  "the endowment of that local hospital follows the patient"—[Official Report, 26 July 1946; Vol.426, c.470.]
  I recommend that phrase to the Opposition and I hope that the concept of money following the patient will no longer be criticised as a Conservative philosophy.
  Mr. Bayley: When Nye Bevan was speaking, the money did follow the patient because the doctor could refer the patient to any hospital. The funding that that hospital received depended on the number of patients that it had. Now, of course, money does not follow the patient. The doctor sets a contract with various providers and the
  824
  patient cannot exercise choice by going to whichever hospital he believes is the best—that is the nature of the internal market.
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes: The hon. Member is obviously not an expert because he knows nothing about extra-contractual referrals.
  We have heard cries from the Opposition about creeping privatisation and commercialisation, despite the categorical assurances of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the Government have no intention of privatising the NHS.
  My health interests are registered in the Register of Members' Interests, about which we have to be so careful nowadays, and I am proud to be associated with a public company that is working closely with local authorities to deliver an excellent standard of community care. It allows patients to be treated with dignity in the best possible environment. I also greatly welcome the fact that the company is competing not only with other companies but with in-house services.
  The new-look Labour party may admit to synergy between the public and private sectors in the NHS, as it does in other sectors. I challenge the Opposition to come clean. What do they really believe about co-operation between the private and public sectors?
  I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Derby, South believes that there is a place for the private sector in the NHS. However, I recently found out that her predecessor, now disposed of, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) did not seem to have any qualms about such co-operation. Dental Practice reported that, last year, the hon. Member opened a dental practice called Shiregreen, in Sheffield, within the largest public housing scheme in Europe. The magazine described how a private patient suite and private office were located on the first floor of that practice. I hope that when the right hon. Member for Derby, South replies to the debate she will clarify her party's views on such co-operation.
  Mrs. Beckett: I opened the debate; I will not be winding it up.
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Perhaps she will clarify her party's views in due course.
  What I find most frustrating in any debate on the NHS—we have all heard the interminable debates that have gone on—is the lack of good news that is described as such. In my constituency I have several good examples of such news. The St. Helier NHS trust, together with St. George's Hospital trust and the Kingston Hospital NHS trust, is responsible for the care of my constituents. It is an extremely successful trust and it is proposing possible new plans under the private sector finance initiative to transform the delivery of health care in south-west London. That is excellent news in itself and it may involve other hospitals, but it would be wrong of me to mention those in other hon. Members' constituencies.
  Atkinson Morley's hospital in my constituency is recognised as a centre of excellence throughout the world and it is quite possible that it may find its eventual home within the new set-up pioneered by the St. Helier hospital trust. I commend that trust for the work that it is doing on that project.

  825
  Nelson hospital in my constituency is a small, old-fashioned hospital which is held in enormous affection by my constituents. Its obituary notice has been written prematurely many times. At last, there is a proposal before the local council for that hospital to benefit from an entirely new build. I submit that there could hardly be a better index of faith in its future.
  The new plans incorporate increasing the number of out-patient consulting rooms from seven to 10 and the number of places for day treatment for the elderly from 20 to 30, and doubling the operating theatres from one to two. Moreover, my constituents will benefit from locally available physiotherapy, occupational therapy and x-ray facilities.
  Mr. MacShane: I can cite examples in Rotherham of an increasing number of beds and positive work accomplished in the NHS. What concerns me and should concern the Minister of State who will wind up, as he is a former journalist and Scottish editor of The Sunday Times, is the fact that when consultants, physicians and nursing staff in Rotherham district general hospital tell me things and I say that we shall discuss them publicly, they say that we cannot. That is a gagging of discussion inside the NHS by a Government who talk about decentralisation and improving information flow but who will not allow the people who know about those matters to express their views in the public domain. I am happy to represent the staff of Rotherham hospital, but I should prefer the Government to lift the gagging and allow consultants, doctors and nurses to speak for themselves in public debate.
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I cannot speak for the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Rotherham. I can simply say that once the plans servicing my constituency are worked out, they will go to full and very public consultation. I imagine that that pattern is reproduced elsewhere.
  A recent MORI poll shows that doctors are the most trusted profession. At the other end of the table, politicians are the least trusted. I believe that politicians are now on a par with journalists and, in the light of recent events, I am not certain whether the position at the bottom of the table has changed. Those of us who are both physicians and politicians must be somewhat schizophrenic. Speaking as a doctor and a politician, I welcome the reforms, knowing them to be for the benefit of the only person who matters in all our deliberations—the patient.
  7.41 pm
  Ms Tessa Jowell: I, too, am pleased to take part in this debate and should like to record my interest as an adviser to the Royal College of Nursing. Like the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who spoke earlier, I am a member of its parliamentary panel.
  Such is the collapse of public confidence in the Government's management of the health service that every week my constituents come to my advice services or write to me to express their fear and fury about what is happening. The Secretary of State prefers press conferences to Parliament and a mantra of statistics and jargonese that causes bewilderment to even the most hardened bureaucrat or journalist. Recently, when she appeared before the Health
  826
  Select Committee and was challenged about where support came from for her health reforms, she conceded that some members of the public may be "counter intuitive" to the changes. However, she went on to say that trust chairmen were always telling her how wonderful the NHS reforms were. Too right, as she appointed them and rescued many of them from oblivion after a general election defeat.
  It is because the NHS now seems to be run by a deadly combination of the Secretary of State's fantasy and a new breed of bureaucrat that patients and the public—that means all of us—are so alarmed. If public confidence in the national health service is as high as Conservative Members would have us believe, why has there been such a sharp increase in the number of people taking out private health insurance?
  Another major aspect of our debate today is the increase in bureaucracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) has already referred to CELFACS. A constituent of mine recently sent me a list of vacancies within the corporate services for CELFACS. Anybody who believes that the patient is still at the heart of our national health service should take a look at the 31 job descriptions, which include the assistant director of financial management; the assistant director of financial services; the financial accountant; the finance manager; the contracting systems and development accountant; the debtors' cash management accountant; the assistant management accountant; the public relations manager; and the press and public relations assistant. CELFACS has advertised 31 jobs, not one of which refers to patients in its job description.
  Mr. Malone: That is a pretty stupid point to make. Advertisements for jobs for clinicians appear in another source called the British Medical Journal. If the hon. Lady is talking about over-management in the service, does she accept the fact that only 2.6 per cent. of those employed in the service are in management? That is a pretty small figure for a service that runs at a rate of £32 billion a year.
  Ms Jowell: Given that the Health Ministers claim the NHS to have the patient at its heart, the fact that City and East London Family and Community Health Services has produced 31 job descriptions, none of which refers to patients, makes my point.
  I recently received a letter from a local GP practice that serves many of my constituents. It said:
  "On Monday evening the 10th of October 1994 at about 6.00 p.m. one GP trying to get an emergency admission for an elderly patient was told by the Registrar on call that there were no available beds at King's or Dulwich and that some eighteen patients were currently waiting on trolleys. Our patient was admitted to a ward at Dulwich at 5.00 a.m. on Tuesday the 11th of October. This practice of holding people for hours on trolleys in A&E seems to be commonplace and acceptable to the hospital but we do not believe that ill, elderly or vulnerable or distressed people should ever be treated in this manner."
  Another reality that the Government systematically avoid is the well-documented crisis facing London's mental health services. During the summer, we heard from the Royal College of Psychiatrists that bed occupancy is running at a staggering 130 per cent. I pay tribute to the excellent work of the Mental Health Foundation in systematically analysing and providing data on the scale of

  827
  the crisis facing the mental health services in London, with which all my hon. Friends who represent London constituencies deal daily.
  A constituent of mine who is a mental health worker wrote to me recently:
  "The bed situation in London is terrible. Our patients are frequently referred to private hospitals where they are known as 'outliers'. I understand that the bed in the private sector costs £500 a night which is more expensive than an NHS bed and the NHS has to pay for the bed.
  However, all our patients who go to these hospitals complain that the care they receive is poor. Their medication needs are just about met but they are excluded from group and occupational activities and the staffing ratios are poorer than in the NHS. More importantly they are patients we know well who have been treated by a team they do not know and over whom we"—
  the people who know them—
  "have no control."
  In south-east London, more than 43 per cent. of spending on medium secure beds is now in the private sector. Often, beds are more than 100 miles away, making a mockery of community-based care. A private bed costs between £80,000 and £87,000 a year and a national[health service bed in a medium secure unit about £70,000 a year, but with a much wider range of support services. The situation in south-east London is critical, with four times the national average number of people suffering from serious mental illness.
  I shall happily give way if the Minister will now give an undertaking that the bid by the Southwark, Lambeth and Lewisham health commission for an additional 45 medium secure beds for south-east London will be funded when the bid is considered by South Thames regional health authority. I see that he is not rising to his feet to give the people of south-east London that assurance.
  For those who doubt the oppressive hand of bureaucracy, I shall quote the words of a local general practitioner:
  "In the inner city most of us do not have the premises to promote the Government Policy, and where the premises are available the time factor is still a problem. We are having to spend more and more of our time in form-filling and every week we are bombarded with new forms and charters.
  Instead of treating patients we are subjected to magazines from Health Authorities and Hospitals who are fighting for our custom with pretty pictures of their staff. All this bureaucracy costs money, but obviously the patient … is the least person to be considered."
  Waiting lists for treatment are lengthening. If I take again the example of my area, that covered by the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority, as the number of available beds decreased between 1991–92 and the present by nearly 400, so waiting lists increased by 1,700, with an especially marked increase in the number of patients waiting up to one year.
  That illustrates another piece of illogicality in the Government's policy about which they have chosen to do nothing—the problem created by the substantial increase in the number of emergency admissions. It is a national problem, which is biting especially hard in London. where hospitals are reporting as much as a 17 per cent. increase in emergency admissions.
  828
  A constituent who contacted me earlier this year had his hernia operation cancelled five times. He was suffering increasing pain. The explanation that he was offered by King's went as follows:
  "Mr. D. was placed on the waiting list on the 9th of November 1993 and was first offered a date in December for his operation which unfortunately had to be cancelled as did two subsequent admissions planned for early February 1994 due to the extreme pressure on beds caused by very high numbers of emergency admissions and continuing problems caused by beds occupied by patients awaiting assessment by social services unable to be discharged."
  As the proportion of emergency admissions increases and the proportion of elective admissions decreases, hospitals need more beds to deal with the fluctuation in demand that is an inevitable part of handling pressures arising from emergencies.
  In south-east London, bed occupancy regularly runs at between 96 and 98 per cent. That places an intolerable burden on the hospitals, which is evidenced by long trolley waits and the cancellation of patients' operations. By general consent, 85 per cent. bed occupancy is regarded as a manageable target.
  Such a situation completely disrupts clinical priorities. Increasingly, patients will be referred as emergencies, because that is felt by GPs and patients alike to be the only sure way of getting into hospital, even if it involves the prospect of a long wait in casualty. It means that elective patients will wait longer, as evidenced by the figures provided to me by my local health authority.
  The prospect is that there will be two routes whereby patients will be treated electively. They will be treated if they hit the 18-month wait that requires them to be admitted by the patients charter, or if they suffer from a condition that can be treated by day surgery, which is cheap and offers high-volume turnover. Patients are therefore confronted by the absurdity that their bunions may be treated—because they can be operated on on a day surgery basis—but they may have little prospect of getting their hysterectomy done on an elective basis until they become an emergency, or until they have waited for 18 months.
  Long waits are tackled only at the expense of patients who have waited for a shorter time. That is a complete abandonment of the principle that patients should be treated according to their clinical need. It is not even as if the hospitals do not have the capacity to treat the patients. The problem arises only because their capacity is determined artificially by the purchasers and the contracts that they negotiate, not by the length of the waiting lists or the number of patients who need to be treated.
  Even where it is shown that hospitals could produce another 10 to 12 per cent. in activity, which would make a substantial inroad into increasing the number of patients treated and therefore taken off the waiting list, and even though the hospitals have the capacity, they are prevented from treating those patients, even where they could do so at marginal cost. So a hospital that is "over-performing" by, for example, 10 per cent., but overspending by a fifth of that—which is increased productivity even by the Government's standard—is forced into the madness of closing wards to reduce expenditure instead of opening them to deal effectively with the increased demand. Why? The answer is, because the purchasers have no more money.

  829
  such is the public apprehension and fear that nothing is now safe from the Government's arbitrary hand, that the Government have succeeded in turning "save our" into the two most potent words in the nation's political vocabulary.
  Guy's, just the other side of the Thames, is a world-class hospital and pivotal local hospital, yet for the past eight months it has been blighted by the prospect of its accident and emergency department and acute services being stripped away. Philip Harris House, with its state-of-the-art facilities, is confronted by the prospect of never opening for the purposes for which £140 million of public and charitable money was raised. Dulwich hospital, a much-loved local hospital used by my constituents, is threatened with closure at the same time as people wait on trolleys at King's along the road because there are no beds to which to admit them.
  This debate is yet another opportunity to ask Ministers to listen; to ask them to venture out of their world of fantasy to accept the reality that confronts patients and staff every day.
  Let me finish with an especially brutal piece of reality, which recently came to me in a letter from another GP who serves many of my constituents. He said:
  "I was in H.M. Forces when the National Health Service commenced and could not wait for demobilisation to join, I wished to be part of this brave new world. Sadly, in August"—
  this year—
  "I was glad to leave the National Health Service disillusioned and demoralised at what the present Government has done to my dream."
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am somewhat between a rock and a hard place. If I do not make it absolutely clear that I am married to a non-executive director of a health trust I shall rightly be castigated for having concealed that material fact from the House. If I make that fact clear, I shall be given hell when I get home because my wife—who has spent most of her professional career working in the national health service, who currently holds a senior position in the Centre for International Child Health, who has made her way in the health service entirely due to her own efforts and who has earned a considerable reputation therein—will tell me that I have no business dragging her name into a debate on the health service as though she were some sort of appendage of mine.
  My wife is a non-executive director who obtained her position entirely on her own merits in a trust that has behaved in an exemplary way, which should be widespread throughout the nation. The trust advertised for non-executive directors and had a thoroughly open selection procedure as a result. That is the right way to proceed and I hope that it will become a widespread practice. As trusts become established, the public interest in them grows and popular support for them grows. We can expect good people to apply for positions on trusts.
  As always, I listened with great attention and care to the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell), who made an eloquent and telling appeal for her constituents. Her speech suffered from only one weakness in that it had no historical perception. I used to live in the constituency
  830
  that the hon. Lady currently graces. I vividly remember that a number of people whom I knew, including my daughter, went to local hospitals and found them in considerable difficulties—one of them was not particularly clean—which meant that visiting them was not a happy experience.
  The idea that financial constraints leading to the closure of beds or wards is a new phenomenon resulting from the reforms is a joke. Of course it is true that, in a health service the size of ours, which has growing difficulties for a variety of reasons—the instability of family life, the growing violence on the streets, the enormous increase in the use of drugs—inner city areas come under immense pressure. Far from blaming the shortcomings on the reforms, we should realise that the reforms present the only way of meeting the vastly difficult challenges that have not been satisfactorily met under the old system.
  Ms Jowell: I have to correct the hon. Gentleman. Both King's College hospital and Dulwich hospital have beds that are closed only because the purchasers do not have the money to fund their being open.
  Mr. Rowe: I understand that perfectly. I am saying that that phenomenon is not a direct consequence of the reforms, but existed long before the reforms. The demands on the national health service have always out-stripped supply and always will. At some stage, some form of rationing, however it is done, has to be introduced. One method that used to be used across the nation was to close wards and make doctors and others useless. If that still happens in some parts of the country, I very much regret it, but it has diminished considerably and is not nearly as common in my part of the country as it used to be, largely as a result of the reforms.
  I approve of the reforms for many well-rehearsed reasons. They have enormously increased the transparency of the costings. We have a much clearer idea of where the costs lie in the national health service. It is not enough emotionally to suggest that because we know where the costs lie we are somehow uncaring. In the old days, because one did not know where the costs lay, it was a matter of pot luck whether a health authority spent money on one thing or another. At least now it is possible to make rational decisions about the likely demand for services and to go for as good a deal for the national health service as possible.
  I approve of the reforms and believe that we have a much tighter management as a result. I can give one small but telling example. Before the reforms were introduced, beds tended to belong to a specialty. If there were empty beds in one part of a hospital, there was a complicated system of negotiations about whether some other specialty could use those beds. It is now accepted that the beds belong to the trust and, as a consequence, there is much better and more effective use of them. In the trusts that I know well, there is infinitely greater co-operation between the various clinical directorates than there was under the old system, where many consultants were prima donnas for whom bed ownership was one of their status symbols.
  In many parts of the country—certainly in my constituency—there is now better co-operation between the social services and the trusts. The hon. Member for Dulwich may have an added problem because her local social services are not adequately managed and have not forged the

  831
  sort of links with the hospitals that make it easy for patients to move satisfactorily from hospital into community care.
  Ms Jowell: The hon. Gentleman is well versed in the working of the community care reforms, so he will understand the particular problems that the London borough of Southwark has in two respects. First, it has among the smallest proportion of long-stay beds for elderly people, whether in the private or voluntary sector, of any authority in the country. Secondly, the Government's stricture that 85 per cent. of special transitional grant be spent in the independent sector discriminates heavily against inner city authorities such as mine, which has virtually no private domiciliary provision. People stay in hospital simply because there is not adequate support for them when they go home.
  Mr. Rowe: I accept what the hon. Lady says about her constituency. I wonder whether some of the difficulty of obtaining private sector provision within the local authority stems from the endemic hostility to the private sector that characterises boroughs such as hers. One aspect that is not a direct consequence of the reforms but has enormously helped the reforms in Kent, has been the evolution of doctors' co-operatives such as Meddoc and Maiddoc for the provision of out-of-hours service. That has not only enormously improved the provision of out-of-hours service, with tremendous public acceptability, but has meant that GPs have become accustomed to working together. In my part of the world we are seeing some exciting developments as a direct consequence of the GPs' growing confidence and trust in one another.
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), who is not in his place now, but has been here for most of the debate, spoke in Question Time about nurses being forced to undertake medical procedures that were putting them under stress. I have no doubt that that is a stressful business for some nurses, but for many more nurses it provides an opportunity to put into practice their professional skills at a level from which they were hitherto barred due to the unwillingness of the medical profession to trust them. The upgrading of the nurses' job and the growing trust in their capacity to do a range of tasks frees doctors to do other things that only they can do.
  I believe that the royal colleges should accept this sort of development and should have much more confidence in a more flexible approach to new ways of guaranteeing quality. Sometimes in the past, their ways have been too rigid. For instance, the ratio between the number of consultants and the number of those in grades below consultant needs to be reviewed. Trusts could often make much better use of their facilities if we did away with a rigidly handed down formula for that ratio. A flexible formula would help the reforms to drive forward.
  In a smaller and perhaps less significant way, the NHS reforms have been vindicated by the sharp falling off in the number of complaints about the NHS which I, as a constituency Member, receive. Complaints against GPs in Kent have remained remarkably static, although there has been a slight increase this year. I believe that the trusts have responded much more swiftly and effectively to patient complaints than did their predecessors.
  One of the troubles with our parliamentary system is the built-in need for the Opposition to see the glass as half empty and for the Government to see it as half full.
  832
  In the complicated, difficult and challenging environment of the NHS, the Opposition should be much more generous about what is going well and we, perhaps, should be even tougher on what is going wrong.
  I am encouraged to discover that the proportion of staff delivering direct care rose from 60 per cent. in 1981 to 66 per cent. this year. The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) went on and on about the number of managers in the service, but she failed to say whether clinical directors are to be regarded as managers, or whether nurses who have taken on the management of their peers are to be regarded as managers. I think that practice managers in general practices often take a tremendous load off doctors, leaving the latter free to do what they want to. I do not therefore regard such management statistics as either valuable or threatening.
  As for Doctor Macara's anxiety, it is interesting to note that although Bevan, the architect of the NHS in legislative form, felt that he had been held over a barrel by the consultants, at this moment it happens to suit the Labour party to take up that same vested interest and support it to the hilt whenever it wants to complain about how the reforms are working.
  An Opposition Member—I forget which one—made a great song and dance about some of his patients having to travel 14 miles. I have spent most of my time in Parliament pressing for the reform of NHS hospitals in London, because constituents of mine, far from having to travel 14 miles, need to go as far as 55 miles for care because of the gross over-provision in London of many services that could easily be delivered locally. Thanks to the reforms, we are at last getting a better deal for Kent than ever before.
  On the whole, I think that fundholding is good for patients. There has been a remarkable diversification and generous provision of a variety of services for patients. This has been good for GPs, who have suddenly discovered that they really have a say in the purchase of health care—but I urge the Minister to be careful. It is a wonying fact that the number of GP trainees in Kent has fallen and that, from being top choice, the job of GP has moved well down the ladder. That is partly because of the general upheaval in the service, but it may also have something to do with how fundholding is perceived. We need to take a careful look at that.
  We need also to take care lest some of those who are considered for fundholding in the next wave prove not to be up to the standards required to run their own show that we would expect. It would be a grave disservice to the fundholding initiative if, in our enthusiasm for spreading what has been widely accepted by the first wave, we find ourselves rushing into the next wave too quickly.
  I have one final anxiety about fundholding. I get the impression that the Government have been slightly surprised by the enormous popularity of fundholding and the drive to increase the number of fundholders. The consequences for trusts and for purchasing authorities have not been completely thought through. Some of my local trusts have been operating extremely well with relatively slim budgetary surpluses. Just as a roll-on roll-off ferry does not need much side-slip to go over, if one of the big co-operatives of fundholders suddenly decided to take its services elsewhere, that could cause quite a severe list in the ferry, or trust.

  833
  I am whole-heartedly behind the national health service reforms and I am entirely in favour of fundholding, but I hope that the Minister can reassure me that he will watch carefully to see that well-managed and effective trusts are not suddenly blown off course by a shift in GP fundholding purchasing.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Bill Etherington: I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate, especially after the long recess. I feel rather sad and a little angry about the somewhat sanctimonious contribution by the Secretary of State today. In many ways, it was not worthy of such an important subject.
  Several speakers in the debate have shown great expertise. We have heard from GPs and from people with backgrounds in nursing and social services. I do not pretend to have that sort of expertise. What I can do, however, is to bring some of the concerns expressed by my constituents to this Chamber.
  Of all the subjects that are causing concern at the moment, the plight, or fate, of the NHS is uppermost in most people's minds in my constituency. My constituency and the adjoining one, Easington—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) in his place—were classified in a study carried out not long ago as two of the five worst areas in Britain for long-term illness. Taking 100 as an average, the Easington area was allocated 191.24 and the Sunderland area 154.61. That is the paramount factor in people's perceptions of the sort of service that they are getting. It may not seem too bad when bed cuts are prophesied for areas where standards of health and of living are reasonably high. But that is not the case in Sunderland or anywhere in the north-east.
  We all know that the regional health authorities and hospital trusts have become much more oriented towards public relations exercises than they are towards service to the public. That is most noticeable in my part of the world. There is a plethora of glossy magazines, and rather poor stories are gilded as much as possible, but the health authorities and the trusts are signally failing to persuade the public that what is proposed is for their benefit.
  People's suspicions have reached great heights in the north-east. Fairly recently a petition carrying 11,000 signatures of people opposing the regional health authority's proposals was presented to Sunderland health authority. That petition speaks for itself. The signatures were obtained not by people going from door to door but by people standing in a marketplace on a Saturday, talking to people at random and explaining the situation.
  Following consultation, there was a public meeting on 29 September. I had the good fortune—or the misfortune, depending on how it is viewed—to attend that meeting, and I was rather sad to learn that, in essence, the public consultation exercise had been a total sham. The House may be interested to know the sort of people who supported Sunderland health authority's proposal to do away with 200 hospital beds. It was supported by Sunderland university, which is a quango; by the Cumbria ambulance trust, another quango; by the Freeman hospital at Newcastle, which is also a quango; by Priority health care, Wearside, which is one of its customers; by South Tyneside health care trust, a quango; by City hospitals trust,
  834
  Sunderland, another customer; by Durham health commission; by Easington joint commissioning board, which is another quango; and by the South of Tyne health commission, which is yet another quango.
  All the other bodies that were consulted objected to the proposal, but no one has taken the slightest notice of them. As the business plan was being proposed at the meeting of Sunderland health authority on 29 September—I call it a business plan because that is what the health authority calls it, with no mention of patients—the general practitioners' representative, Dr. Pam Wortley, said that GPs were concerned that if the 200 beds were phased out, there would be no practical alternative but to improve primary health care facilities.
  One of the rather worrying factors mentioned by Dr. Wortley was that many more GPs would be needed to deal with the increased need for primary health care. In principle, that is excellent—no one would dispute that—but in Sunderland recently there were 30 vacancies for GPs and only 14 were filled. Many members of the public who attended the meeting were shocked by what Dr. Wortley said.
  The basis of public disquiet is that there do not seem to be any good alternative proposals. Prime Minister Herbert Henry Asquith used the immortal term, "Wait and see", and that is what Sunderland health authority is telling Sunderland's citizens. That is not good enough and it is unacceptable.
  All sections of the public were vehemently opposed to the authority's proposals, but the impression is that bodies of people, whether they form hospital trusts, regional health authorities or local commissions, have been appointed to carry out the instructions of the appointer. That is what it is all about and it does not matter what political party the appointees belong to or how admirable or knowledgeable they are: they are placed there to do as they are told.
  In the north-east, the various quangos are staffed by a pool of interchangeable people, some of whom sit on more than one quango. Someone can be a member of a hospital trust and of a regional TEC or a member of Tyne and Wear development corporation and the chairman of a hospital trust. The Secretary of State spoke about Islington dinner parties. I do not know about those, but I know a clique when I see one, and that is what this business is all about. People recognise that and they find it totally unacceptable. Political ramifications have nothing to do with it: I am talking about people who congregate to form a clique that is undemocratic and answerable to no one in the locality. Generally, they are fairly well paid for their services. I agree that the idea of public service is admirable, but in this case such service is also paid for, and that sweetens things a little.
  Mr. John Cummings: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because it is difficult to take part in a debate while carrying out the duties of a Whip. My hon. Friend mentioned Easington joint commissioning board. Perhaps I could relate an incident that occurred some months ago, and which has not yet been resolved. An infirm lady of 77 was discharged from Ryhope general hospital into the community. Twice a week, she has to take a taxi costing £2 to a private residential home, where she pays £3 for a bath. She is then turned out into the street and has to take a £2 taxi ride back to her home. The matter has been raised with the joint commissioning board

  835
  but we are no further forward. Of course the board has established working parties between itself and social services—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I am feeling fairly tolerant, but the hon. Gentleman is going on a bit. Interventions are supposed to be brief.
  Mr. Cummings: Those are the problems that we encounter when dealing with quangos, joint commissioning boards and other bureaucrats who take no notice whatever of elected representatives.
  Mr. Etherington: I appreciate the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington because people in his constituency make full use of the facilities in Sunderland that I have mentioned. I am pleased that you exercised tolerance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I have no doubt that it will shorten my speaking time. The story told by my hon. Friend is but one of many gruesome tales. People perceive what is happening because of the bureaucrats, the great and the good, who are appointed by the Secretary of State for Health.
  I should like to read a short extract from a letter by Dr. R. N. Ford, the chairman of Sunderland local medical committee. He is almost a model of moderation and his letter was published in the Sunderland Echo on 7 October. That letter states:
  "I can assure you that local GPs have been very active indeed.
  We decided to pursue a policy of quiet but firm diplomacy in our negotiations with Sunderland Health Commission and the Sunderland Hospitals Trust management in the hope that this would prove to be in the best interest of the patients under our care.
  Unfortunately, we now believe that this has been unsuccessful, and our views have gone essentially unheeded … now we have the issue of bed closures looming.
  For your information, GPs are overwhelmingly opposed to the business plan proposed by City Hospitals, and in particular to the savage cuts in bed numbers."
  For the benefit of Conservative Members, I should say that Dr. Ford is not some unreconstructed Marxist but a general practitioner in a responsible position looking after other GPs and the interests of patients whom they serve.
  I know that time is short and that two of my hon. Friends wish to speak, but I should draw attention to one important factor that came to light recently. When the local hospital trusts were trying to point out how little they spent on bureaucracy, they cited two figures that made it appear that very little was being spent on management and administration. However, one can work out from the numbers employed that it costs £24,000 to employ a member of the nursing staff, with all the services that such staff provide, and £38,000 for the provision of one member of staff in management. That throws a different light on matters.
  We have a contrived market which hides the fact that Britain does not spend enough on health care. We spend far less than many of our European Union competitors and about half what is spent in the United States. Of course, if money is well spent, what matters is not always how much is available but how the sum is used, and, by and large, the national health service has been successful. No one would suggest that we should never look for improvements, but we should not do so by contriving an artificial market, by creating more management jobs and well-paid jobs in hospital trusts and by setting up a bureaucratic unaccountable quango.
  836
  Having followed developments in Sunderland fairly carefully, I have reached the conclusion that hospital trusts are behaving like asset strippers by closing down premises and moving everything into one unit. Sunderland general hospital has tremendous parking problems. There are many complaints from people who live locally who cannot get into their homes during hospital visiting hours. That has not been helped by the fact that the quango has decided to charge people who visit the hospital for the pleasure of using the car park. Yet the trust is considering extending the premises and putting more hospitals on the same site. That makes no sense whatever and is causing public disquiet among those who live in the area and those who have the misfortune to travel there by motor car. The reason given for charging for. parking was to improve security. That has not been successful. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) was told today that his wife's car has been stolen from the car park where security is costing so much money.
  We are dealing with a business where patient care is very much secondary.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject, does he agree that one of the main concerns about the radical changes taking place in Sunderland hospitals stems from a feeling that there are not the facilities at the general hospital to deal with the greatly increased demand and also that there are not the facilities or resources to provide the community care that will be necessary if those extremely radical plans are carried out?
  Mr. Etherington: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who has been very active on the subject, as have other neighbouring Members. I can do no better than to quote to my hon. Friend what Councillor Louise Bramfitt, who is chair of the social services committee of Sunderland city council, said recently. She asked whether the money to be saved from the bed closures would be handed over to the social services department. We all know the answer to that: probably most of the money will find its way back to the Treasury. That is also causing concern.
  I will finish off with one personal matter. Recently, an old uncle of mine who is 84 years old had the misfortune to be knocked over. He was taken to Sunderland general hospital, where both the treatment he was given and the way in which I was received when I visited him in casualty were absolutely superb. I can pay no greater tribute than to say that no person on earth does a better job than someone who looks after the health of others and protects their lives. It was magnificent.
  I was not so pleased when it was time for my uncle to come out. I did the reasonable and civilised thing and offered to take him home. The sister on the ward was only too pleased to accept my offer, but I still had to pay to park to save the trust a little bit of money. That was deplorable and should not be tolerated in civilised society. There are many poor people in Sunderland as there is high unemployment. People have enough problems paying for transport to visit their loved ones in hospital without the added burden of having to pay for parking. If the Secretary of State has any heart at all, she will take some action. I hope that she will.
  When the Minister meets my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who happens to be my constituency Member, I hope that he will also meet

  837
  me, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, South, for Easington, for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) and for Jarrow, and everyone else who is concerned about the abysmal situation in Sunderland.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. Michael Carttiss: I was intending to make a fairly gentle contribution to this important debate, but I am emboldened by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who said that we should be tougher about what has gone wrong.
  My hon. Friends the Under-Secretary of State and the Chief Whip know that last November, at the beginning of this parliamentary year, I advised them both that I could not support the Government in any health service debate for the rest of this Parliament, and I shall explain why later on in my observations.
  Tonight, I have no hesitation in coming to the Chamber not only to support the Government's amendment, but actually to speak in its favour. I do so though I have much sympathy with some of the comments that I have heard from Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who is not here momentarily and who allowed me to interrupt his speech.
  I cannot comment on what the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) said about Sunderland, but I certainly share some of his concern about the method of appointment to the hospital trusts and the cliques to which he referred in Sunderland. I am sure that Sunderland is not alone in that experience.
  The one feature of the debate that causes me to run fast and furious into the Government Lobby tonight is the reference in the motion tabled by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. and hon. Friends, which talks of
  "public alarm at the creeping privatisation of the National Health Service".
  I would not like it to be thought by anyone who cares to read or listen to what I say that, by being silent in this debate and keeping out of the Government Lobby, as I have in every health service debate since last November for reasons that I shall explain later, I could in any way be associated with the claim by the Opposition that there is any such thing as a "creeping privatisation" of the national health service.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his speech at the Conservative party conference, explained and reiterated his commitment to the national health service, which he explained at the party conference and throughout television, as it was reported widely on the various channels in the late news.
  Speaking from personal experience, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
  "Believing, as I do, that the greatest nightmare for millions is that one day they might be old, sick, poor, and uncared for, is it really likely that I would take away from people the security of mind that was such a comfort to my own parents? I can tell you—not while I live and breathe".
  I am pleased to echo and quote the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in once again nailing the lie that is promoted up and down the land and has been repeated here. I believe that Opposition Members who sometimes repeat it genuinely believe it. Most of them are
  838
  not making speeches for the sake of party politics. I believe that the vast majority of Opposition Members who have spoken in this and other debates are committed to the health service.
  They believe that the Government have a hidden agenda. I reject that assertion, even though I understand that some of them sincerely believe it. Of course, others know that it is not true; they make their comments for party political reasons after they have posted their cheques to some private health care scheme or paid their subscriptions to their unions, which in turn take out private health care for their members.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was speaking from his personal experience and that of his elderly parents. If my mother were alive today, she would be up in the Gallery thinking, "How on earth did I breed someone who is mixing it with all these people? Why doesn't he get himself a decent job?" Of course, my mother is not there. She was not there when I made my maiden speech in 1983. She was not there when, at the age of five, I went to Filby village primary school. She died of tuberculosis in Norwich when I was three years old, before the national health service existed.
  I lost my mother when I was three without ever really knowing her, because in those days tuberculosis was a deadly disease. I was taken away from her and brought up by my grandfather because they were afraid that I would catch tuberculosis, which was an horrendous disease. Of course, if someone had money he did not die—in fact, he did not catch it. [AN HON. MEMBER: "It is the same."] It is not the same.
  I am convinced that, if my mother had caught tuberculosis in her late 30s—by which time there was a national health service—rather than in her late 20s, she would have been treated and she would be here today. I apologise to hon. Members for wearying them with a personal story, which does not require any sympathy. I state it merely as a similar experience to that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It explains my commitment, which I believe is shared by the vast majority of Conservatives, to a national health service free at the point of delivery.
  Many of the reforms that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her team have introduced have been to the benefit of patients. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) concluded his speech by saying, "I speak as a doctor, and I speak as a politician." I speak as a patient and as someone whose uncles and aunts—brothers and sisters of my late mother—have benefited from the national health service. I speak as someone who would not dream on principle of taking out a private health care scheme. I do not believe in them, but equally I do not believe that we should stop them.
  I believe in a society in which those who, rather than buying a new car, want to take out additional personal health care insurance, are encouraged to do so. That happens with Labour Members as well as Conservatives. However, that is not for me. My national health service hospital is good enough for me, it is good enough for my constituents, and it is doing a great job.
  I recently had a letter from a constituent in which he voiced his concern about the Government moving towards privatisation of the NHS. There is a fear throughout the country that we have that agenda. He was concerned because he had read an advertisement for a private health care scheme that said, "Don't wait in the queue. Avoid

  839
  long waiting lists." He interpreted that as meaning that private health care patients were taking a higher place on the waiting list at our local hospital, with the result that he was having to wait longer.
  In fact, the James Paget hospital, which serves the Great Yarmouth, Waveney and Mid-Norfolk constituencies, has just six private beds. It is a large hospital, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has visited at least twice during the past three years. He knows that it is a great hospital. Those six private beds are not available to the NHS, but they do not keep NHS patients out of hospital. Instead, they bring a profit of £250,000 to my constituents who use NHS facilities at that hospital.
  I wish that we made more of the fact that private health care is something for those who want it. We should not say that, because many of us cannot afford it, no one should have it. Those six beds bring in a profit of £250,000—
  Mr. Bayley: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how much it costs to treat patients in those private beds? I ask that because the Government are unable to give figures for the cost of treating NHS patients. How can the hon. Gentleman tell whether that £250,000 is a profit or a loss when set against costs?
  Mr. Carttiss: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question now, but I will find out the answer and let him know, because it is an interesting point.
  I am quoting the figure given in a letter from the chief executive of the James Paget hospital. He specifically refers to £250,000 in the hospital's budget that is profit from the use of private facilities at the hospital. That sum is then reinvested in direct patient care services. He writes:
  "This is another way of saying that if we did not have that sum then the services at the James Paget Hospital would have to be cut by that same amount."
  Marrying the private and public sectors is a recipe for success, which I believe is to the advantage of everybody. That is certainly true in my constituency, as can be seen from that example. However, in supporting that, hon. Members should not assume that the Government are intent on privatising the NHS, as the Opposition's motion suggests.
  I said earlier that I had some sympathy with the comments of the hon. Member for City of Durham. I also picked up one or two points made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North about hospital trusts. I welcome the Government's statement that they will continue to appoint the best possible people to trusts. There is a great deal of nonsense about whether they are Conservative or Labour. There must be some political balance, but the important factor is to get the right people.
  I was sure—the hon. Member for City of Durham more or less admitted it—that the hon. Gentleman had a good relationship with the two Conservatives on his local ambulance trust. He acknowledged that they were very good. I have a good relationship with the Labour members of my local hospital trust, who do a good job.
  The local Labour party opposed setting up the trust, but, the next thing I knew, the wife of the chairman of the British Medical Association's local branch—a Labour councillor and a former nurse—was one of the first people
  840
  in the Labour party to accept an appointment to the trust. We welcome one sinner who is converted rather than 99 already on our side.
  Mr. Bayley: Let her speak for herself.
  Mr. Carttiss: That lady did not have to accept the appointment if she was so solidly opposed to the trust. I am trying to make the point that it is good that there are Labour members serving on the trust. She was selected by the other trust members not because she was a Labour councillor, not because her husband was chairman of the local BMA branch, but because she was identified as a young woman who could contribute to the hospital trust. I welcome that. I wish that we heard more speeches from the Opposition of the kind made by the hon. Member for City of Durham, who paid tribute to the fact that some people were doing a good job, and that his objection was to the way in which they were appointed rather than to who they were. That is an objection which I share.
  The Department of Health is drawing up new guidelines with a view to implementing them across all regions next year. The system will be transparent and the procedures clear to potential candidates for membership of NHS trusts. It will be accessible to people from a wide range of backgrounds. I understand that there will be advertisements at regional and local level to allow access to vacancies. I hope that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) will pursue that point further.
  There is much to be done about NHS trusts. A man has just been appointed to the Anglian Harbours NHS trust in Great Yarmouth and Waveney, replacing the Tory chairman, who was a county councillor. That is an example of the Government dispensing with the services of a first-class Tory councillor and producing someone from goodness knows where. No one in Yarmouth and Waveney, including the two Members of Parliament, has ever heard of him. I was sent his name and asked for my comments. I said that I did not know him, and therefore did not think that he was suitable, and asked what was wrong with the existing chairman.
  The chairman of the Anglia and Oxford regional health authority—we have a huge region looking after my constituency, based in Oxford—decided that that man was the right one for the job. He may well be, but that is not good enough for me. [Interruption.]
  I see the Whip indicating something, but I will ignore him, because I have not made the point that I came here to make. That is that, having dispensed with the nonsense in the Opposition's motion about creeping privatisation, which brings me back on side with the Government tonight, I come now to another phrase with which I do have some sympathy—lack of accountability.
  Everyone in Great Yarmouth and Waveney was consulted about the proposal to merge half the Great Yarmouth and Waveney health authority with the Norwich health authority in order to complete the new purchasing body. Waveney, which had been united with Yarmouth as one health authority or grouped hospital administration unit ever since the NHS was set up, was taken away from the Great Yarmouth and Waveney health authority, and placed with Suffolk health authority. That was interpreted locally as meaning that hospital services for people in Lowestoft, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter), would have to go to Ipswich. That was never a reality.

  841
  Repeated reassurances on that point were given, but 90 per cent. of the bodies and people consulted last year came down in favour of the Yarmouth and Waveney health district continuing. As a secondary fallback position, those people were prepared to accept, as part of the general reorganisation of district health services, the merger with Norwich.
  In October, I brought to the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) a deputation of doctors and clinicians and other people, to present the virtually unanimous view that merger was okay, but that there should be no separation. My hon. Friend rejected that. On 8 December, in an Adjournment debate, we repeated our claim.
  On 3 March 1994, with my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, I brought another deputation from Great Yarmouth and Waveney, and pleaded with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to reconsider his decision. One reason for that decision had been the need to relate the health service purchasers to the providers of social services. The argument was that the boundaries of the health authorities had to be related to the social service providers, Suffolk and Norfolk county councils.
  I told my hon. Friend that the Local Government Commission was coming to Norfolk and Suffolk to review the future of local government, and that there was a strong possibility that it would recommend the merger of the Great Yarmouth borough council and the Waveney district council as a single-tier authority and a social services provider. We asked the Government to wait for the Local Government Commission's report and the response to it.
  In July, the Local Government Commission recommended five unitary authorities in Norfolk, one of which was to be the Great Yarmouth and Waveney authority, crossing the county boundary. There we had the possibility, if the Local Government Commission's original recommendation was accepted, of a new social services provider, knocking on the head one of the arguments that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had advanced for separating the two. That is the sort of nonsense that gets the Government a bad name and which underlines the lack of accountability of the decision makers.
  If the population, the chambers of commerce and the district bodies had been split half and half in favour of the Minister's proposals, or even 40 per cent. in favour and 60 per cent. against, my hon. Friend could have said that the 60 per cent. were people who did not know what they were talking about. But in Waveney and Yarmouth the decision was almost unanimous, that the authority should continue to be one district, albeit merged with Norwich. My hon. Friend rejected that.
  Where is the public accountability in that? Where is the public accountability in the appointments that my hon. Friend has made to the East Norfolk health commission? Where is the public accountability in sacking the first-class chairman of the Anglian Harbours NHS trust, who happens to be a Conservative county councillor, and replacing her with someone who is completely unknown?
  I fear the same debacle that we had when a complete unknown was appointed to be chairman of the James Paget hospital trust. He was a man resident in the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr.
  842
  Ryder). No one in Yarmouth or Waveney knew him. What did he do? He gathered together all his friends, none of whom lived in Great Yarmouth or Waveney and only about two of whom had any connection with the catchment area of the health service provision at the James Paget hospital.
  Within a few weeks, the then Minister for Health, who is now my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, wanted to sack him. Eventually, happily, the man resigned, in much the same voluntary way as. my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) did today.
  We are getting more accountability, but not enough. Therefore, I welcome the statement made my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon about examining all these matters. Why on earth is there such a fuss about a published list? My right hon. Friend stood at the Dispatch Box and announced half a dozen members of the Labour party. Opposition Members asked how we know that they are Labour members. The answer is obvious.
  Why not have a full list? What is so secret about the people who sit on quangos? I do not take the view that they should be elected, or that they ought to be in local authority service. After all, the Crossman reforms, which the Conservative party implemented, established area health authorities based on counties, and district bodies within them—which took from the county council of which I was a member responsibility for all sorts of health matters that were previously the remit of elected councillors.
  I do not need any lectures from Opposition Members on elected bodies, because the Labour party's Richard Crossman was the father of previous health service reforms that took some health service responsibilities from local authorities.
  Nevertheless, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will devise a more effective and transparent method of appointing people to health service trusts, with chairmen and existing trust members having some involvement—rather than waft a name out of a hat and telling me, "We've taken note of your comments but we will appoint this man willy-nilly."
  Let there be public consultation. If 90 per cent. of the local population, doctors and others working in the service are against a regional health authority proposal and Members of Parliament, irrespective of their party, urge my hon. Friend the Minister not to abandon his plans but to leave them for a year—to see what the Local Government Commission produces before making a decision—and he still ignores us, he will have to unscramble everything again if a Great Yarmouth and Waveney social services provider emerges from the current review.
  I want to continue speaking, but other hon. Members wish to contribute—and my Whips are nodding me down because they do not like anything that remotely resembles the truth. The real test of friendship and loyalty is to tell one's friends when one knows that they have gone wrong. On this particular issue, my hon. Friends know that they have gone wrong—but I will be happy to enter the Government Lobby, knowing that Opposition Members are more wrong than we are.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I do not regret having been in the House since 2.30 pm this afternoon so

  843
  that I could make the point that both the motion in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and the Government amendment refer to patient care and the needs of patients. I do not see how we can accomplish those objectives if we do not, before the end of the debate, address ourselves to the enormous problems of care in the community, which are staring us in the face, and which did not invite even one word from the Secretary of State for Health.
  Many years ago, we were told by the National Audit Office that community care was in a state of chaos. That led the former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, to establish the Griffiths committee, which confirmed that view and reported that the one option that was not tenable was to do nothing. Not only are the Government saying nothing, as we have seen today, but they are doing nothing—and that is entirely unacceptable.
  To throw community care to market forces, which seems to be the Government's approach, is to destroy the concept of community care, is absolutely repugnant and is a great disservice to the people of our country. It is not as though the Government lack information. The letters that right hon. and hon. Members receive from constituents and representations made at surgeries show grave concern. Individual, family and community experience is something that the House cannot ignore.
  Recently, I received a letter about the morale of consultants at Monklands district hospital, which serves my constituency. Having listened carefully to the Minister's reply this afternoon to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), I am reluctant to reveal the names of those who wrote to me. They are enormously respected in my community—[Interruption.] Much more so than the Minister of State, who interrupts from a sedentary position. I should be happy to give way if the Minister wishes to challenge my evidence. The evidence is that consultants in Monklands district hospital, in common with their colleagues in district hospitals all over the country, are experiencing a decline in their morale and greater and greater demands, which they are unable to meet. They reject utterly the Government's approach to performance related pay and it being imposed on them while those increasing demands continue. I say to the Government—
  Mr. Malone rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to the Minister in a second because, given the late hour, I want to go on to deal with the issue of care in the community. The Government may ignore the points that are being made in this debate, but the British people will not.
  Mr. Malone: If the consultants in the hon. Gentleman's constituency are against any form of local pay arrangements that perhaps allow different levels of pay to be introduced, can he confirm that they are also against the merit awards system, which consultants elsewhere in Britain seem to back?
  Mr. Clarke: I said very clearly that the consultants in the Monklands district hospital, which serves my constituency, are overwhelmingly opposed to performance-related pay. If the Minister, in his reply, can tell us how one can relate performance-related pay to accident and emergency units, or to the time that consultants in psychiatric units have to give to their patients, and one can make some
  844
  kind of division between them and other departments, I would be very interested to hear his view. But I must tell the Minister that there is not a consultant in the country who would believe a word that he would say.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has established a very distinguished tradition in the House of bringing to the Floor of the House and to its Committees the realities of what is happening outside. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has twice warned the Government about care in the community. I am delighted to see the Secretary of State for Health—she no doubt came in when she saw my name on the annunciator and realised that it was not the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was speaking—so that I may repeat that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has warned twice that the present system of community care simply is not working.
  Let us look at the evidence, not only that of our mailbags and what we see in our communities, but of the fact that, in three years, there have been 34 murders by patients who have been involved in psychiatric care in the preceding 12 months. We know of cases, such as that of Jonathan Zito—
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley rose—
  Mr. Clarke: Would the hon. Lady wait for a second, as I would like to finish the point? There have been cases such as that of Jonathan Zito, who was a musician in the London underground. Those circumstances were followed by a report by Jean Ritchie QC, in which we saw that Jonathan Zito's death—it could have been avoided—clearly took place because proper assessment of the person who had killed him had not been acted on and that tragedy occurred.
  Mrs. Bottomley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important not to inflame unduly anxiety about care in the community? The Royal College of Psychiatrists has not in any way suggested that there has been an increase in the number of homicides proportionately from severely mentally ill people. Every homicide is serious in itself, but there is no suggestion that there is an increasing trend. Does he agree that the Ritchie inquiry about Zito suggested that we needed better co-ordination and a more assertive approach to the supervision of mentally ill people in the community? That is exactly what the supervision registers and the guidance on discharge from hospital are doing and that is precisely the intention of supervised discharge, which we hope to introduce at a later date.
  Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely that the recommendations of the Ritchie report ought to be taken seriously. However, I must say bluntly to the hon. Lady that I see no comparison between those recommendations and the policy that she is pursuing. I want to continue to cite other cases because the right hon. Lady appears at the Dispatch Box, and on the "Today" programme, I think, every second morning—almost as often as the God squad—and the tragedy is that she does not relate what she is saying to the real world. We have case after case in our constituencies such as, for example, that of Ben Silcock and Tony Sarumi, who found themselves in the lions' cage at London zoo clearly because assessments were being made and nobody was acting on them. As I did the Secretary of State the courtesy of listening to her intervention, she might just listen to a word or two of the remainder of my speech.

  845
  I am appalled by the Government's complacency, which is personified by the Secretary of State and made even worse by the Minister. In September, the Government—not the Opposition—appointed a mental health task force, and received its report. The task force said that services in London were overstretched, and that vulnerable patients were being discharged.
  In a leader entitled "Care Beyond the Cages", The Guardian said:
  "The problem is not confined to London. Every major conurbation is facing the same challenge: Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Glasgow"
  We all know that to be true. Even The Sunday Telegraph—which does not rush in to support the Labour party or the trade unions that the Secretary of State derided, ignoring the fact that hundreds of thousands of their members are keeping the NHS afloat at this very hour—said, in a moving account of the story of Mary Batchelor and Graham, her schizophrenic son:
  "There is a big gap between what the Government says is happening and what they see is happening."
  That is what this debate ought to be about.
  Earlier, I asked the Secretary of State a clear question. I asked her to tell us the number of people who are mentally ill and in prison in England and Wales. She said that she did not know. I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) takes her duties more seriously: she does know, because she put a question to the Government which was answered on 18 October. The answer stated that 19.2 per cent. of the sentenced population had some form of psychiatric disorder.
  What does that mean? It tells us what is happening in Britain today—in England and Wales, that is; it ignores the problems that we are having in Scotland. I welcome the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who is much more civilised than those whose company he currently keeps. I say to Ministers that for the Secretary of State to ignore the fact that 6,800 mentally ill people are in prison because the courts simply cannot find anywhere else to put them is an absolute disgrace, which cannot be excused even by her Mary Poppins-style sweetness and light on the "Today" programme.
  The current position contrasts starkly with promises given during health debates. I recall the Secretary of State's contribution to some of those debates, as a junior Minister. What was said when we debated the National Health and Community Care Act 1990, and even when we debated the Children Act 1989, and the glossy documents produced by the Government could not be more different from what we are seeing now. There was, for instance, the crucial issue of assessment, followed by the provision of services; the Secretary of State does not seem to have taken that on board.
  There is no excuse. The Secretary of State will recall being visited in Richmond house by some of my hon. Friends, and members of another place who are interested in these matters. I went along with Brian Rix—now Lord Rix—Lord Ashley, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), to support the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. As the right hon. Lady will recall, we argued
  846
  then that the legislation that the Government were producing was no substitute for sections 1 and 2 of that Act, which meant that there would be real representation, and that the patient of the advocate concerned would have a say in what happened to him. We have heard nothing of that theme from a single Conservative Member today.
  The Government talk about voluntaryism, but ignore the views of the voluntary organisations. As recently as yesterday, Enable, which was recently called the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped, and Scope, which was until recently the Spastics Society, reinforced strongly the arguments that still hold for the implementation of sections 1 and 2 of the 1986 Act. I will explain why. In spite of the slogans that we have heard from the Government, there are those who are committed to the rights of citizens regardless of whether a charter exists. Why are not patients having a say? Why is there no real advocacy? In the limited time available, I shall relate one important story about advocacy.
  When I was involved with many others in trying to get the 1986 Act on to the statute book, I visited one of the most excellent community care pròjects in Glasgow. I met two ladies who had once worked in the shipyards but who had spent 15 or 20 years in a hospital which was described as a hospital for the mentally ill. By that time, they were living in nice flats with privacy when they wanted it but support when they needed it. When I asked them what difference they saw between the hospital in which they had spent many years—I concede that it was a Victorian building—and where they were living now, one of the ladies said, "They dinnae gie ye jags." To interpret that for the benefit of non-Scottish Members, it means that they were not given injections. People are entitled to know what medication they are being given. People or their advocates are entitled to know what is happening and why. Yet, time after time, the Government give the impression that they support the principle while they do not provide the resources necessary to put those principles in operation.
  Following the Government's legislation, the balance of NHS and community care has shifted away from institutional care. We have seen closure after closure. However, we have not seen provision within the community of the support that is necessary if community care is to work. Some 85 per cent. of people with learning difficulties are living in the community and increasing numbers of elderly parents are looking after younger people with learning difficulties.
  What of assessments? I plead with the Minister to take on board not just my view but the view of the Carers National Association, which has already told us that, although assessments are taking place, there is no action in response to the needs that are being assessed. We find young people with learning difficulties leaving school at 19 and being placed beside much older people. We find local authorities trying to deal with discharged patients and councils, which are themselves under financial seige, are cutting back on facilities such as day care services and respite care and having to introduce charges which are repugnant to them.
  We are seeing a mockery of care in the community and joint planning. It will not be helped in Scotland by the fact that when the local authority boundaries are introduced in January 1996 they will not even be coterminous with the boundaries of local authorities. That is unacceptable.

  847
  When Griffiths was asked to report and to respond to the views of the National Audit Office, he confirmed that care in the community was in chaos. That tells us something. This is a problem about people, families, communities and individuals. I want to conclude by quoting not statistics but the moving views of Jonathan Zito's widow, Jayne, in that excellent television documentary that we saw a few months ago. She talked about the death on the London underground of her husband, a musician. She talked with courage, conviction and compassion. She was not bitter. She was not negative. All she asked for was better community provision, and that is all we ask for.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: It is a great pleasure to follow the moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who brings an enormous amount of expertise and experience to this important debate.
  At the beginning of the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said that the national health service had a special place in the nation's affections. The enduring twin achievements of the postwar Labour Government are the provision of universal education and the provision of universal health care. All institutions change over time, responding to changing needs, demography, technological advancement and even economic factors. If that were all that was happening to the NHS, the Conservative party would be able to mount some sort of defence in this debate, but that is not all that is happening.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said, the driving engine of Conservative party health service reform is political philosophy, not practical experience, common sense or even managerial efficiency. The imposition of a blinkered ideology that is wrong anyway on an organisation like the NHS is bound to lead to nothing but harm. Worse, when theory comes to practice, that ideology sinks into a quagmire of, at best, expediency and, at worst, corruption. Replacing a flawed and old-fashioned framework with a more fundamentally flawed one makes the delivery of the service difficult, unworkable in places and increasingly unfair.
  A legitimate case exists for devolved responsibility and accountability. Public resources are not infinite. They have to be managed and prioritised. That is not what Conservative health care reform is about. Under the previous Prime Minister, the Conservative party had clear objectives. She had a clear vision of the future of the NHS. She was the avowed enemy of public expenditure, yet her Conservative party authorised substantial extra expenditure on NHS managers, administrators and accountants.
  To use the Government's own figures and taking the period 1988 to 1993, the number of people employed in nursing and midwifery fell by 4.2 per cent. Over the same period, the number of people employed as general or senior managers has risen by 1538.3 per cent., a substantial increase. The Conservative party will say two things about those figures: first, that some of the figures are the result of reclassification; and, secondly, that the health
  848
  service was undermanaged anyway and there was a case for appointing more managers. Both arguments have some substance.
  Mr. Malone: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I should not like his argument to be incomplete. He is making two important points, but there is a third: Project 2000 nurses are no longer included in the figures and there are a substantial number of them. I hope that I am helping to bolster his argument.
  Mr. Brown: That goes to prove that one can be too generous in wind-up speeches. I said that reclassification accounted for part of the figure involved in this argument. Only 45 per cent. of the total, however, can be accounted for by reclassification. The transition has taken place over four years yet, last year, the number of managers employed in the NHS increased by 13.5 per cent. The Government are still at it.
  The reforms are not driven by managerial efficiency alone. The Secretary of State for Health boasted about cutting bureaucracy, but the 1538.3 per cent. increase in bureaucrats is hardly evidence of that. The real purpose of the purchaser-provider split is to put a price tag on individual transactions. If the state is paying the bill, surely there is less need to have everything individually priced. But of course the original objective of the Conservative party was to alter the structure so that payment by state entitlement could sit alongside payment by private medical insurance or even by direct private purchase. Why should the British citizen want to purchase medical care privately if he is entitled to provision free at the point of need? The answer can only be because private provision will be made better than the state's; will be given more quickly; or, worst of all, will be the only method of getting treatment because the state will no longer provide it. In summary, that is what the Conservatives are trying to do to the NHS.
  On BBC radio, in one of her frequent and much-loved appearances, the Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Well, I enjoy waking up to the Secretary of State on the "Today" programme—frankly, I think myself lucky that that is where she is. On 24 August 1994, the Secretary of State said that she had "no views" about whether service should be delivered by the public or the private sector. She is supposed to be in charge of it, but she has no views about the delivery of services. I must tell the House that the author of the NHS reforms, Mark Thatcher's mother, had views. According to her, it should be private, so that she could, as she famously said, have what she wanted, when she wanted it. Other patients would like the same. That right hon. Lady told us that the health service, like the Saudi arms contract, was supposed to be safe in her hands.
  Is the NHS safe in the Government's hands? Not according to the Public Accounts Committee, which has produced an important report on the proper conduct of public business. The NHS features prominently in that report. We learn from the PAC that the director of regionally managed services of the West Midlands regional health authority left on redundancy terms, after five years' service with the authority, and was given an immediate pension of £6,462 a year and lump sums totalling £81,837. Some might think that that is all well and fine, but the PAC report goes on to say:
  "The Authority and the NHS Management Executive told us that he should have been dismissed not made redundant."

  849
  Wessex regional health authority managed to waste £20 million of public money in attempting to implement its regional information systems plan, which it abandoned in 1990. The PAC reports uncompromisingly that the money should have been spent on health care for sick people.
  It also levelled other criticisms at West Midlands regional health authority.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: May I suggest that the PAC should also investigate Health Care International at Clydebank? Up to £40 million of public money has been given to a private international hospital, but. within three months of being opened by the Secretary of State for Scotland, it faces financial collapse. It was funded to provide for overseas patients. I tabled a parliamentary question to find out how many overseas patients it has, but, I was told that information about non-NHS patients is commercially confidential to the company. We put £40 million into that hospital; it promised not to deal with British patients, but just last week 100 patients were moved from Birmingham to Clydebank. Should not that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a very long intervention.
  Mr. Brown: Nevertheless, it was a very important one. My hon. Friend is quite right that that deplorable scandal should be investigated by the PAC. The Secretary of State for Scotland opened the hospital in June and said that it was an important investment opportunity, which would provide 1,800 jobs. So far, the hospital has employed 400 people, but it has had a maximum occupancy of just 20 patients. That is scandalous and represents a substantial waste of public money. It looks as though the Government will waste more public money digging themselves out of a privatised nightmare that they have created for themselves. That is precisely the sort of thing that the PAC would denounce.
  Mr. Malone: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: The Minister has not yet been denounced by the PAC, but he is no doubt anticipating it. Of course I shall give way.
  Mr. Malone: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to clear up this matter now. First, it was £30 million that was invested under the aegis of Locate in Scotland. [Interruption.] It is important to have put those £10 million more accurately into the argument. Secondly, this is not a health service budget commitment but a commitment by Locate in Scotland, designed specifically to attract jobs to Scotland. When I represented another constituency in a different capacity, Scottish Labour Members were keen to ensure that they devoted a maximum amount of money to projects that would attract jobs.
  Mr. Brown: In her opening speech, the Secretary of State tried to gloss over that whole appalling affair as if it were attracting inward investment into Scotland. The Minister of State says that the Government have wasted only £30 million so far and the figure of £40 million is what they are planning to waste to get them out of it. If
  850
  he thinks that that acquits him of the charges that we are making, his view is unlikely to find a hearing from an impartial audience.
  Mr. Burden: Will my hon. Friend comment on my concern that the Minister suddenly seems to know a great deal about this issue whereas, in answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled last week about the cost to the NHS of transferring patients from Birmingham to Glasgow, the Under-Secretary of State answered that that was a local matter and that I should contact Mr. Brian Baker, chairman of the West Midlands health authority. Does my hon. Friend believe that it is acceptable for Ministers to say one minute that they have no knowledge and the next that they have such knowledge? Should not they know how much the national health service is wasting in that way?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has clearly caught the Minister out, as the investigatory authorities will no doubt do in due course.
  The Public Accounts Committee has been hard at work in the Department of Health. On Wessex regional health authority, for example, it says:
  "the Authority acknowledged that a fundamental conflict between their interests and those of Wessex Integrated Systems Limited arose when the Authority appointed a Director of that company, with whom the Regional Health Authority had a contract to supply computer services, to act as Regional Information Systems Manager."
  It goes on to point out:
  "The Authority also allowed a secondee from IBM to advise them on the purchase, without competition, of"
  — guess what?—
  "an IBM computer for £3·3 million, at a time when it could have been purchased for £0·5 million to £1 million less."
  The Conservatives tell us that their new structures prevent such things from happening. It is perfectly clear from evidence produced by the PAC that that is not so.
  Let us look at some of the other absurdities. The number of administrative staff in general practice has risen dramatically, yet it has not eased the burden on GPs. Since 1989, GPs are doing a third more administrative work, despite—or perhaps because of—a 40 per cent. growth in administrative staff. Interestingly, Oxford Research shows that GPs who are fundholders cost four times as much as other GPs for health authorities to administer.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) spoke about front-line services for community care and other reasons. The money is going on administration, not on front-line services. Adminstrative costs at the Department of Health have risen by 108 per cent. since 1987. The hospitality budget for the Department of Health has risen by 74 per cent., and that is only between 1990–91 and 1992–93. I am concerned not about whether it is spent or underspent but about the fact that it has risen by 74 per cent. in one financial year.
  The South-East Thames region managed to beat even that. The administrative costs in its family health service rose by 403 per cent. between 1989–90 and 1992–93. It is a gruesome fact that, this year, 143 health service trusts managed to spend £37 million between them on logos and image-building. The national health service management executive has managed to spend £620,000 of taxpayers' money on writing and distributing pamphlets to other health service managers.

  851
  To pay for all that, prescription charges have increased 16 times since the Conservatives came to power. Dental charges will, apparently, increase from 80 per cent. to 100 per cent., further undermining the provision of dentistry in the national health service.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms), in an excellent contribution, asked what is wrong with "front line first" as an objective for the health service? If the Government care about front-line services for the Ministry of Defence, why not have front-line services for the Department of Health as well?
  However, I must not give the impression that all is doom and gloom, because it is not. According to an Income Data Studies survey in November 1993, the remuneration—I know that the whole House will be reassured to hear it—of chief executives has "escalated rapidly". In one year, the average increase was 8.9 per cent. and the largest pay increase has been at the Guy's and Lewisham NHS trust, where the chief executive received a 33 per cent. pay increase.
  Halton health authority in Cheshire paid £228,000 to relocate its new district general manager, and the House will be reassured to learn that only half those payments were deemed to be unlawful by the district auditor. The House will also be relieved to learn that the North Cheshire health authority is trying to recover some of the money. The National Audit Office told us last September that more than £3 million had been wasted in potentially unlawful pay-offs and removal expenses.
  The Department of Health has spent more than £1 million on sending national health managers on image-building courses, which it calls "executive coaching".
  I know that the House will be interested to learn of the excellent expenditure of public resources at Quarry house, the new management executive headquarters at Leeds. It cost £55 million; it has a swimming pool; it has a £30,000 gym and a £15,000 hand-woven rug, which, I am reliably assured, is not an executive toupee but a £l5,000 rug. Thirty thousand pounds a year is being paid on first-class rail tickets between London and Leeds, yet the former Department of Health offices in Elephant and Castle are being kept empty at a cumulative cost of £5 million per year between 1991 and 1997.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West: said that the patients did not get the jags. It may be true in the Secretary of State's health service that the patients do not get the Jags, but the chief administrators certainly do—or at least a decent Ford. The amount spent on company cars by the national health service has increased to about £70 million in 1992–93. It is an increase of 31 per cent. on the previous year. The amount spent by trusts on cars, as opposed to patients, has increased by nearly £19 million—from £5·3 million to £24 million.
  Those are substantial sums of money. There may be some defence for some of the expenditure, but that is a startlingly dramatic increase.
  I must draw my remarks to a close, because I shall no doubt want to intervene on the speech of the Minister, as he has intervened on mine. He will ask what the Labour party would do. Oh—the Government are silent. The Labour party believes in the ethos of public service, based on respect for professionalism, admiration for ethics, even a belief in altruism. We need to renew the methods by which public service is delivered. Management systems
  852
  must emphasise management, not simply administration. We shall expect managers to take responsibility in the public interest, for the public interest.
  Good people can make a bad system work after a fashion. As Conservative health bosses are showing, ill-motivated people can wreck the most carefully structured institution.
  I conclude by echoing my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington). The national health service should not be about markets, purchasers or providers. It is an institution rooted in an earlier, less complex, more innocent, age. It is about collectivism. It is a socialist creation, and a socialist institution to the core of its being. The Labour party built it; it is our creation. We intend to keep it safe and we intend to keep it safe in our hands.
  9.39 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I am grateful to enter the debate at this stage when we are suddenly hearing that the great, new-look modern Labour party is going to go back to the start of the health service in the 1940s to instruct us on how it should be run in the 1990s and beyond. Of course, the health service is about a public ethos; of course, it is a health service that is in the nation's custody. Those aspects were all underpinned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at our recent party conference in Bournemouth. The national health service is not about the sort of collectivist activity to which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) referred. He made an astonishing admission about his agenda and that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) for the future of the health service.
  Although the Labour party may have been responsible for setting up the health service in the late 1940s, it has been under the custody of a Conservative Government for far longer than it has been in the hands of a Labour Government. In the hands of a Conservative Government, it has prospered, new practices have been introduced to make it more efficient and more patient care is being delivered. More importantly—this was conceded by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—many of the reforms are widely accepted. I understand that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire differs from the Government on some of them.
  Many of the reforms are accepted, not just by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, but throughout the country and the medical profession, as being essential and desirable. They are clearly accepted in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Derby, South, where 79 per cent. of residents are covered by GP fundholders. The right hon. Lady made an astonishing pledge—one of the only new policies that she revealed to the House today—when she declared that she would say to that 79 per cent. of people, "I am going to abolish fundholding." That is one of the right hon. Lady's declared policies.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: If the reforms are widely accepted by the medical profession, as the Minister says, I should draw his attention to the publication, "Senior Doctor", which contains an exclusive survey of consultants and describes the national health service as being on

  853
  the "verge of collapse". That does not sound like the sort of acquiescence that the Minister was describing to the House.
  Mr. Malone: That is yet another exclusive survey that probably relates to a tiny minority of the people involved. We are used to exclusive surveys of a selected 200 or 300 people done by organisations such as the British Medical Association which clearly have an interest in the result. Across the House, the purchaser-provider relationship is accepted as a sensible principle in the provision of care in the health service. It was resisted root and branch by the Opposition when it was first introduced.
  I had better warn the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East that GP fundholding is widely accepted in the community and regarded as something of great importance by all those who have taken it up. They see that it is not only a challenge, but a method of delivering far better patient care than has ever been delivered before.
  Mr. Burden: Will the Minister comment on the case of Sandwell Healthplan—an independent consortium of GP fundholders—which has gone bust? It rented its premises from the chair of the Sandwell family health services authority—for £19,000 in one case and £35,000 in another. That has been the subject of an internal audit report. Does the Minister think that that is a good advertisement for fundholding?
  Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman should ask all those involved, who have declared their determination to remain fundholders, whether they wish to remain committed to the general fundholding principle. The answer is that they do.
  I shall now address some of the specific issues raised in the debate.
  The right hon. Member for Derby, South alleged that the pathology services at Lister hospital were being privatised. The point is that those services were properly market-tested and bidders included an in-house team and another NHS trust as well as a private contractor. When there is proper market testing, as in this case, it is good for the health care of the whole community that the bid which will deliver the best health care for the best value for money should be the one accepted.
  I cannot understand the continued refusal by the Labour party to acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with introducing the private sector when it can provide certain services more competitively. What really counts is that NHS patients can be treated at a time nearer their choosing and be given a better service. I am surprised that the right hon. Lady should still be sunk in the old Labour party ideology.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) touched on accountability. There are three threads of accountability running through the service; it is important to note that these things never existed before. The first is the code of conduct, which lays down explicit standards of conduct that are expected of NHS boards. It introduces new measures to help boards fulfil their responsibilities for effective stewardship and financial control—[Interruption.] Thank goodness the hon. Member for Maker-field (Mr. McCartney) seems to have relinquished his former post. From a sedentary position, he calls this a sleaze charter, even though Sir Adrian Cadbury has commended
  854
  the code. The hon. Gentleman should think again before making such ill-considered remarks. The code reaffirms the public service values of openness, probity and accountability—they are all extremely important.
  The code of practice on openness clearly states that the NHS will provide information unless there are good reasons for not doing so; the reasons are then defined. The code ensures that the public have access to the information that they want and need.
  As for appointments, new procedures will open the system to far more scrutiny and provide greater transparency than ever before. We intend to reach people from a far wider range of backgrounds. Everyone is eligible to apply. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, if the Labour party will encourage its supporters to apply for these posts, perhaps even more of them will apply and be appointed. [Laughter.] I am surprised that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East should mock. It is important that people of all parties be represented on trusts and boards. They should all be allowed to make their public contribution, and I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should make light of that.
  All will be interviewed by panels against agreed criteria. There is no suggestion that there should be any cronyism about it. I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne had to say about that. Standards of accountability throughout the service are far higher now than ever before.
  Mr. David Jamieson: While the Minister is on the subject of accountability, he will be aware of the case of Plymouth hospitals trust and Sister Pat Cooksley, who served 17 years as a sister in Derriford hospital and was highly regarded by patients, professionals and workers alike. She objected to a lowering of standards on her ward and was sacked on the slightest pretext. I am sure the Minister will be pleased to know that she has been reinstated by the hospital trust. Does he agree that such outrages would not happen if the trusts were more accountable to local communities?
  Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman totally misrepresents the facts. The lady has been reinstated and retrained—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, and if he takes the trouble to find out the facts, he will learn that he is wrong.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked whether any trust applications had been turned down after consultation. I think that he feared that only lip service was paid to such a principle. A number of applications were turned down after consultation. Surrey Heartlands hospital and Manchester children's hospital both had earlier applications for trust status rejected. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I have given two examples and I do not wish to occupy the rest of the time that is available to me in giving all the examples that are available.
  The hon. Gentleman also spoke about a place that I know, Drumlanrig. As he knows, it provides respite care in the Borders region. There is already considerable capacity for respite care in the area and the health board sees no case for a new purpose-built facility.
  I should like to deal with the two points raised by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). I happily reiterate my offer of a meeting with him at the earliest possible opportunity to discuss the matter that is of great

  855
  constituency interest to him. I hope we can arrange that as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the use of low-grade auxiliaries in place of nurses. The modern health service needs a skill mix that perhaps it did not have in the past. Boundaries are breaking down between professions—for example, between consultants and general practitioners. Consultants often practise minor surgery in the premises of GPs, and that has never happened before.
  There is a similar situation in secondary care. The hon. Gentleman will find when he enters an accident and emergency unit that the first person to greet him is a qualified nurse instead of someone who clerks patients in rather than assesses them. The breakdown of those boundaries ensures that the nursing profession in particular is able to exercise its professional skills at higher levels rather than carrying out mundane tasks. That is extremely important.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) highlighted culture changes in the health service. He was right to say that Labour would ignore anything that gets better and would oppose any attempt to introduce an assessment of cost in the health service. But cost is important if one is to improve the quality of patient care while being careful about the spending of public money. I completely fail to understand how Labour can continue to ignore that. Opposition Members seem to be stuck in old arguments that have no place in a modern health service.
  The hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) criticised the number of cancelled operations and said that she had experience of such cancellations in her constituency. Since 1 April 1994, national standards on cancelled operations have improved substantially. Patients must now be admitted for treatment after only one cancellation on the day of admission. The original standard was two cancellations. I cannot comment specifically on the case that she mentioned, but it seems to have grossly exceeded the previous standard. As I say, a higher standard has been set and we view most seriously any failure to implement such standards.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) spoke about Sunderland City hospitals trust. I was rather astonished that he did not mention a 377-bed ward block that was recently opened by the Princess Royal. We can also point to a new dedicated two-theatre day case unit, which opened in March. There is good news in the constituencies and I wish that Opposition Members would sometimes mention that rather than indulging in dirges that give only half the picture. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, there has been a 6·5 per cent. increase in in-patient and day cases over the past three years, and there are 25 per cent. more consultants than there were in 1988.
  I worry that the only response from the Opposition is that those are mere statistics. I was on the "Today" programme on one of the few mornings that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was not. I was told by someone representing the opposite case, "That is all very well for you to say, Mr. Malone. These are simply facts and figures. What do they mean?" Let me say to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North and all other hon. Members who do not think that the facts and figures about improved health care mean very much, that they mean a tremendous amount. In particular, I am delighted to
  856
  announce that in his constituency no one has been waiting for more than 12 months. I hope that he will recognise that point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) made an interesting speech. I returned to the Chamber to hear the second half and I understand that the first half was as interesting as the second. He raised a number of genuine concerns and I should particularly like to address one of them. He was concerned that chairmen and non-executive members appointed to health authorities should be local and locally known. I do not think for one second that the home address of a potential non-executive member is absolutely crucial to whether he should serve on a trust or a board. A whole range of factors is quite properly taken into account. They include local links with the area and any local work or business connections that the person has had in the area.
  Our prime concern is, and will continue to be, to ensure that the NHS benefits from the best possible leadership from the best possible pool of talent. On that point, we believe that best practice should be followed. Best practice is often to advertise. I have said before that we wish to extend that to all posts. It is very important indeed that there is a pool of talent available to occupy such important public positions. We can move forward from the best practice which is already in place in my own area—the South and West region—and which I hope can be spread throughout the country.
  The debate was not terribly surprising for Conservative Members. We heard the same old arguments from the new team. I am interested to see that on their first outing they do not appear to be allowed out on their own. They are flanked by their predecessors, presumably to ensure that they get the line right. The hon. Member for Makerfield has made a longer and more comprehensive speech from a sedentary position than many who have spoken from the Front Bench this evening.
  We were told to expect that on this first outing of the new model Labour party on an Opposition day debate we should be hearing new things. I thought that the new model Labour party was in favour of a mixed economy—but not for health. The new model Labour party is not interested in beggar-my-neighbour policies which ensure that no additional funds from the private sector are to be available for additional health care over and above public spending. Labour is interested only in hiding behind slogans; there is no substance to any of its policies. However, I will move on to the substance of one or two of the policies that we heard.
  We hear simply slogans. I suppose that there will be one for the health service. I should not be surprised to learn that it was, "Tough on illness, tough on the causes of illness," and when it came to spending, "Fair spending, not high spending." The veneer has been stripped away in the debate this evening. At bottom, we know that the Labour party is precisely the same Labour party that it has always been, the same Labour party which defends public sector interests and the trade union interests in the health service; it is not in the least bit interested in making any progress.
  The right hon. Member for Derby, South gave an interesting message on health policy. Labour's one declared policy is to strip pensioners of their tax benefit for private health care. It is the first time that on a first outing a Labour party spokesman has made a direct attack on pensioners as a specific aspect of policy.

  857
  The whole point of the debate, according to the right hon. Lady, is that the health service is shrouded in secrecy, that we are afraid to disclose details of those who serve on boards and that it is all a great dark secret and a conspiracy. Let me refer to her own constituency. I have here what she would consider to be a secret document, which means that nothing is available to her and that she can obtain no information about who serves on trusts. The secret document is the Derby Evening Telegraph. There it is—the new team,
  "The team you can trust".
  I can tell the right hon. Lady that there is no such secrecy. Everything is above board and right. The best talent is recruited to run our health service. It is a health service of which we are proud and when it comes to the team that can be trusted, it is not that team over there; it is this team over here.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 297.

  Division No. 313]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clapham, Michael

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Allen, Graham

  Clelland, David

  Alton, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Coffey, Ann

  Anderson, Ms Janet

  Cohen, Harry

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Connarty, Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry

  Cousins, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Cox, Tom

  Battle, John

  Cummings, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bell, Stuart

  Dalyell, Tam

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Darling, Alistair

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Davidson, Ian

  Benton, Joe

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Berry, Roger

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Betts, Clive

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

  Blair, Tony

  Denham, John

  Blunkett, David

  Dewar, Donald

  Boateng, Paul

  Dixon, Don

  Boyes, Roland

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bradley, Keith

  Dowd, Jim

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

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

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Burden, Richard

  Eastham, Ken

  Byers, Stephen

  Enright, Derek

  Caborn, Richard

  Etherington, Bill

  Callaghan, Jim

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fisher, Mark

  Canavan, Dennis

  Flynn, Paul

  Cann, Jamie

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Chidgey, David

  Foulkes, George

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Fraser, John

  Church, Judith

  Fyfe, Maria

  858

  Galbraith, Sam

  McCartney, Ian

  Gapes, Mike

  McFall, John

  Garrett, John

  McKelvey, William

  George, Bruce

  McLeish, Henry

  Gerrard, Neil

  McMaster, Gordon

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  McWilliam, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Meacher, Michael

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Meale, Alan

  Gordon, Mildred

  Michael, Alun

  Graham, Thomas

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Healey)

  Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Milburn, Alan

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Miller, Andrew

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gunnell, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hain, Peter

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hall, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hn A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Hanson, David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Mudie, George

  Harvey, Nick

  Mullin, Chris

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Murphy, Paul

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Heppell, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hodge, Margaret

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hoey, Kate

  Olner, William

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Home Robertson, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pike, Peter L.

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Pope, Greg

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Prescott, John

  Hutton, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ingram, Adam

  Purchase, Ken

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jamieson, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Janner, Greville

  Reid, Dr John

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mofln)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooney, Terry

  Keen, Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Salmond, Alex

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lewis, Terry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Litherland, Robert

  Short, Clare

  Livingstone, Ken

  Simpson, Alan

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lwyd, Elfyn

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Loyden, Eddie

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

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Soley, Clive

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Spearing, Nigel

  MacShane, Denis

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Madden, Max

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Maddock, Diana

  Stott, Roger

  Mandelson, Peter

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Straw, Jack

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Maxton, John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  McAllion, John

  Timms, Stephen

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Tipping, Paddy

  859

  Turner, Dennis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Tyler, Paul

  Wilson, Brian

  Vaz, Keith

  Winnick, David

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Wise, Audrey

  Wallace, James

  Worthington, Tony

  Walley, Joan

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Wareing, Robert N

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Mr. John Speller

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

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

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Amess, David

  Day, Stephen

  Ancram, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arbuthnot, James

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dicks, Terry

  Ashby, David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Atkins, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dover, Den

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Duncan, Alan

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dunn, Bob

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bates, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Batiste, Spencer

  Eggar, Tim

  Bellingham, Henry

  Elletson, Harold

  Bendall, Vivian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evennett, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fenner, Dame peggy

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bowis, John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Forman, Nigel

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brazier, Julian

  Forth, Eric

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  French, Douglas

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  Burns, Simon

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butcher, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Butler, Peter

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Butterfill, John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gorst, Sir John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Cash, William

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Churchill, Mr

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Clappison, James

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hague, William

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Colvin, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Congdon, David

  Hannam, Sir John

  Conway, Derek

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Harris, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Couchman, James

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cran, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  860

  Heald, Oliver

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hendry, Charles

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, Richard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Paice, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Horam, John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

  Pawsey, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Richards, Rod

  Jessel, Toby

  Riddick, Graham

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Key, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

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

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knox, Sir David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shersby, Michael

  Legg, Barry

  Sims, Roger

  Leigh, Edward

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lidington, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Luff, Peter

  Spink, Dr Robert

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sproat, Iain

  Maclean, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Madel, Sir David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Steen, Anthony

  Malone, Gerald

  Stephen, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stern, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Stewart, Allan

  Marlow, Tony

  Streeter, Gary

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sumberg, David

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sykes, John

  Mates, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Thomason, Roy

  Mills, Iain

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thurnham, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

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

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tracey, Richard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  861

  Viggers, Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Walden, George

  Wilkinson, John

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Willetts, David

  Waller, Gary

  Wilshire, David

  Ward, John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Waterson, Nigel

  Wood, Timothy

  Watts, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whitney, Ray

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Whittingdale, John

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 259.

  Division No. 314]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Clappison, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Amess, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Ancram, Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Colvin, Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Congdon, David

  Ashby, David

  Conway, Derek

  Atkins, Robert

  Coombs, Anthony

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Coombs, Simon

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Baldry, Tony

  Couchman, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cran, James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

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

  Bates, Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Day, Stephen

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Devlin, Tim

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dicks, Terry

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Booth, Hartley

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boswell, Tim

  Dover, Den

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowis, John

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Eggar, Tim

  Brazier, Julian

  Elletson, Harold

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Evennett, David

  Burns, Simon

  Faber, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Fabricant, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Butler, Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Butterfill, John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Caborn, Richard

  Forman, Nigel

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Forth, Eric

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Cash, William

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  French, Douglas

  Churchill, Mr

  Fry, Sir Peter

  862

  Gale, Roger

  Marland, Paul

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marlow, Tony

  Garnier, Edward

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mates, Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gorst, Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mills, Iain

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hague, William

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hawksley, Warren

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hayes, Jerry

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Page, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Paice, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pawsey, James

  Horam, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pickles, Eric

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

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hughes, Robert G.

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jessel, Toby

  Robathan, Andrew

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Key, Robert

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sackville, Tom

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

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shersby, Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sims, Roger

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Legg, Barry

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lightbown, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lord, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Luff, Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maclean, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Madel, Sir David

  Stephen, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stern, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Stewart, Allan

  Mans, Keith

  Streeter, Gary

  863

  Sumberg, David

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Waller, Gary

  Sykes, John

  Ward, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wells, Bowen

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Thomason, Roy

  Whittingdale, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wilkinson, John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Willetts, David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

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

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tracey, Richard

  Wood, Timothy

  Tredinnick, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Trend, Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Walden, George

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Coffey, Ann

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cohen, Harry

  Ainger, Nick

  Connarty, Michael

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Allen, Graham

  Corbett, Robin

  Alton, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Anderson, Ms Janet

  Cox, Tom

  (Ros'dale)

  Cummings, John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Darling, Alistair

  Barnes, Harry

  Davidson, Ian

  Barron, Kevin

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Battle, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

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

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Denham, John

  Bell, Stuart

  Dewar, Donald

  Bann, Rt Hon Tony

  Dixon, Don

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Benton, Joe

  Dowd, Jim

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Berry, Roger

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Betts, Clive

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Blunkett, David

  Eastham, Ken

  Boateng, Paul

  Enright, Derek

  Boyes, Roland

  Etherington, Bill

  Bradley, Keith

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fatchett, Derek

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

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

  Fisher, Mark

  Burden, Richard

  Flynn, Paul

  Byers, Stephen

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Caborn, Richard

  Foulkes, George

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fraser, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gapes, Mike

  Canavan, Dennis

  Garrett, John

  Cann, Jamie

  George, Bruce

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Chidgey, David

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Church, Judith

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clapham, Michael

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Graham, Thomas

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  864

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gunnell, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hain, Peter

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hall, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Hanson, David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Mudie, George

  Harvey, Nick

  Mullin, Chris

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Murphy, Paul

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Heppell, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hodge, Margaret

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hoey, Kate

  Olner, William

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Home Robertson, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pike, Peter L.

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hutton, John

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Ingram, Adam

  Randall, Stuart

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jamieson, David

  Rendel, David

  Janner, Greville

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mofln)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jowell, Tessa

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rowlands, Ted

  Keen, Alan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Salmond, Alex

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lewis, Terry

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Short, Clare

  Litherland, Robert

  Simpson, Alan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

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

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Soley, Clive

  Macdonald, Calum

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  MacShane, Denis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Madden, Max

  Stott, Roger

  Maddock, Diana

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mandelson, Peter

  Straw, Jack

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Martlew, Eric

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Maxton, John

  Timms, Stephen

  McAllion, John

  Tipping, Paddy

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Turner, Dennis

  McCartney, Ian

  Tyler, Paul

  McFall, John

  Vaz, Keith

  McKelvey, William

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  McLeish, Henry

  Wallace, James

  McMaster, Gordon

  Walley, Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McWilliam, John

  Wareing, Robert N

  Meacher, Michael

  Welsh, Andrew

  Meale, Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Michael, Alun

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Wilson, Brian

  Milburn, Alan

  Miller, Andrew

  865

  Winnick, David

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wise, Audrey

  Worthington, Tony

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mr. John Spellar and

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Mr. Eric Illsley

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes that since the introduction of the Government's health reforms the number of patients treated has risen, waiting times fallen and quality of care improved; welcomes independent support for the reforms from sources such as OECD; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to continue policies which uphold the values and ethos of the NHS, further reduce administrative duplication and waste and deliver a flexible service able to respond to the changing needs of patients.

  Social Services Files (Wandsworth)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a case that concerns a constituent of mine. I want to ask the Minister to consider what he might be able to do, especially about access to files at Wandsworth council. For reasons that will be obvious, I shall not name my constituent or any of the other individuals concerned with this case.
  I shall provide a little of the background because that is necessary if we are to understand what has happened with regard to Wandsworth. My constituent was in the care of Wandsworth council from the age of 13 under a care order, having been voluntarily in care for some years before that. In 1981, she was placed by Wandsworth into a residential home in Gravesend called Kendall house. Although that home is not the subject of the main substance of my remarks, I want to say a little about the conditions there because they are relevant to the question of Wandsworth council's responsibilities.
  It is obvious that the home's regime involved regular and exceptionally high doses of drugs, especially for young people who were regarded as problems. My constituent's dosages included intravenous doses given while she was being held down by both male and female staff. I understand that the recommended valium dose for children and teenagers, even in exceptional circumstances, is in the range of 5 to 10 mg, yet I have been told that, in this case, doses of up to 100 mg were given intravenously. I have read copies of files that show that three or four doses of 20 mg were given in a day. High doses of valium at that age are recognised as contributing to hallucinations and to behavioural problems. By any standards, those doses and their frequency are disturbing. Most people would find the attitudes revealed in the home's files to be unacceptable.
  The files are among those to which access was refused by Wandsworth council but which became available through the Council for Social Responsibility in the dioceses of Canterbury and Rochester. It made them available without any difficulty and it had been responsible for running the home, which is now closed. Credit is due to the council for making the information so readily available.
  In 1984, my constituent was placed with a foster parent and, shortly afterwards, she alleged that the man had raped her. The way in which that complaint was dealt with was dreadful and Wandsworth council has more or less admitted that since. A letter from the director of social services states:
  "Interpretation of the events needs to be set in the context of 1984, i.e. well before the implementation of today's procedures for dealing with allegations of abuse, including sexual abuse."
  That amounts to an acceptance that the standards applied were not acceptable and would not be remotely acceptable now.
  The rape allegation was not immediately reported to the police and, worse than that, a few days later my constituent was forced to confront the man, who she alleged had raped her, and his wife without the presence of a social worker. The files show that the social worker was away

  867
  on holiday at the time. Shortly afterwards, the social services department agreed that, if she did not withdraw her allegation, it would write to the police and ask them to investigate. It is clear from the paper in which it agreed to do that that it had already made up its mind. The paper states:
  "When we receive formal notification from them"—
  that is the police—
  "that the allegations will not be proceeded with, because of lack of evidence, the Department's records will need to be amended so that it is absolutely clear that her allegations were totally unsubstantiated and merely a fantasy".
  Clearly, the department had made up its mind. It did not believe her and it was not going to refer the matter in any serious way to the police.
  That gives rise to a number of questions. Why did Wandsworth social services allow all this to happen? Why were not the police immediately involved in investigating the rape allegation? Why will not Wandsworth council release, or even allow a local councillor to read on a "need-to-know" basis, its files relating to these events and to its investigation into the suitability of the foster parent?
  Over several years, my constituent has repeated her story to a number of social workers. I find it astonishing that it was only last year that a social worker in Waltham Forest, where she now lives, suggested that the matter should be taken seriously, that she should see a solicitor and that there should be an investigation into what had happened. The result of that was that Kent police reopened their investigation into the rape allegation and are investigating whether the drugs regime was legal.
  The problem all along has been the refusal of Wandsworth social services to make its files openly available to the police or to the girl or her solicitor. The council initially said that it would make part of the files available to the girl and a social worker. But the Kendall house files from which I quoted earlier were not to be included. When the solicitor requested full access, not only was that denied; the previous offer of partial access was withdrawn.
  There is no doubt that the council's refusal to make its files available caused serious problems for the police. Some months ago, I corresponded with the police about that and they told me the Wandsworth social services had refused to allow them access to the files, claiming client confidentiality. When the police pointed out that they had full written consent from the girl to examine the files, Wandsworth council persisted in saying that the files were confidential. When the police tried to negotiate a cornpromise, the council then said that it was acting on advice from its insurance company and intended to deny access on the basis of that advice.
  The police inquiry did not have the benefit of access to the files, which made it much more difficult to pursue the inquiry. In a letter sent to me at the time, a police officer involved in the case wrote:
  "From the documents that have come into the possession of the enquiry team, I can see why Wandsworth Social Services do not wish these files to be open to external scrutiny … I am troubled that a public service such as Wandsworth Social Services are not open to external scrutiny and the fact that they appear able to hinder and undermine a current criminal enquiry is most unsatisfactory."
  Wandsworth will no doubt claim that those problems have been resolved and that social services is now co-operating with the police. In fact, a different argument to
  868
  prevent access is now being deployed. Councillor McIsaac, a Wandsworth councillor, asked the leader of Wandsworth council specific questions about access to the files. In answer, the leader of the council said that public interest immunity, in the council's interests and in the interests of third parties to whom the file information relates, prevented access to the files. The letter from the council concluded:
  "For this reason, although officers co-operate fully with the Police in being interviewed, answering questions and supplying specified documents on request, files will only be released to the Police when they have obtained a Court Order."
  I am at a loss to understand how on earth the police are supposed to know what documents to specify or what questions to ask when they obviously need to look through the files to see if they contain anything to substantiate an allegation.
  I hope that the Minister agrees that this is a disturbing case and that it should be possible to conduct a thorough investigation either to substantiate or refute the allegations that have been made. I hope that he will accept that the girl has the right to a proper investigation of her treatment, whatever the outcome. Evidence in the files may back up the allegation. She should have the right to find that out.
  If we assume for a moment that the man accused of the rape is innocent, it is not in his interests for stories, from which he can clearly identify himself, to appear in the local and national press. He, too, would obviously be concerned about whether the files were made public.
  I do not believe that it is in anyone's interest simply to hide away from investigation or to reach the point at which cases get dropped because it is impossible to obtain full information.
  There is no doubt that Wandsworth council is afraid of legal action against it. It is hiding behind the Access to Personal Files Act 1987, the public interest immunity argument and the argument relating to the advice of the third party, the insurers. The 1987 Act was passed because problems about access had arisen. The problem had been recognised well before that, however, and in 1983 Secretaries of State issued advice to local authorities to the effect that the Government shared the increasingly held view that people in receipt of services should be able to see what had been recorded about them. The debate on access to information had already been running for some time and it is clear that, in 1983, it was shifting in favour of open access.
  May I make two points on public immunity? First, some of the documents to which Wandsworth social services are still refusing access have become available by other means, so it seems pointless to continue to claim immunity on those. Secondly, the argument about candour, which was put forward when the Act was introduced, has shifted over the years. It was said that the frankness of social services would be inhibited if they thought that what they put on record might be disclosed later. In any case, such an argument should be outweighed by public interest. There is public interest in seeing that justice is done.
  If the issue concerns safeguarding third parties, it is possible to do one's best to ensure anonymity so that, when names are mentioned, they are not released. To refuse access on third-party grounds should be extremely

  869
  unusual. Again, I thought that that argument had been accepted. When the social services regulations were debated in 1989, the then Minister said:
  "Information may be withheld because of a risk of serious harm to the health or emotional condition of the individual or a third party. We have said that withholding information on that ground would be most exceptional."—[Official Report, 7 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 934.]
  That was the Government's view when the regulations were introduced.
  However, the continued refusal cannot but suggest that there is something to hide. Moreover, pressure has been put on my constituent to drop the case. In direct telephone conversations with senior Wandsworth social services officers, she has been told, "Forget all that stuff from years ago and just get on with your life"—sometimes in a quite unprofessional manner.
  Pressure has also been put on Councillor McIsaac, who has been asking the questions in Wandsworth, to drop the case. Whenever the case has been publicised in the local or national press, she has received anonymous phone calls. They have all been abusive and from the same person, asking her to drop the case. It is clearly someone who knows precisely what it is about, because the caller has used the name of the woman involved, even though that name has never appeared in the press.
  Will the Minister think seriously about what he can do to ensure not just that justice is done but that it is seen to be done? We have all seen horrendous cases of maltreatment in residential homes. Thankfully, over the years some of those have led to changes in regulations and practice. But we should consider the fact that redress should be possible for victims of past failures of the system. It is simply not good enough to shelter behind the fact that the Access to Personal Files Act 1987 was not retrospective. There may be good reasons for not making it retrospective to reassure individuals and people who had written files expecting them to be confidential, but retrospection was never ruled out as a way of protecting a public body.
  I might have some sympathy for Wandsworth social services department's arguments about releasing the files if it made an effort and offered to resolve the problem in some other way. I have seen written claims by the chief executive of Wandsworth social services that they have sympathy for my constituent. Surely the department should look for a way to answer the allegations, help her deal with the traumas that she has suffered and allow her to get on with her life. To respond by simply saying, "Forget the past" is not adequate.
  When the woman started to pursue Wandsworth social services, she was and, I believe, still is much more interested in an admission that things had been done wrong, an acknowledgement that she had been badly treated and some apologies than in necessarily pursuing financial redress. The continual stonewalling is pushing her towards court action and financial redress.
  Finally, I would say to the Minister that if we are interested in ensuring that local authorities improve, and maintain, their performance in the care of young people, we should not try to protect either them or the insurers who stand behind them from the consequences of disclosure.
  10.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). Given the serious allegations that have been made, I can well understand his concerns. I am glad to have the opportunity to explain the Department's position in relation to the case and on the wider issues that it raises about access to social work records.
  First, I shall say something about the facts of the specific case. I shall first discuss the allegation from 1984. That was, as the hon. Gentleman has said, the allegation made by Miss X when she was 16 that she was raped or indecently assaulted by the foster father, living in Kent, with whom she had been placed by Wandsworth borough council. My information is that, when that allegation was made, the police were notified and carried out an investigation. Later, the allegation of rape was changed by her to one of sexual intercourse. I also understand that, as a result of those investigations, the police decided not to pursue the matter further.
  According to Wandsworth social services department, that department carried out a separate investigation into the allegations at that time. As a result, a decision was taken that approval should be given for the foster parents to continue to be used by the Wandsworth social services department.
  The hon. Member for Walthamstow has made the point, and it has been reported in the press, that the foster parent against whom the allegations were made currently runs a residential home in Kent, registered by Kent county council, which is used by various local authorities for family-based residential care for young adults with learning disabilities.
  I understand that Kent social services department, which is the registering authority and which, I understand, made its own placements in the home concerned, is now fully aware of the background to the case. Decisions on the suitability of a specific carer must be a matter for the people concerned locally. Obviously, we would expect all the necessary checks on suitability to be made.
  I understand that Miss X raised the issue of the alleged abuse again in the autumn of last year—about 10 years after the original allegation had been made and inquired into by the social services and the police. She asked the Kent constabulary to reopen the matter and the police in turn asked the London borough of Wandsworth whether it had records that might assist the police investigation.
  I understand that, at the time of the initial approach from the police, it was unclear whether they were seeking to reopen the case as such or merely seeking to respond to a complaint about the way in which the case had been handled in 1984. It is also not clear to me, from the papers that I have seen, whether, at that time, the Kent police had reviewed their own papers from 1984, relating to the way that the original allegations were treated.
  It might be helpful if I now explained briefly the Government's policy on access to social work records.
  For many years, all social work records were regarded as the confidential property of the authorities that compiled them. The person in respect of whom the record was compiled had no right of access to it. However, as the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, social services are one of the leaders in the field of opening up their records to people who are the subject of them.

  871
  The blanket restriction on disclosure began gradually to be lifted in 1983, as the hon. Gentleman said, when my Department issued guidance to all local authorities, advising them to allow people access, subject to certain necessary exceptions. Those exceptions included records relating to earlier periods, to which contributions would have been made on the basis that they would be treated as confidential, and material that revealed the identity of a third party.
  Those administrative arrangements were replaced in 1989 by the Access to Personal Files (Social Services) Regulations, which were made under the powers provided in the Access to Personal Files Act 1987. Those regulations enshrined similar principles in law, giving a statutory right of access where specified exceptions did not apply. However, as in 1983, the provisions did not apply to earlier records compiled on the basis of confidentiality.
  In the case of pre-1989 records, it is for the local authority to decide whether to release the information. In some cases, the law requires local authorities to disclose records. In the case of records that the law does not require them to disclose, it is for them to consider whether they should nevertheless release the records or whether other considerations override such action. They will want to bear in mind the rights and interests of all the parties who might be affected.
  I understand that the general policy of Wandsworth council is not to release such old papers. In this case, Wandsworth, on advice, decided not to make the records available. As I understand it, Miss X's legal advisers had indicated that they might be bringing civil proceedings against the council.
  It is clearly right for any council to take careful advice on how to respond to the threat of litigation. If Miss X did decide to take proceedings against the council, it would be open to her or her advisers to seek an order for pre-action discovery of documents. An application of that nature would be dealt with on its merits by a court.
  Similar considerations would apply with regard to possible criminal proceedings. The police could seek an order for disclosure off the record under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Many authorities, as a matter of policy, prefer not to release sensitive documents to the police other than when a court has agreed that it is necessary.
  My understanding is that Wandsworth council has, within the constraints of the considerations that I have outlined, taken steps to respond to the matters that have been put to it. I understand that it has made it clear to the police that, although it has decided not to grant access to the files without a court order, it is happy to respond to specific queries if the police would find it helpful.
  872
  The council has also made an offer to Miss X that a member of the council's staff should go through the relevant files with her, although it is not prepared simply to hand full records over to her. As I understand it, both those offers still stand. I have also seen a letter from Kent police to Wandsworth council stating that there is no longer a problem about withheld information, and confirming that the police and council are co-operating fully with each other.
  I hope that what I have said has been helpful to the hon. Gentleman in explaining something of the back-ground and the factual position as I understand it. I also understand that the case has now been referred, on Miss X's behalf, to the local government ombudsman, who has decided to exercise his discretion and look into aspects of the handling of the case even though the matters complained of go back some considerable time. I understand that the investigation is currently proceeding. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it would be wrong for me in any way to prejudice the outcome of the investigation, which I am sure will be thorough.
  Let me refer to the further allegations that Miss X has made about her treatment in the voluntary sector community with education home for children with serious behavioural disturbances in Kent, where she had been living prior to her period in foster care. I understand that it was only recently that Miss X formally complained about that—again, a considerable time after the alleged events took place.
  The position with regard to social work records relating to those allegations is basically the same as in the case of the allegations of abuse. But those matters—both the substance of the allegations themselves and the way in which they were handled—have also been referred to the local government ombudsman. The hon. Gentleman has confirmed that the Church authorities responsible for the home have released the files that they held.
  In conclusion, as a Government, we are committed to the maximum possible openness of personal records. But obviously there will always be cases—the case raised by the hon. Gentleman is perhaps one of them—where the sort of openness that we would all like to see will, for one reason or another, raise difficulties in the personal social services sector.
  There may be problems when intimate and sensitive personal information has been provided by third parties, and when events predate the current legislation. Nevertheless, the maximum openness is what we are aiming for, within the bounds of necessary protection.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Press Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the number of press officers currently employed by his Department who are normally based(a) in the Department in London, (b) in the House and (c) at each other location.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department employs six press officers, all of whom are based at the Department's headquarters in London.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list each public opinion survey commissioned by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies since 1 October 1992, showing for each the subject, objectives, total cost, the period in which it was conducted and the organisation from which it was commissioned.

  Department or Agency

  Title

  Objective

  Timing

  Contractor

  HM Treasury

  BT3 Share Sale

  Market Research

  May-July 1993

  MORI

  HM Treasury

  Electricity Generators Share sale

  Market Research

  July 1994

  BMRB

  Customs and Excise

  Travellers Charter survey 1993

  Monitor quality of service provided staff to travellers

  July-August 1993

  NOP(Consumer Market research)

  Department of National Savings

  Advertising Tracking Study

  Monitor effect of savings advertising

  continuous

  Millwood Brown

  Department of National Savings

  Product Features study

  Determine trade off between saving product features

  November 1992

  Public Attitude surveys Ltd.

  Department of National Savings

  Investment Guide Research

  Evaluate the launch of a new product booklet

  March-May 1994

  Taylor-Nelson

  Inland Revenue

  Shipley Accounts Office Customer Survey

  Ascertain customers' views on service provided

  January 1993O

  Line Telephone surveys

  Inland Revenue

  Pensioners and their tax returns

  Assess difficulties in completing returns

  September 1993

  CCC Research Ltd

  508
  Mr. Newton
  No public opinion surveys have been commissioned by my Department during the period specified. I am not responsible for any agencies.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how much money was spent with foreign companies on refurbishment within the Palace of Westminster in the current financial year; and how much was spent in the same period with British firms.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  No contracts have been let to foreign firms by the Parliamentary Works Directorate in the current financial year for refurbishment work. However, contractors have normal commercial freedom to subcontract and purchase supplies, provided that they comply with specifications set by the Director of Works or other relevant authorities of the Palace of Westminster. Within these constraints contractors may choose occasionally to use foreign suppliers where they are competitive in quality or service. Some £10 million is forecast to be spent in the current financial year on maintaining the Palace of Westminster.

TREASURY

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each public opinion survey commissioned by(a) his Departments and (b) his agencies since 1 October 1993, showing for each, the subject, objectives, total cost, the period in which it was conducted and the organisation from which it was commissioned.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The surveys listed, commissioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's departments or agencies since 1 October 1992, included questions to individuals about their opinions:
  509

  Department or Agency

  Title

  Objective

  Timing

  Contractor

  Inland Revenue

  Pensioners customer survey

  Ascertain customers' views on service provided

  December 1993

  BMRB International

  Royal Mint

  Royal Mint Coinage Survey

  Consider present United Kingdom coinage and options for change

  September 1994

  RSGB Omnibus via Central Office of Information

  The fees paid to contractors are matters of commercial confidentiality.

  Alcohol and Tobacco
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present estimated value of revenue lost to the Exchequer because of illicit cross-border trade in alcohol and tobacco products.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Forecasting levels of illicit activity is by its nature always difficult. A broad estimate derived from amounts seized has been made of £35 million on revenue loss from all smuggling of excise goods. Work is continuing to improve estimation in this field.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average monthly revenue value of seizures made by HM Customs and Excise during 1993–94 for(a) all tobacco goods, (b) all alcohol beverages, (c) hand-rolled tobacco and (d) beer; and what is the estimated monthly revenue value of seizures for the same products for the six months to September 1994.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The average monthly revenue value of seizures made by HM Customs and Excise in the financial year ending 31 March 1994 were(a) £98,514 for all tobacco products, (b) £64,892 for all alcoholic beverages, (c) £77,205 for hand-rolled tobacco and (d) £41,091 for beer.

  Details of seizures for the month of September 1994 are not currently available. The average monthly revenue value of seizure for the same products for the five months to August 1994 were (a) £287,467, (b) £93,060, {c) £243,949 and (d) £60,280 respectively.

  Pay and Grading
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many negotiators are now employed in Departments and agencies following the Government's decision to delegate pay and grading; what was the equivalent number of officials employed at the treasury when pay was settled nationally; and what has been the cost of training these additional officials and the overall additional cost of pay negotiations in the revised form.

  Mr. Aitken
  In 1993–94, there were 242 staff in the Treasury directorate which looks after civil service management and pay. It is for those who have received pay and grading delegation to decide how to conduct their negotiations and the size and composition of their negotiating teams, and to ensure that their delegated arrangements represent value for money.

  Personal Pension Sales
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress the Securities and Investments Board has made with its inquiries into sales of personal pensions.
  510
  Mr. Nelson
  The Securities and Investments Board, the chief investment regulator, has today issued a statement determining how compensation is to be delivered for people who have personal pensions instead of being in an occupational pension scheme and who now face financial loss as a result of bad investment advice. I have today placed copies of the statement in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Today's statement follows the initiative announced by SIB last December, when it published evidence that many sales of personal pensions appeared not to have been made in full compliance with the regulation under the Financial Services Act. Since then, with the help of experts for the life and pensions industry, the SIB has mounted an exercise to assess the problem and to prevent it recurring.

  The Government are also taking action to make sure that the arrangements for redress are brought into effect as efficiently as possible. The public service pension schemes are setting other occupational schemes a good example. There is also clarification of the tax treatment of compensation payments.

  It is now clear that some sales of personal pensions in the past took place on the basis of bad advice, not given in accordance with the regulatory rules then in force. SIB's statement today implements the assurance I gave in the House to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. T. Smith) on 8 December 1993, Official Report column 233–34. Anyone with a personal pension who is found to face financial damage as a result of mis-selling will be entitled to redress. The aim will be to provide this compensation by putting people in a financial position equivalent to that in which they would have been had the mis-selling not taken place.

  There is at present no way of knowing the eventual total cost but there will inevitably be a substantial call on the financial services industry. Investors can be reassured that the industry as a whole can and will pay. In cases where the firm responsible has ceased trading, this will entail calling on the industry's compensation schemes.

  The SIB statement sets out in detail how firms responsible for sales of personal pensions should review their cases; how they can identify mis-selling and damage to investors caused by it; and, where mis-selling leading to financial damage has occurred, how appropriate redress should be provided. The details of the review process and the formula for redress have been drawn up with the assistance of experts in the life and pensions industry and in the legal and actuarial professions. The regulators will now ensure that firms responsible for past pensions business take the necessary steps to review their casebooks. The Personal Investment Authority is setting

  511
  up a pensions unit to examine cases sold by firms which are no longer in business.

  The review process will be supervised by the regulators. Many people will be contacted by the firm which sold their pension, or the pensions unit, and asked for information to help decide whether further investigation is required. SIB is distributing widely an explanatory leaflet, the Investor's Guide. It will also be generally available from libraries and citizens advice bureaux.

  It will take at least two years to carry out the reviews in an appropriately thorough and systematic way as the interests of both personal pension holders and other policyholders require. The cases to be reviewed first will be those where financial damage caused by mis-selling is judged most likely to have occurred and where the effect of mis-selling could have the most immediate impact. These priority groups include the cases of investors who have died or retired. In addition, any personal pension investor who seeks it will have his or her case reviewed.

  These reviews will no doubt show that many people who transferred to or opted for a personal pension were given good advice. Where redress is required, its form will depend on the circumstances of the investor. In many cases, and where it is possible, it will be desirable to reinstate people in their occupational schemes. if this cannot be done, the personal pension will usually be topped up. Sometimes additional benefits may need to be provided, for example through insurance policies. Those already retired may get top-up annuities.

  With these forms of redress in mind, I very much hope that occupational schemes in the private sector will follow the example of public service schemes such as those for the teachers and nurses. These schemes are allowing current employees not only to rejoin for future service but also to buy back pension rights for previous service at reasonable cost.

  All these remedies are designed to put the investor in a financial position equivalent to what would have been the case if the mis-selling had not occurred. The Chancellor intends to introduce legislation in due course to ensure that an investor in that position will have the same tax bill as would have been the case had there been no payment of compensation for mis-selling of the personal pension or buyout contract.

  The action announced by SIB today relates to people who bought personal pensions in preference to an occupational scheme.

  There are many others who would otherwise have been contributing to the state earnings related pension scheme. The SIB is also investigating, with the help of DSS, whether there has been mis-selling to people in this position. SIB intends to publish its findings in this further review next year. If a problem is revealed, SIB will prescribe appropriate redress.

  Personal pensions remain a flexible and entirely suitable way of saving to provide a secure income in retirement for a great many people. They can make it possible to combine a mobile and varied career with a good pension. These advantages will no doubt ensure that personal pensions continue to appeal to many people. I also have no doubt that they will have a significant role to play in future pension provision.

  But for people to choose personal pensions with confidence, they must be able to rely on high standards
  512
  of professionalism from those responsible for selling them. They must be able to trust advisers and sales staff to recommend suitable products. That is why in March the SIB defined new tougher standards for future sales of personal pensions.

  As a result, investors choosing between occupational and personal pensions now get a "reason why" letter to explain each personal pension sale, backed by sophisticated analysis of their own personal circumstances. The regulators are following this up with more intensive supervision of sales. The Department of Social Security has also issued guidance to employers about the advice they may give to any of their employees considering a personal pension. These new standards are backed up by more demanding training and competence requirements. Financial services firms are already implementing the new standards. So people making decisions about whether to buy a personal pension instead of belonging to an occupational scheme can have confidence in the quality of the advice they get.

  The problems addressed in SIB's statement today demonstrate how important it is that authorised firms operating in the financial services sector take these responsibilities to their customers seriously. Investors must be able to reply on their investment advisers to comply with the regulatory standards.

  There can be no doubt that SIB's action to compensate investors is a success for the regulatory system. SIB has acted with commendable thoroughness and independence. I have no hesitation in concluding that the system of regulation, in which SIB takes the prime role, and which benefits from major practitioner input, is sound and working effectively to protect investors. The reforms instituted by the SIB review last year are beginning to bear fruit.

  The financial services industry plays an important and growing role in a sophisticated modern economy such as ours. Increasing affluence means that people will more often have resources available for investment. They must be able to invest with confidence. A clean, well regulated market is in the interest of consumers and financial services firms alike.

  Ecofin
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Council meeting of the Economic and Finance Ministers of the European Union held on 21 October.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  EC Finance Ministers met in Brussels on Friday 21 October to discuss the own resources decision and Italian and Spanish milk disallowances.

  Italy, and to a lesser extent Spain and Greece, faced disallowance due to their failure to fine farmers who had exceeded EC milk quotas over the period 1989–93. Italy and Spain claimed that this was unfair, as their national quotas had been set too low to begin with. In 1992, it was agreed at a Council of Agriculture Ministers to increase Italian and Spanish milk quotas for 1993–94. Subsequently, in the course of clearing the EAGGF accounts for 1989 and 1990, the Commission decided to disallow only the amounts which would have been payable by Italy and Spain if they had had in those years the extra milk quota which had been awarded them for 1993–94. It indicated that it intended to do the same for

  513
  1991, 1992 and 1993. This would have resulted in Italy and Spain paying roughly half the amount for which they were liable at the outset.

  The United Kingdom objected to this and brought proceedings before the European Court of Justice on the grounds that the Commission had exceeded its competence by backdating quota, a power which could be exercised only by the Council of Ministers. Italy and Spain also began ECJ proceedings on the grounds that the disallowance decisions were still excessively harsh and claimed that they should make no further repayments at all.

  Even had we ultimately won on all aspects of our ECJ cases, on which judgment was still two years distant, the level of the fine would have been a matter for the Council to determine on the basis of a proposal from the Commission. There is no reason to believe that the Commission would then have produced any different proposal from the one that it had originally made. Therefore Italy and Spain would only have paid roughly half of the penalties for which they were theoretically liable even if we had won our cases in the ECJ on all points.

  I therefore negotiated a settlement which resulted in Italy and Spain agreeing to repay much higher sums to the Community budget than they would have paid if we have not brought our action in the European Court or if we had allowed our action before the Court to take its course to a possibly successful conclusion over the next two years.

  Ecofin on Friday agreed to increase total disallowance from the Commission proposal of 2 ·1 billion ECU or 1·6 billion to 3·2 billion ECU or £2·5 billion—an increase of 1·1 billion ECU or £860 million on the level of disallowance fixed by the Commission. This is the largest agricultural fine even levied in the history of the European Community. Payment will start in 1995.

  North Sea Oil Revenue
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total income to the Exchequer from North sea oil revenue(a) between 1974 and 1979 and (b) since 1979.

  Sir George Young
  Government revenues raised from North sea oil and gas production between 1974–75 and 1978–79 were £930 million. Since 1979–80 they have been £75,000 million.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Press Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of press officers currently employed by his Department who are normally based(a) in the Department in London and (b) at each other location.

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office has 14 press officers in post, including the director and deputy director of information who deal with all media. There are two vacancies. All are based in London. There are a number of agencies accountable to the Department which employ Government information service press officers who are not included in these figures.

  Police Authority Budgets
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out by police authority(a) the standard spending assessment and (b) the estimated or actual budget for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Howard
  The following table lists the standard spending assessment and comparable net revenue budget information for each police authority in England for 1994–95. For Wales, provision for the police is included in the overall assessment made for Welsh county councils and no separate figures are available.

  1994/95

  £ million

  Police Authority

  SSA

  Budget Outturn

  Avon and Somerset

  69·274

  70·738

  Bedfordshire

  27·790

  25·229

  Cambridgeshire

  28·702

  29·276

  Cheshire

  43·087

  44·475

  Cleveland

  33·706

  34·092

  Cumbria

  26·638

  26·262

  Derbyshire

  41·516

  40·038

  Devon and Cornwall

  65·707

  70·500

  Dorset

  29·218

  35·611

  Durham

  31·171

  31·257

  Essex

  71·273

  73·194

  Gloucestershire

  26·570

  26·404

  Hampshire

  79·134

  81·076

  Hertfordshire

  42·413

  40·908

  Humberside

  45·645

  45·190

  Kent

  76·389

  76·475

  Lancashire

  72·462

  74·179

  Leicestershire

  41·583

  38·760

  Lincolnshire

  27·064

  32·503

  Norfolk

  32·450

  34·969

  Northamptonshire

  26·705

  29·557

  North Yorkshire

  31·821

  31·373

  Nottinghamshire

  52·894

  52·781

  Staffordshire

  49·707

  51·588

  Suffolk

  27·670

  28·260

  Surrey

  42·834

  43·870

  Sussex

  67·155

  66·757

  Thames Valley

  95·202

  96·501

  Warwickshire

  23·384

  23·681

  West Mercia

  46·071

  48·452

  Wiltshire

  28·927

  29·132

  Greater Manchester

  156·167

  158·053

  Merseyside

  105·608

  104·793

  Northumbria

  80·833

  81·557

  South Yorkshire

  68·019

  68·278

  West Midlands

  154·888

  151·096

  West Yorkshire

  118·825

  119·765

  City of London

  29·690

  35·838

  Metropolitan

  791·008

  788·515

  Policing (Humberside)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future policing arrangements for Humberside.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced today that the county of Humberside would be replaced by four unitary authorities, with the area around Goole, in the present district of Boothferry, transferring to North Yorkshire.
  515
  In the light of this announcement I shall need to consider whether to retain a separate Humberside police force, based on the four unitary authorities. Goole will be policed by the North Yorkshire force from the date of the local government reorganisation, in accordance with the provisions of section 39 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994.

  My preference is to retain a separate Humberside force but before reaching a final decision I shall wish to consult the forces, police authorities and local authorities which would be affected by the decision. I shall also ask Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary to report on the viability of a police force based on the boundaries of the four unitary authorities.

  The consultation will begin immediately and I shall announce my final decision as soon as possible.

  Police Core and Ancillary Tasks
  Sir Ian Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the interim report of the review of police core and ancillary tasks.

  Mr. Howard
  I have today placed a copy of the interim report in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Passports
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of British passports reported as lost or stolen in 1992; how many were in foreign countries; and what were the figures for each of the preceding five years.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Precise figures for the number of United Kingdom passports lost or stolen are not kept but it is estimated that about 70,000 are reported each year, of which about 20,000 are in foreign countries. A significant number of these passports are expired while a smaller percentage will subsequently be found having been originally misplaced.

  Passport issuing within the United Kingdom is now computerised and the system allows the recording of machine-readable passports that have been reported lost or stolen. Arrangements are being considered which would provide the United Kingdom Passport Agency with statistics from the computerised records to monitor the problem.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which countries, other than the United Kingdom, the largest number of British passports were recorded as lost or stolen in 1992–93.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Figures provided by British Consulates indicate that Australia with 1,161, the United States with 1,055 and France with 1,025 recorded the highest number of United Kingdom passports reported to them as lost or stolen during 1993.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people lost or had more than one passport stolen in 1992–93 in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) elsewhere.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  No separate record is kept of the number of persons who have reported more than one passport lost or stolen during a given period.

  Litter
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in England and Wales were prosecuted for dropping litter in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1989 to 1993, which is provisional, is given in the table:

  Number of defendants prosecuted for dropping litter1 1989–1993*

  England and Wales

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993*

  Prosecutions

  2,409

  2,543

  1,673

  1,639

  1,170

  1 An offence under section 1 (3) of the Litter Act 1983 repealed by Section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  * Provisional

  Wheelclamping
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what analysis his Department has made of the implications for policing on wheelclamping of the outcome of Total Car Park Management v. Dr. Colin Spink in the Oxford county court on 13 July.

  Mr. Maclean
  The judgment referred to related to a civil dispute and has no direct implications for the police. We are, of course, taking all relevant judgments into account while formulating policy on wheelclamping on private land.

  Closed-circuit Television
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the research being undertaken by or on behalf of his Department into the use of closed-circuit television, including the subject matter of such research; who is undertaking the work; and when a report on each study is due to be provided to his Department.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office police research group is currently carrying out a study of closed-circuit television systems in town centres with the aim of identifying the characteristics of schemes which make an effective contribution to the control of crime and operational policing generally. A report will be available by Easter 1995.

  The Home Office police scientific development branch is carrying out a study of the technical and operational aspects of CCTV systems aimed at setting appropriate performance standards for CCTV systems and assisting crime prevention officers. The final report will be available in July 1995.

  PSDB has also commissioned a study of a number of town centre control rooms looking at the human factors associated with the monitoring of CCTV images. This is being carried out by CCD Design and Ergonomics Ltd and a report is expected before the end of the year.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of the burglaries recorded in each borough by the Metropolitan police in the year ended June were in a dwelling; and how many were in another building;

  (2) how many incidents of theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and of theft from a motor vehicle were recorded by the Metropolitan police in each borough in the year ended June.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 19 October 1994]: The information requested has been supplied by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and is contained in the following tables:

  Notifiable offences of burglary recorded by local authority borough or district

  Metropolitan police district: July 1993 to June 1994

  Borough/district

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Burghlary in a buliding other than a dwelling

  Total burglary

  Barking

  1,675

  1,730

  3,405

  Barnet

  3,478

  1,566

  5,044

  Bexley

  1,780

  1,046

  2,826

  Brent

  4,033

  1,614

  5,647

  Bromley

  3,454

  1,946

  5,400

  Camden

  4,332

  2,872

  7,204

  Croydon

  3,871

  2,061

  5,932

  Ealing

  3,000

  1,238

  4,238

  Enfield

  2,209

  1,634

  3,843

  Greenwich

  4,292

  1,875

  6,167

  Hackney

  4,879

  2,088

  6,967

  Hammersmith

  2,613

  1,288

  3,901

  Haringey

  3,251

  1,300

  4,551

  Harrow

  2,284

  1,099

  3,383

  Havering

  1,918

  1,595

  3,513

  Hillingdon*

  2,134

  1,381

  3,515

  Hounslow*

  2,560

  1,536

  4,096

  Islington

  3,026

  1,695

  4,721

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,348

  892

  4,240

  Kingston

  1,647

  1,591

  3,238

  Lambeth

  6,220

  1,719

  7,939

  Lewisham

  5,613

  2,346

  7,959

  Merton

  1,774

  1,133

  2,907

  Newham

  4,053

  2,493

  6,546

  Redbridge

  2,613

  1,318

  3,931

  Richmond

  1,799

  969

  2,768

  Southwark

  4,620

  2,477

  7,097

  Sutton

  2,382

  1,262

  3,644

  Tower Hamlets

  2,194

  2,704

  4,898

  Wandsworth

  4,146

  1,972

  6,118

  Waltham Forest

  2,317

  1,679

  3,996

  Westminster

  3,856

  3,780

  7,636

  Broxbourne (part)

  305

  264

  569

  Elmbridge (part)

  225

  190

  415

  Epping Forest (part)

  399

  332

  731

  Epsom and Ewell

  723

  367

  1,090

  Hertsmere

  343

  327

  670

  Reigate and Banstead

  338

  128

  466

  Spelthorne

  540

  947

  1,487

  Welwyn Hatfield (part)

  9

  12

  21

  Heathrow Airport

  4

  28

  32

  Thames

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  104,257

  58,494

  162,751

  *These figures exclude offences reported in those parts of the borough which fall within the boundary of Heathrow airport

  518

  Notifiable offences of vehicle crime recorded by local authority borough or district

  Metropolitan police district: July 1993 to June 1994

  Borough/district

  Theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle

  Theft from a motor vehicle

  Total vehicle crime

  Braking

  1,774

  2,294

  4,068

  Barnet

  1,859

  4,051

  5,910

  Bexley

  2,167

  2,731

  4,898

  Brent

  2,117

  4,083

  6,200

  Bromley

  2,761

  4,975

  7,736

  Camden

  2,109

  6,406

  8,515

  Croydon

  2,863

  5,671

  8,534

  Ealing

  2,390

  4,527

  6,917

  Enfield

  1,970

  3,454

  5,424

  Greenwich

  3,551

  4,622

  8,173

  Hackney

  2,781

  4,240

  7,021

  Hammersmith

  1,517

  5,475

  6,992

  Haringey

  2,370

  3,862

  6,232

  Harrow

  944

  2,621

  3,565

  Havering

  2,695

  2,804

  5,499

  Hillingdon*

  1,877

  4,123

  6,000

  Hounslow*

  1,824

  3,498

  5,322

  Islington

  2,131

  4,407

  6,538

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,179

  4,642

  5,721

  Kingston

  724

  2,743

  3,467

  Lambeth

  3,033

  5,818

  8,851

  Lewisham

  2,875

  3,923

  6,798

  Merton

  1,286

  2,786

  4,072

  Newham

  3,409

  4,065

  7,474

  Redbridge

  3,239

  2,845

  6,084

  Richmond

  689

  2,591

  3,280

  Southwark

  3,480

  6,044

  9,524

  Sutton

  1,648

  2,455

  4,103

  Tower Hamlets

  2,341

  4,338

  6,679

  Wandsworth

  2,617

  5,991

  8,608

  Waltham Forest

  2,715

  3,026

  5,741

  Westminster

  1,382

  6,851

  8,233

  Broxbourne (part)

  391

  919

  1,310

  Elmbridge(part)

  89

  364

  453

  Epping Forest(part)

  709

  1,100

  1,809

  Epsom and Ewell

  349

  964

  1,313

  Hertsmere

  358

  1,171

  1,529

  Reigate and Banstead

  208

  550

  768

  Spelthorne

  445

  1,681

  2,126

  Welwyn Hatfield (part)

  3

  14

  17

  Heathrow Airport

  72

  382

  454

  Thames

  11

  8

  19

  Total

  72,952

  139,115

  211,977

  * These figures exclude offences reported in those parts of the borough which fall within the boundary of Heathrow airport

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the public appointments for which he is responsible(a) in the west midlands region and (b) in Shropshire, indicating in each case the duration of the appointment, the date when a new appointment is due, and the salary.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend is responsible for appointments to board of visitors to prisons in the West Midlands region and in Shropshire. Appointments to boards of visitors are for a maximum of three years and are renewable. Members do not receive a salary but are entitled to travelling, subsistence and financial loss allowances.

  Rape
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for the last year for which information is available for each Crown court circuit, what has been the average length of sentence for those found guilty of rape after(a) pleading guilty and (b) pleading not guilty, and, for those pleading not guilty but found guilty, what has

  Adult males found guilty and sentenced at the Crown court for rape offences1 by circuit, average sentence length2 and proportion sentenced to over five years imprisonment, 1993*.

  Crown court circuit

  Total found guilty

  Number sentenced to imprisonment

  Average sentence length2 (months)

  Proportion sentenced to over five years imprisonment

  Midland and Oxford

  78

  76

  75

  61

  North Eastern

  48

  48

  72

  56

  Northern

  41

  39

  69

  49

  South Eastern

  112

  105

  87

  78

  Wales and Chester

  38

  36

  76

  61

  Western

  29

  26

  74

  65

  England and Wales

  346

  330

  78

  65

  (1)Substantive rape—excluding attempts and offences under the Mental Health Act 1959.

  (2)Excluding "lifers".

  * Provisional.

  The 1993 information given is expected to be final but has been labelled provisional until publication of the Command Paper "Criminal statistics" on 2 November.

  The reply is on the same basis, as information for previous years from Crown court circuits and individual court centres previously provided to the House of Commons Library. A comparison is given in the table. The variation between years for the smaller circuits such as Wales and Chester and Western reflects the small number of persons sentenced per year.

  Average sentence length1 in months for adult males sentenced at the Crown Court for rape offences2 by circuit, 1990–1993*

  Crown court circuit

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993*

  Midland and Oxford

  69

  74

  75

  75

  North Eastern

  63

  79

  75

  72

  Northern

  92

  74

  77

  69

  South Eastern

  78

  79

  86

  87

  Wales and Chester

  87

  75

  72

  76

  Western

  71

  66

  74

  74

  England and Wales

  76

  76

  79

  78

  1 Excluding "lifers".

  2 Substantive rape - excluding attempts and offences under the Mental Health Act 1959.

  * Provisional.

  Remand Prisoners
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated number of remand prisoners who have been awaiting trial(a) for more than three months, (b) for more than six months, (c) for more than 12 months and (d) for more than 18 months, at the latest available date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated
  520
  been the percentage sentenced to more than five years imprisonment.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 21 October 1994]: Plea data is not collected centrally.

  The table gives information for 1993, which is provisional, on the number of males aged 21 and over found guilty and sentenced at the Crown court for rape offences, by circuit.

  to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 25 October 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking about the estimated number of remand prisoners who have been awaiting trial (a) for more than three months, (b) for more than six months, {c) for more than 12 months and (d) for more than 18 months, at the latest available date.
  The latest available provisional data is for 31 August 1994 and is shown in the attached table.

  Inmates recorded as being untried held in custody on 31 August 1994 by time on remand1

  Numbers

  For over 3 months up to and including 6 months

  1,890

  For over 6 months up to and including 12 months

  1,250

  For over 12 months up to and including 18 months

  240

  For over 18 months

  200

  1 Not all of these defendants will have been in continuous prison custody since their first remand. This period excludes any time spent in non-Prison Service-Establishments (eg police cells) before reception on remand into a Prison Service establishment; it includes inmates who are waiting trial and those being tried.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Press Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the number of press officers currently employed by his Department who are normally
  521
  based (a) in the Department in London, (b) in the House and (c) at each other location.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The Cabinet Office—Office of Public Service and Science—employs eight Government information service press officers who are normally based in London. No press officers are based in the House or at locations other than London; a regional press service is provided by the Central Office of Information. Press officers working for agencies directly accountable to the Cabinet Office are not included in this figure.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the total amount spent on official hospitality by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Expenditure on official hospitality by the Cabinet Office, including the Office of Public Service and Science, and executive agencies in each year since 1990 was as follows:

  (a) Cabinent Office1

  (b) Agencies

  £

  HMSO2 £

  COI £

  OPSS Agencies £

  1990–91

  14,300

  500

  1,200

  1991–92

  26,6003

  4,400

  1,300

  1992–93

  25,000

  19,400

  4,600

  59,500

  1993–94

  27,700

  22,000

  5,900

  6,100

  1 Figures for the Cabinet Office exclude expenditure by the Office of the Prime Minister, which was the subject of a separate Answer by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  2 HMSO figures are based on their accounting year 1 January— 31 December. Figures for hospitality were not recorded centrally by HMSO before 1993.

  3 In addition, £234,100 was borne by the OPSS in 1991–92 on official hospitality in respect of the 1991 economic summit.

  Expenditure by OPSS agencies in 1992–93 includes some £59,000 relating to Chessington computer centre's launch as an executive agency.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the public appointments for which he is responsible(a) in the west midlands region and (b) in Shropshire, indicating in each case the duration of the appointment, the date when a new appointment is due, and the salary.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  None.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many staff are employed by his Department; and what proportion of them are employed in each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  As at 1 October 1994, there were 5,774 industrial and non-industrial staff in the 522
  departments and agencies for which I am responsible, and in other areas which fall to the Cabinet Office vote. The proportions by standard region are:

  Region

  Proportion Per cent.

  Inner London

  41·5

  Intermediate

  0·5

  Outer London

  7·5

  Rest of South East

  8·5

  East Anglia

  24

  South West

  3

  West Midlands

  1

  North West

  7

  North

  0·5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1

  East Midlands

  1

  Wales

  0·5

  Scotland

  4

  Northern Ireland

  1

PRIME MINISTER

  Al Yamamah Arms Deal
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) of 18 October, Official Report, column 138, to what (a) Government Department and (b) other authorities any evidence on impropriety in the Al Yamamah arms deal should be forwarded.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister who are the appropriate authorities(a) for the receipt and (b) the investigation of complaints made in the case of Mr. Mark Thatcher relating to British defence contracts.

  The Prime Minister
  Matters within the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government in relation to defence contracts should be addressed, in the first instance, to the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister to which authority the complaint from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) to the Prime Minister's Office concerning the role of Mr. Mark Thatcher in relation to defence contracts was referred; and what action was taken.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 21 October 1994]: The complaint was referred to the Cabinet Office, which in turn consulted the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the security service.

  The conclusion reached was that the document that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) had sent contained a number of clear errors, which cast doubt on its reliability. No evidence was found to support the allegations made.

  Tigris and Euphrates Valleys
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with the United States Government, the United Nations, other EC countries and the Arab League about the shortage of medicine, water pumps and water filters in the valleys
  523
  of the Tigris and the Euphrates; and which statistics are available to Her Majesty's Government on the incidence of marasmus, kwashiorkor, and other water-related diseases in the Baghdad area over the summer.

  The Prime Minister
  Except for the Arab League, we meet representatives of these countries and organisations at routine meetings of the United Nations department of humanitarian affairs. Reports indicate that diseases such as cholera, typhoid and malaria are increasing and that there are cases of marasmus and kwashiorkor. We have no information specific to Baghdad.

  We condemn the Iraqi regime for continuing to refuse United Nations offers to allow limited oil sales to pay for humanitarian supplies. Iraq's attempts to make political capital out of avoidable suffering are cynical.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 October.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 October.

  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.

  Ministerial Conduct
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the rules governing the availability of financial support from Government for Ministers in respect of libel actions arising from events which took place before they took office; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Public resources may be used to deal only with matters which arise as a direct result of the official duties of Ministers.

  Cabinet Secretary's Report
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the Cabinet Secretary's report into the allegations made by Mr. Al Fayed.

  The Prime Minister
  The text of the report is as follows."On 30 September you asked me to investigate certain allegations of impropriety against members of the Government, which had been brought to you in confidence on the previous evening and which, you were told, derived from Mr. Mohammed Al Fayed.
  In reporting these allegations the informant said that Mr. Al Fayed wanted a meeting with the Prime Minister, principally because of Mr. Al Fayed's wish to have the DTI Inspectors Report on the takeover of the House of Fraser revised or withdrawn. He had made a number of allegations against Government Ministers and was contemplating passing them to others.
  You replied that it would be impossible for you to see Mr. Al Fayed in these circumstances. You added that, if Ministers had been guilty of wrong doing, you were not going to make any sort of deal, regardless of the cost to the Government's reputation. You said that you would consider how to proceed and suggested that in the meantime your informant should make no response to Mr. Al Fayed.
  The following morning you asked me to investigate. I carried out some immediate enquiries and on the evening of 30 September your Private Secretary reported to you that some of the allegations were familiar because they had surfaced before, had been previously investigated and had been strongly denied. However, some allegations were new. You then asked me on 3 October to follow
  524
  up all the allegations, whether old or new, with the Ministers concerned.
  I had conversations with the Ministers named in the allegations in the week before the Conservative Party Conference, and I reported to you the outcome of these conversations, together with the results of other inquiries I had made, on Monday 17 October on your return from Bournemouth. In the light of that report, you asked the Chief Whip and me to clarify some points so that, in the interests of natural justice, there should be no risk of your acting unfairly. On 18 October, you concluded that Mr. Smith's offer of resignation form the Government should be accepted later in the week when the Chief Whip's and my action was complete.
  I should make clear that, in view of the circumstances in which the information reached you, I have not felt able to approach or interview Mr. Mohammed Al Fayed himself. I was reinforced in that view by information subsequently received that Mr. Mohammed Al Fayed has made available to others the information which was provided to you. It can therefore be assumed that if there is any further material which Mr. Al Fayed may have to substantiate his allegations it will come to light.
  While the Chief Whip and I were taking the further steps agreed at your meeting on 17 October, two of the allegations passed on to you were made public in The Guardian of Thursday 20 October. These were that Mr. Neil Hamilton and Mr. Tim Smith were paid to raise questions on Mr. Al Fayed's behalf in the House of Commons.
  I had previously enquired into both these matters and had asked Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Smith about them. Both sets of allegations may be the subject of other enquiries and, in the case of Mr. Hamilton, are the subject of legal proceedings against The Guardian newspaper. In these circumstances I should not deal with them in detail in this report, which I know that you envisage publishing.
  Suffice it therefore to say here that Mr. Smith volunteered to me that, as he has subsequently confirmed publicly, he received payments from Mr. Al Fayed between 1987 and 1989, when he ended his activities on behalf of Mr. Al Fayed. He did not declare the necessary information in the Register of Members' Interests until just before the end of this period, and he acknowledged that lie should have done so earlier. He offered his resignation from the Government.
  Mr. Hamilton has emphatically denied throughout my inquiries, both in writing and subsequently in a public statement, that he received any payments deriving from Mr. Al Fayed. I have found no evidence which controverts Mr. Hamilton's assurances on these matters. He acknowledged that he had received hospitality from Mr. Al Fayed, as a private guest (as he believed), at a time well before he entered the Government. He had not thought it necessary to declare this in the Register of Members' Interests, for reasons which he explained in a letter to the Editor of the Guardian of more than a year ago, a copy of which he gave me. He also gave me an exchange of correspondence dated nearly a year ago in which he had amplified to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests what he had said to the Guardian.
  When Mr. Hamilton became a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, he declared his previous interest in matters concerning Mr. Al Fayed and has stood aside from involvement as a Minister in issues involving the House of Fraser.
  There were other allegations passed on to you by your informant. I have looked into all these, so far as I am able, and the Chief Whip and I have put the allegations in detail to the Ministers concerned. In some of them there are patent inaccuracies, and all have been denied explicitly, unequivocally and in writing.
  I have found nothing which would cause me to throw any doubt on the validity of those denials. Moreover, the fact that there is reason to think that these allegations too have now been made available to others who have so far chosen not to publish there suggests that they too may have found that there is a lack of evidence to establish their validity.
  In those circumstances, while confirming that I am confident that the allegations either are demonstrably false, or, so far as I have been able to establish, are entirely unsubstantiated as well as being denied by the Ministers concerned, I do not think it appropriate to give them further currency by listing them in this Report.

  South West Water
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Prime Minister if the statement made by the hon. member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) during his recent visit to the south-west, on the possibility of making Exchequer funding available to reduce water and sewerage charges in the South West Water company area represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: The Director-General of Water Services has recently completed the first periodic review of water company price limits. The new price limits that he announced for South West Water have been referred, at the company's request, to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. In the meantime, we must await the outcome of the commission's review.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many staff are employed by his Department; and what proportion of them are employed in each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Sproat
  The total number of staff employed by the Department is 349, excluding casuals; all staff are employed in the London region. This figure excludes staff working in the Department's two executive agencies, the Historic Royal Palaces Agency and the Royal Parks Agency. All the staff work in London.

  New Millennium Commission
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the secretary of state for National Heritage on what grounds he cancelled the contract of the nominated chairman of the Millennium Commission; and how much had been paid to him in regard to severance of his contract.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The decision to terminate the contract of the nominated chief executive of the Milliennium Commission, Mr. Nicholas Hinton, was taken by the commission, which is independent of Government. The sum of £19,125 was paid to Mr. Hinton as compensation for loss of office in accordance with his contract of employment.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secertary of state for National Heritage (1) when he expects to appoint management consultants to advise him on the sports council reorganisation;

  (2) what he estimates to be the likely cost of management consultancy contracts for the Sports Council's reorganisation.

  Mr. Sproat
  The period of consultation on the Government's proposals end on 31 October. I expect to announce final policy decisions and how these should be implemented shortly after that.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will extend the consultation period for the reorganisation of the Sports Council to consider the deep concern voiced by local authorities at his proposals.
  526
  Mr. Sproat
  The consultation period has in effect already been extended from 30 September to 31 October through the addition of children's play to the consultation exercise. I do not propose to extend it further. I shall now be looking very carefully at the views expressed on our proposals before taking final policy decisions.

  British Athletes (Income Support)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has made in respect of British athletes no longer having their income support stopped while they are competing for Britain abroad.

  Mr. Sproat
  I have met social security Ministers on two occasions to discuss the payment of income support to British athletes competing abroad.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the number of press officers currently employed by his Department who are normally based(a) in the Department in London, (b) in the House and (c) at each other location.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department currently employs seven press officers. All are based in the Department's offices in London.

EDUCATION

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the average class sizes in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools; and what were the corresponding figures five, 10 and 15 years ago.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The average sizes of single teacher classes in maintained primary and secondary schools in England in 1979, 1984, 1989, and 1994—provisional—are shown in the table.

  Average sizes of single teacher classes in maintained primary and secondary schools in England in 1979, 1984, 1989 and 1994 (provisional) Position in January each year

  Primary

  1Secondary

  1979

  25·9

  *

  1984

  24·7

  20·6

  1989

  25·7

  20·1

  1994 (prov)

  26·9

  21·4

  1 excludes Sixth Form Colleges which ceased to be classified as schools from 1 April 1993

  * data for secondary schools excluding Sixth Form Colleges is not available.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list each public opinion survey commissioned by(a) her Department and (b) her agencies since 1 October 1992, showing for each, the subject, objectives, total cost, the period in which it was conducted and the organisation from which it was commissioned.
  527
  Mr. Forth
  The DFE has carried out the following public opinion surveys since October 1992.Subject: School performance tables
  Objective: To establish levels of parental awareness and understanding of the school performance tables publications
  Date: December 1992 and January 1994
  Company: Taylor Nelson
  Subject: Grant-maintained schools
  Objective: To measure changes in public awareness and understanding of grant-maintained schools
  Date: May 1993, October 1993, February 1994
  Company: Audience Selection
  Subject: National curriculum testing of 7, 11 and 14-year-olds
  Objective: To assess parental awareness and effectiveness of the publicity campaign on school testing arrangements in 1993
  Date: April 1993
  Company: British Market Research Bureau
  Subject: National curriculum testing of 7, 11 and 14-year-olds
  Objective: To assess parental awareness of testing arrangement; under the National Curriculum in light of a review announced by Secretary of State for Education in May 1993
  Date: May 1993
  Company: Bulmershe Research
  Subject: Publicity campaign for parents on national curriculum testing of 7, 11 and 14-year-olds
  Objectives: To assess parental awareness and effectiveness of the publicity campaign on school testing arrangements in 1994
  Dates: January 1994, July 1994
  Company: British Market Research Bureau
  Subject: DFE exhibition - DFE touring roadshow
  Objective: To establish the communication effectiveness of the 1992, 1993 and 1994 DFE roadshows
  Date: October 1992, July 1993, July 1994
  Company: 1992, 1993 Martin Hamblin; 1994 Alpha Research
  Subject: Further and higher education charters
  Objective: To assess awareness and effectiveness of the publicity campaign for the FE and HE charters
  Date: September 1993, November 1993
  Company: Martin Hamblin
  Subject: Educational provision for under-fives
  Objective: To establish the take-up of education provision for under-fives and the parents' attitudes to different types of provision
  Date: April 1994
  Company: Bulmershe Research
  Subject: Updated parents charter
  Objective: To establish he effectiveness of the 1994 parents charter campaign
  Date: June 1994, August 1994
  Company: Research Society of Great Britain

  Only one of the agencies of the DFE, SCAA, has carried out public opinion research since October 1992, as follows:
  Subject: Public perception of the national curriculum and the relative priorities of national curriculum subjects
  Objective: To establish the opinion of the general public on the national curriculum and the relative priority of subjects within it
  Date: June 1994
  Company: Gallup

  To give the cost of the research surveys carried out by the DFE and its agencies would compromise confidential tendering procedures.

  Educational Psychologists
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education to what extent an educational psychologist 528
  employed by a local education authority retains professional autonomy in determining needs under the Education Act 1993; and what guidance her Department gives on how financial constraints may be taken into account under the LEA.

  Mr Forth
  The conditions of employment of education psychologists are a matter for the authorities which employ them.

  Under the Education Act 1993 and the Education (Special Education Needs) Regulations 1994, an authority must seek psychological advice as part of any multi-professional statutory assessment of a child with special educational needs. If, as a result of a full assessment, and of any representations made by the child's parents, it is necessary for an authority to determine the provision which the child needs, then a statement of special educational needs must be made. The statement must specify the necessary provision, and the authority must arrange that it is made, whatever the funding implications, unless the child's parent makes suitable alternative arrangements.

  The code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs provides comprehensive practical guidance to LEAs and the governing bodies of all maintained schools on their responsibilities towards all children with special educational needs. All those to whom the code applies have a statutory duty to have regard to it. The code provides a framework which aims at quality and consistency of assessment, both across and within LEAs. Having regard to the code, many LEAs have issued additional guidance to schools and support services on specific criteria to be used to achieve such consistency.

  Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when the Further and Higher Education Council first received an application from the Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute for additional funding in 1994–95; and when the application will be determined.

  Mr. Boswell
  I understand that the Further Education Funding Council received an application from this institute in May and a duplicate application in August. I understand that the council notified the institute of its final recurrent funding allocation for 1994–95 on 14 September.

  Disruptive Pupils
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent discussions she has held concerning a strategy to deal with disruptive and troubled children in schools; and what conclusion she has reached thereon.

  Mr. Forth
  Following very wide consultations, the Department issued a set of circulars in May giving guidance on pupil behaviour and discipline, the education of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, and other subjects within the broad heading "Pupils with Problems". Children with emotional and behavioural difficulties have special educational needs and the circular complements provisions in the code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs. Local education authorities must have regard to the code
  529
  which came into effect on 1 September. Copies of these documents are available in the Library.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the rates of university students' grants in 1978–

  Value of The Standard Maintenance Grant and Grant Plus Loan

  Academic Years

  Standard maintenance grant (cash terms) £1

  Standard maintenance grant plus loan (cash terms) £2

  Standard maintenance grant (real terms) £3

  Standard maintenance grant plus loan (real terms) £

  Standard maintenance grant as a percentage of average earnings5

  Standard maintenance grant plus loan as a percentage of average earnings

  1978–794

  1,100

  —

  3,143

  —

  24

  —

  1979–804

  1,245

  —

  3,054

  —

  22

  —

  1980–814

  1,430

  —

  3,027

  —

  22

  —

  1981–824

  1,535

  —

  2,917

  —

  22

  —

  1982–834

  1,595

  —

  2,826

  —

  21

  —

  1983–844

  1,660

  —

  2,797

  —

  20

  —

  1984–85

  1,775

  —

  2,856

  —

  20

  —

  1985–86

  1,830

  —

  2,780

  —

  19

  —

  1986–87

  1,901

  —

  2,804

  —

  18

  —

  1987–88

  1,972

  —

  2,792

  —

  17

  —

  1988–89

  2,050

  —

  2,742

  —

  16

  —

  1989–90

  2,155

  —

  2,680

  —

  16

  —

  1990–91

  2,265

  2,685

  2,540

  3,011

  15

  18

  1991–92

  2,265

  2,845

  2,440

  3,065

  14

  18

  1992–93

  2,265

  2,980

  2,356

  3,100

  12

  16

  1993–94

  2,265

  3,065

  2,314

  3,132

  13

  18

  1994–95

  2,040

  3,190

  2,040

  3,190

  n/a

  n/a

  1 The standard maintenance grant rate is that applicable to students living away from home and studying outside London. In 1994–95 the corresponding London rate of grant is £2,560 and the parental home rate of grant is £1,615.

  2 Since 1990–91 Student support has included grant and loan; the grant was frozen at the 1990–92 level (ie £2,265) until 1994–85 when it was reduced to £2,040. Figures for 1990–91 and subsequent years include grant plus full year loan for students living away from home. The full year loan for students studying in London in 1994–95 is £1,375 and £915 for those living at their parents' home.

  3 Based on the September Retail Price Index of each academic year.

  4 Up to and including 1983–84 students claimed, and were individually reimbursed, full travelling expenses; from 1984–85 a flat rate amount for travelling costs was incorporated within the main rate of grant. The rates of grant for 1983–84 and earlier years exclude the excess travelling expense element.

  5 Average annual earnings approximated from weekly earnings in April from the New Earnings Survey of full-time employees whose pay for the survey pay period was not affected by absence. This survey may not include bonuses paid at other weeks than the survey week and does not capture seasonal work. For 1979–80–1982–83 earnings are compiled on the basis of men aged 21 + and women aged 18 +. From 1983–84 earnings are compiled on the basis of employees on adult rates.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the number of press officers currently employed by her Department who are normally based(a) in the Department in London, (b) in the House and (c) at each other location.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department currently employs 12 press officers at its headquarters in London. None are employed at the House or any other location.

ENVIRONMENT

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what quantities of low level radioactive waste have been co-disposed in landfills since 1979; and what proposals exist to increase the amounts.

  Mr. Atkins
  Records of the quantities of such disposals are not held centrally.

  The Government's consultation paper, "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Preliminary
  530
  79 and each subsequent year in cash terms, real terms and as a proportion of average earnings.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Conclusions", proposed that there would be advantage in encouraging waste producers to make greater use of the controlled burial of low-level radioactive waste. Responses on this and other issues raised in the review are being carefully considered.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what contribution the United Kingdom has made to the preparation of an international convention on waste management being developed under the International Atomic Energy Agency's radioactive waste safety standards programme;

  (2) what steps Her Majesty's Government plans to take to fulfil the resolutions agreed at the International Atomic Energy Agency 38th annual conference in Vienna in September calling for an assessment by IAEA member states of the impact of the sea disposal of radioactive wastes.

  Mr. Atkins
  The 38th general conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency resolved on 21 September this year to invite the board of governors and the director general to commence preparations for a convention on the safety of radioactive waste management. It also invited them to consider further measures that would enhance international co-operation in
  531
  this field, including assessment of the impact of the land and sea disposal of wastes. I expect that the United Kingdom will participate fully, as is appropriate, in such work. As regards the International Atomic Energy Agency's radioactive waste safety standards programme, which is aimed at securing international consensus on technical and regulatory aspects of radioactive waste management, the United Kingdom has participated fully, and continues to do so.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to amend the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 enabling landfill tips, including those located in Bradford, West Yorkshire, to take nuclear waste; and if he will made a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: The Government have no plans to amend the provisions in the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 concerning the controlled burial of low-level radioactive waste in landfill sites. The consultation paper, "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Preliminary Conclusions", proposed that there would be advantage in encouraging waste producers to make greater use of the existing controlled burial provisions. Responses on this and other issues raised in the review are being carefully considered. There are no plans in relation to particular sites.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to investigate, or to require Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to investigate the import of wastes from Germany for incineration at the Edmonton incineration plant; and if he will investigate the activities of the International Waste Consultants, brokers for the import of German waste.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am aware that contracts exist for the import of garage waste for disposal at the North London waste authority's incinerator in Edmonton. The circumstances surrounding these contracts are under investigation by the NLWA and the London waste regulation authority. I am sure that these authorities are taking the appropriate action to protect human health and the environment.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library the paper by David Massingham of his Department, presented at the waste management forum at the Institution of Civil Engineers on 22 September.

  Mr. Atkins
  On 22 September, the Waste Management Forum held a half-day seminar on the Environment Select Committee's report on recycling, under the title "Recycling Reappraised". Mr Massingham of my Department attended, and was among a number of people invited to comment briefly as a focus for discussion. No formal paper was prepared for this occasion, but the main points made at the seminar are contained in the report prepared by the Waste Management forum, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many visits have been paid to the United Kingdom, and for what purpose, by the International Atomic Energy Agency's waste management advisory programme.
  532
  Mr. Atkins
  None.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contracts have been issued by his Department for the assessment of the applicability to waste management policy of life-cycle analysis.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am pleased to announce that my Department has issued recently a contract to develop a methodology for the life cycle analysis of waste management options for different wastes.

  This contract is the first part of a major project under the Department's waste research programme. The project will provide an analysis of the environmental costs and benefits of different wastes management options over the entire life cycles of selected wastes. The results from the project are intended to inform waste management policy at both the national and local level.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent communications his Department has had with the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee on the options for returning to countries of origin radioactive wastes arising from spent fuel reprocessed at Sellafield and Dounreay.

  Mr. Atkins
  The chairman of the radioactive waste management advisory committee wrote to me on 4 July with further advice on British Nuclear Fuels' proposals for waste substitution. A copy of the committee's advice was appended to the consultation document, "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Preliminary Conclusions", which the Department published on 5 August.

  Regional Assistance, Wirral
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to change the present strategy of regional assistance as it affects the Wirral.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Government's view of the
  assisted areas map, which defines those parts of Great Britain eligible for regional assistance, was completed last year. The new map reconfirmed Wirral's development area status for regional assistance purposes, and the Government, do not propose to review the assisted areas again for at least two years.

  Sewage Works
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the record of compliance of sewage works with their discharge consents in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94.

  Mr. Atkins
  The National Rivers Authority has reported that in 1992 95 per cent. of the water company sewage treatment works it monitored complied with their discharge consent standards, and that in 1993, the figure was 93 per cent. Because of new reporting procedures introduced by the NRA, the information for 1993 is not directly comparable with earlier statistics. The underlying trend is one of significant improvements in performance:
  533
  only 83 per cent. of sewage works complied in 1988. This reflects the water industry's substantial investment programmes since privatisation.

  Housing
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many houses recorded in the 1994 housing investment programme data as being empty in the(a) council, (b) housing association, (c) public and (d) private sectors; and what percentage of the overall stock this represents;

  (2) how many households are recorded in the 1994 housing investment programme data collected by local authorities as being on council waiting lists (a) nationally and (b) by region.

  Mr. Curry
  The data provided by local authorities on their 1994 housing investment programme—HIP1— returns is still being analysed. I will write to the hon. Member when this work is complete.

  Landlord and Tenant Act
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to monitor the effectiveness of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  A research report, commissioned by my Department, entitled "The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987: Awareness, Experience and Impact", was published by HMSO in 1991.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications in respect of homeless persons have been made to local authorities since 1979; and what proportion of these were accepted for rehousing as statutorily homeless.

  Mr. Curry
  The application figures for individual authorities, where they are reported, are published in the quarterly local housing statistics publication along with the figures for acceptances.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the position of a homeless family will differ from the current situation as a result of proposals contained in the statement on access to local authority housing and explanations of its intent given in written answers to questions 15, 20 and 27.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The court's interpretation of part III of the Housing Act 1985 has the effect of requiring local authorities to secure a tenancy for life for an eligible homeless household. Under our reform proposals the duty would be to secure accommodation for at least 12 months; that duty would recur if the household continued to be eligible for assistance.

  Rents
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the average weekly rent paid by people earning less than £10,000 in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Curry
  Estimates of the average rent paid by households in England headed by people with annual incomes less than £10,000 are as follows 534

  Average weekly rents, before and after deduction of housing benefit

  Before deduction of HB

  £ per week After deduction of HB

  1990

  28·10

  15·60

  1991

  30·10

  14·80

  1992

  35·10

  16·00

  1993

  39·60

  16·90

  These figures are from the Family Expenditure Survey and are subject to sampling error.

  The estimates do not take into account the income of householders other than the head of household, and information is not available to enable the calculation of average rents paid by households with incomes less than £10,000 per annum.

  Leasehold Enfranchisement
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to monitor the take up of the leasehold enfranchisement provisions of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Leasehold enfranchisement is a private transaction between the leaseholders and the landlord, and it is therefore not possible to monitor take up comprehensively. But my Department does monitor the number of cases coming before leasehold valuation tribunals where the parties cannot agree terms. Currently 32 cases have been heard or are listed to be heard in the near future.

  We are about to let a research contract to follow up the experiences and progress of those who have approached the Leasehold Advisory Service, which has been established jointly by the Department and the private sector. To date it has received about 3,000 inquiries.

  Rented Properties
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many properties rented privately in each region are currently deemed to be unfit for human habitation under the current fitness standard.

  Mr. Curry
  The 1991 English house condition survey estimates that the following numbers of privately rented dwellings are unfit for human habitation under the current fitness standard, by Government office regions:

  Number

  Northern

  13,000

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  27,000

  North West

  58,000

  East midlands

  20,000

  West Midlands

  39,000

  South West

  34,000

  Eastern

  24,000

  Greater London

  56,000

  South East

  54,000

  Merseyside

  8,000

  England total

  333,000

  Housing Corporation (Expenditure)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the expenditure by the Housing Corporation on(a) administration and (b) accommodation; and how many staff were employed by the corporation in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Curry
  The information is as follows:

  Year ending 31 March

  Administrative Costs £ 000's

  Accommodation Costs £ 000's

  Numbers of Staff

  1980

  6,413·0

  1,457·0

  649

  1981

  9,096·0

  1,879·0

  780

  1982

  9,014·0

  2,522·0

  639

  1983

  9,790·0

  2,500·0

  663

  1984

  10,336·0

  2,700·0

  715

  1985

  10,955·0

  2,781·0

  713

  1986

  11,657·0

  2,924·0

  714

  1987

  12,354·0

  2,929·0

  728

  1988

  13,400·0

  3,100·0

  720

  1989

  16,700·0

  3,500·0

  787

  1990

  16,600·0

  3,300·0

  745

  1991

  18,400·0

  4,100·0

  745

  1992

  20,700·0

  4,500·0

  734

  1993

  23,500·0

  4,400·0

  726

  1994

  24,600·0

  4,500·0

  718

  Notes:

  1. Figures to 1989 are for England, Scotland and Wales.

  2. Figures from 1990 onwards are for England only (Housing Act 1988 and Housing (Scotland) Act 1988).

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for each financial year since 1981–82, the total sale price of the dwellings sold under the right to buy and the average discount for sales during the year.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested on right to buy sales is not held centrally.

  However, figures of receipts from sales of all council dwellings and the discounts allowed are collected by the Department. Data on the value of these sales and the average percentage discount given are shown in the table.

  Value of dwellings sold by local authorities in England, 1981–82 to 1993–941

  Year

  Value of sales (net of discount) £ million

  Percentage discount on sales

  1981–82

  1,241

  42

  1982–83

  1,769

  42

  1983–84

  1,316

  42

  1984–85

  1,108

  44

  1985–86

  1,061

  46

  1986–87

  1,237

  46

  1987–88

  1,697

  47

  1988–89

  2,653

  50

  1989–90

  2,700

  51

  1990–91

  1,616

  52

  1991–92

  1,086

  52

  1992–93

  841

  51

  1993–94

  1,034

  49

  Note:

  1 Excluding receipts from block transfers.

  Merseyside Port
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what role he has in connection with proposed new port facilities by the Merseyside development corporation; what effect these proposed facilities will have on sea traffic from Belfast to the north-west of England; what interests from outside the United Kingdom are involved in the provision or operation of these proposed facilities; what funding the proposed project will receive from the European Community; and if he will make a statement about these proposals by the Merseyside development corporation.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Merseyside development corporation, which is sponsored by this Department, has marketed a 55-acre riverside at Twelve Quays, Birkenhead, for a business park and an in-river ro-ro terminal. I am encouraged by the interest that has been shown in the proposed ferry terminal.

  MDC has given preferred developer status for the site to London and General, acting with Capital and Regional Properties, which are both United Kingdom development companies.

  The corporation's disposal of the site is a matter for the MDC to determine in accordance with the Department's disposal guidelines. Any application for grant assistance that the developer may make to MDC will also be subject to approval in accordance with Departmental guidelines; similarly any application for European Community funding will be subject to the appraisal process for objective 1 funds.

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest position on the local government review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have today written to Sir John Banham, chairman of the Local Government Commission for England, giving my decisions on the Commission's recommendations for Avon, Humberside Lincolnshire, North Yorkshire and Somerset as set out in its reports "Final Recommendations on the Future Local Government of Avon, Gloucestershire and Somerset" and "Final Recommendations on the Future Local Government of North Yorkshire, Humberside and Lincolnshire". I announced my decision, on 1 March, to ask the Commission to undertake a further review of Gloucestershire.AVON AND SOMERSET
  Avon
  I have carefully considered the Commission's recommendations for both Avon and Somerset counties and the many representations which have been made about them. I have concluded, for Avon, that abolishing Avon County Council and establishing four unitary authorities for the area (Commission recommendations 1, 2, and 3), would best reflect local identities and interests and achieve effective and convenient local government. I propose to accept Commission recommendations 8 to 12 (on strategic planning and electoral arrangements) for Avon as submitted.
  I am still considering the recommendation (Commission recommendation 16) that a town council should be established for the unparished area of Weston-super-Mare. I am also still considering whether to ask the Commission to conduct a review of electoral arrangements in the area before its normal statutory periodic review. I support recommendation (Commission recommendation 18) about consultation between principal

  537
  authorities and parish and town councils, but, this is for the relevant principal authorities to take forward.
  Somerset
  The Commission has recommended a move to a structure of three unitary authorities in Somerset (Commission recommendations 6). However, after taking account of the number and strength of the representations which I received opposing the recommendations and the lack of support for the alternative options considered by the Commission in its draft report, I have concluded that to retain the present two-tier system would best reflect local identities and interests and achieve effective and convenient local government in Somerset. I have therefore decided not to accept this recommendation. Consequently I am also rejecting recommendations 8 (in so far as it applies to Somerset) and 13 to 15. I am still considering the recommendation (Commission recommendation 17) that a town council should be established for the unparished area of Bridgwater.
  Fire and Police Services
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, is making a separate announcement about the arrangements for the Fire and Police Services in Avon and Somerset (Commission recommendation 7).
  Ceremonial Issues
  As regards ceremonial issues (Commission recommendation 4), I do not have the power to include unitary authorities in counties where the two tier structure is to be retained. I am therefore obliged to modify some of the Commission's recommendations in this respect. The Commission recommended that the County of Avon, should for ceremonial purposes be divided between Gloucestershire and Somerset, with Bristol as a separate city and county. I propose to establish Bristol as a separate county, and to deem that for ceremonial purposes the unitary authorities of North West Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset should be part of Somerset. It is not possible to make a final decision on the nature of the ceremonial arrangements for South Gloucestershire until the outcome of the Commission's further review of Gloucestershire is known. However, I am minded that, by deeming or otherwise, the South Gloucesterhsire unitary authority and the present county area of Gloucestershire should be united for ceremonial purposes.
  HUMBERSIDE, LINCOLNSHIRE AND NORTH YORKSHIRE
  Humberside
  In its report "Final Recommendations on the Future Local Government of North Yorkshire, Humberside and Lincolnshire", for Humberside, the Commission has recommended the abolition of both the County Council and the County of Humberside and their replacement with four unitary authorities (Commission recommendation 1). I have concluded that, subject to some minor modifications, effective and efficient local government and local identities and interest would best be served by accepting the Commission's main recommendation. I propose to accept the recommendation (Commission recommendation 2) that a unitary authority be established upon the present boundaries of the City of Kingston upon Hull. However, because I take the view that the present boundaries of the City may be too tightly drawn, I intend to direct the Commission to undertake a further review of the City's boundaries with the East Yorkshire unitary authority in due course. I also accept the recommendations (Commission recommendations 3, 11 and 12) for three unitary authorities covering the greater part of the rest of Humberside. However, because of my decision not to accept recommendation 8, the reasons for which are set out below, I propose that Goole, the remaining part of Boothferry, should be incorporated in Selby district in North Yorkshire.
  I propose to accept the recommendations (Commission recommendations 16, 17, 21, 22 and 25) covering the electoral arrangements for authorities in Humberside. However, I am still considering whether to ask the Commission to conduct a review of electoral arrangements in the area before its normal statutory periodic review. I am also still looking at whether there should be a review to consider the scope for further emparishment in the area (Commission recommendation 24). I support the recommendation (Commission recommendation 23) about consultation between
  538
  principal authorities and parish and town councils, but again, this is for the relevant principal authorities to take forward.
  On Commission recommendation 4, because of my decision to abolish the County of Humberside, the statutory requirement for all authorities to be within a county area, I have decided that, for ceremonial purposes, the City of Hull and East Yorkshire unitary authorities should be included in a new county area to be known as East Riding of Yorkshire.
  I have decided to accept the Commission's recommendation for no change to the existing structure in Lincolnshire, and my reasons for doing this are dealt with below. I do not have the power to include unitary authorities in counties where the two tier structure is to be retained (Commission recommendation 10). I am therefore obliged to modify some of the Commission's recommendations in this respect. However, for ceremonial and related purposes I propose to accept the Commission's recommendation that the two authorities south of the Humber should be deemed to be part of Lincolnshire.
  I propose to accept the recommendations (Commission recommendations 26 and 27) for minor changes to parish boundaries.
  Lincolnshire
  The Commission has recommended retaining the present two-tier structure in Lincolnshire (Commission recommendation 13). I have looked closely at this recommendation. The Commission found little support for change in the County, and where there was support, no consensus about what form any change should take. This view is supported by the representations which I have received, and I have, therefore, concluded that I should accept the Commission's recommendation.
  North Yorkshire
  In North Yorkshire, the Commission has recommended the abolition of the County Council and that the existing eight districts should be combined to form three unitary authorities (Commission recommendations 5 to 8). I have decided to accept the recommendation that a unitary authority be established for the City of York, with its boundaries extended to include the Greater Planning Area (Commission recommendation 76). The Commission identified evidence of strong community identity amongst its residents and support for unitary status and I agree that the residents and support for unitary status and I agree that the present boundary is particularly restrictive. Because of the significant increase in the size of the City, in terms of the area it will cover, its population, and the additional functions for which it will become responsible, I have concluded that a unitary York will be considered a new and not a continuing authority. However, in the light of the strong representations which I have received opposing the Commission's recommendations for North and West Riding authorities (Commission recommendations 6 and 8), and in the absence of any consensus about alternatives, I have concluded that to retain the present two-tier system would best reflect local identities and interests and achieve effective and convenient local government in North Yorkshire outside the City of York. I have therefore decided to reject the recommendation for these two authorities and to retain the two-tier system in the remainder of North Yorkshire. A small number of district wards and county divisions would be split by the proposed boundary changes and it will be necessary to consult the authorities concerned about how the areas remaining outside York should be combined with other wards or divisions.
  I have decided to accept the recommendations (Commission recommendation 19 and 25) covering the electoral arrangements for the new unitary authority for the City of York. However, as a consequence of my decision not to introduce unitary authorities elsewhere in North Yorkshire I shall not be accepting recommendations 18 and 20.
  Planning
  I am still considering the recommendations for planning (Commission recommendation 15) in the three counties in the light of my decisions about local government structure in the area.

  539
  Police and Fire Service
  My Right hon. and Learned Friend, the Home Secretary, is making a separate announcement about the arrangements for the Fire and Police Services in these three counties (Commission recommendation 14).
  Ceremonial Issues
  I propose to deem the unitary authority for the City of York to be part of North Yorkshire for ceremonial and related purposes.
  Implementation
  In all areas where I am agreeing with the establishment of unitary authorities, I have given careful consideration to representations which I received about the implications for those services and functions currently performed on a wider basis. My decisions are based on the presumption that the authorities which are to become unitary will work together, and where relevant with existing authorities, to plan for these services and functions, and will forge effective links with other bodies such as health authorities.
  Once I have had the opportunity to consult the affected local authorities, orders giving effect to the Commission's recommendations for these counties, with the aforementioned modifications, will be laid before the House. I intend that elections to unitary authorities in these counties should be held next May, with them assuming full responsibility for their new functions from 1 April 1996. A copy of my letter to Sir John Banham has been placed in the Library.
  Conclusion
  My decisions mean that nine further unitary authorities will be established from April 1996. Local people in these areas will enjoy the benefits which we believe that unitary local government brings; improved accountability and understanding of where responsibility for services lies; less duplication and improved cost-effectiveness; and improved quality and co-ordination of local services. Where there is to be change, I believe that the costs of change will be justified by the savings and other benefits which it will bring. Elsewhere, where I have judged that this would best provide efficient and effective local government which reflects local identities, I have decided to retain the present two-tier system. This diversity reflects our determination not to impose a uniform structure on local government in England. Instead, we wish to see the structure which works best for each area, which reflects the local preferences, history and tradition, and meets the needs and wishes of local people.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the soundness of data from the new earnings survey as the basis for area cost adjustment.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The New Earnings Survey is a well-established and comprehensive survey of earnings across the country. It is, therefore, a very suitable basis for establishing the relative wage rates paid in different regions in occupations relevant to local authorities. The sample numbers in the survey are, however, not large enough to produce reliable estimates of wage rates in individual local authorities. For this reason, the area cost adjustment is calculated at a regional level.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the effect on counties in the east midlands of removing £1·5 billion distributed through area cost adjustment to counties in the south east and dividing the proceeds to increase the general amount of the standard spending assessment of every other county and metropolitan authority outside the south east.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The table shows the effect on the standard spending assessments of counties in the. East Midlands, if SSAs in 1994–95 had been calculated 540
  without applying the area cost adjustment to authorities in London and the South East, but with no other change either to the national total of SSAs, or to the detailed formulae applied to each service.

  Actual 1994–95 SSA £ million

  SSA with no area cost adjustment £ million

  Change in SSA £ million*

  Derbyshire

  553

  576

  23

  Leicestershire

  561

  584

  23

  Lincolnshire

  365

  380

  15

  Northamptonshire

  364

  37

  15

  Nottinghamshire

  627

  653

  27

  * figures may not sum due to rounding to nearest pound million

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the area cost adjustment element of standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Various aspects of the area cost adjustment have been considered this year by the SSA sub-group, which is the main forum in which technical issues affecting standard spending assessments are discussed between government officials and local authority representatives. Ministers are considering the options which have been put forward and will be announcing their proposals for 1995–96 later in the year.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the percentage increase in standard spending assessment for counties in each English region from 1989–90 to 1994–95; and what were the percentage increases for all English counties and for all local authorities in England over the same period.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The first year of Standard Spending Assessments was 1990–91. Comparative figures for 1990–91 and 1994–95 for non-metropolitan county councils, which make no allowance for changes in function, are:

  1990–91 £ million

  1994–95 £ million

  Change

  Northern

  1,029·163

  1,273·801

  +23·8 per cent.

  North West

  1,217·646

  1,477·878

  +21·4 per cent.

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  798·783

  976·481

  +22·2 per cent.

  East Midlands

  2,014·564

  2,469·158

  +22·6 per cent.

  West Midlands

  1,251·442

  1,530·181

  +22·3 per cent.

  East Anglia

  966·003

  1,216·725

  +26·0 per cent.

  South West

  2,207·561

  2,757·969

  +24·9 per cent.

  South East (outside Greater London)

  5,152·553

  6,629·815

  +28·7 per cent.

  Total shire counties

  14,637·716

  18,332·008

  +25·2 per cent.

  All local authorities

  29,805·300

  37,847·700

  +27·0 per cent.

  Basic Credit Approvals
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what basic credit approval was given to east midlands counties in each year since 1992–93; and if he will express this as a percentage of total county basic credit approvals for these years.
  541
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information is given in the table.

  Basic credit approvals issued to east midlands counties 1992–93 to 1994–95

  County

  1992–93 £ 000

  1993–94 £ 000

  1994–95 £ 000

  Derbyshire

  18,840

  16,228

  8,878

  Leicestershire

  17,926

  14,145

  12,334

  Lincolnshire

  16,076

  14,034

  13,426

  Northamptonshire

  7,631

  4,974

  6,903

  Nottinghamshire

  12,013

  9,599

  7,101

  Total

  72,486

  58,980

  48,642

  Percentage of total BCAs for all counties

  13·1

  12·6

  9·7

  Press Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of press officers currently employed by his Department who are normally based(a) in the Department in London, (b) in the House and (c) at each other location.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There are currently 31 information officers employed by the Department of Environment including those employed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. All deal with the full range of information services; none are exclusively press officers. These staff are all located in London. None are employed in the House.

  Additionally officers are employed in an information role in the va ious agencies directly accountable to the Department.

  Regional services in England are provided by the Central Office of Information.

  Right-to-buy Legislation
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much of the money realised from the sale of houses under the right-to-buy legislation has been used by local authorities to pay off their outstanding debts.

  Mr. Curry
  Information on the value of receipts from right-to-buy sales and on how they are used by local authorities are not held centrally by the Department.

  However, figures of receipts from sales of council dwellings to sitting tenants are collected by the Department and these show that between the introduction of right to buy in 1980 and the end of March 1994 the total value of such sitting tenant sales, net of discount, is an estimated £18·5 billion.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what his proposals are for extending compulsory competitive tendering to local authority information technology services and finance services.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment announced to the House the Government's decisions on proposals to extend compulsory competitive tendering to local authority and other defined authorities white-collar corporate and professional services on November 10 1992 at column 744. He undertook that the Government would discuss details of implementing these decisions with
  542
  representatives of local government and other interested parties. Since then, my officials have had very useful discussions with the local authority associations, the Audit Commission and CIPFA on a number of joint working groups, and with a number of other representative bodies.

  We are today issuing two consultation documents inviting comments on the Government's detailed proposals for extending CCT to local authority Information Technology services, and to finance services.

  Following consultation on CCT for legal and construction and property services, Orders were tabled before the House in June and July this year for legal and construction and property services respectively. The papers issued today on IT and finance services will be followed later this year by our detailed proposals for personnel and corporate and administrative services.

  Copies of today's consultation papers will be placed in the Library. They include a definition of each service which includes the provision of a range of IT and finance services but does not capture the users of IT services and excludes financial tasks carried out as part of the normal duties of managers and other administrative staff whose primary responsibility is to a service other than a financial one.

  We recognise that not all of this work is necessarily suited to competitive tendering and potential contracting out. For this reason we propose that local authorities be permitted to carry out up to 30 per cent. by value, of IT work using their own staff without going through competition, all authorities being able to retain a minimum of £300,000 worth of work in-house and free of competitive tendering. This recognises that certain work must be retained in-house both to enable an authority to fulfil its democratic responsibilities and to act as an expert client for bought-in services.

  Similarly, for finance services we propose that the authorities be able to retain 65 per cent. by value of work, with a de minimis exemption of £300,000. An authority will not be able to award any of the remaining 70 per cent. of IT work or 35 per cent. of finance work, to their own staff unless they have won it in fair and open competition.

  As with legal and professional construction and property services, the consultation papers also give details of modifications which we intend to make top the statutory framework for competitive tendering to ensure that authorities will continue to be able to deliver services in a way which meets their own operational objectives.

  Following consideration of comments received on the proposals included in this consultation document, I will submit to the House the statutory instruments required under the Local Government Act 1988 to give effect to our proposals. I anticipate that, subject to the conclusions we draw from consultation and to parliamentary approval of the relevant order, CCT for Finance services will take effect from 1 October 1996 in metropolitan districts, London boroughs and certain other defined authorities; and that CCT for IT services will come into effect one year later than originally proposed, from 1 October 1997. This will place IT CCT at the end of the extension programme, allowing authorities, if they wish, to deal with market testing of IT work once the outcome of competition for services which are the principal customers for IT is clear.
  543
  For counties and shire districts CCT for both services will take effect once the Local Government Commission's review of local authority structure has been completed and, where appropriate, changes have been made. CCT for these services for the new police authorities will be subject to separate consultation.

  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales are issuing separate consultation papers. The proposals contained therein follow much of what I have outlined above, although implementation dates will take account of the programme for local government restructuring in both those countries. A separate consultation exercise is currently taking place in Scotland on the timetable for Scottish authorities.

  Experience with the manual services already subject to CCT has shown that competition brings not only financial savings, but also significant improvements in the management, efficiency and quality of public services. I fully expect that CCT will bring the same benefits to IT, finance and other white-collar work.

  Construction Industry (Corporation Tax)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount of corporation tax was paid by the construction sector in each year since 1979.

  Sir George Young
  I have been asked to reply.

  Corporation tax paid by companies in the construction sector is as follows:

  £million

  1979–80

  130

  1980–81

  140

  1981–82

  160

  1982–83

  200

  1983–84

  230

  1984–85

  250

  1985–86

  320

  1986–87

  370

  1987–88

  570

  1988–89

  820

  1989–90

  1,270

  1990–91

  1,240

  1991–92

  890

  1992–93

  710

  1993–94

  520

  Notes:

  Figures for 1985–86 and earlier years are estimates based on corporation tax liability.

  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on his plans for legislation applying the requirement to conduct environmental impact assessments under directive 85/337/EEC specifically to offshore oil and gas exploration, appraisal or production projects;

  (2) in what way current United Kingdom legislation applies the requirement to conduct environmental impact assessments under directive 85/337/EEC specifically to offshore oil and gas exploration, appraisal or production projects.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answers 24 October 1994]: Environmental assessments are required by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and
  544
  Industry before consent is given in respect of the operation of any offshore oil or gas production installation within 25 miles of the coast. In addition, beyond 25 miles, environmental assessments are required for production installations in environmentally sensitive areas identified in consultation with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what statistical method is used by the Leeds development corporation in calculating the number of jobs created; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: The number of jobs created is calculated annually by economic consultants employed by Leeds development corporation. Figures are derived from a survey of all completed developments, both new-build and conversions, within the urban development area, to establish how many full-time equivalent jobs have been created.

  EC Directives
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, what United Kingdom legislation implements the environmental impact assessments Directive (85/337/EEC) with respect to projects which do not fall within the planning process and are not governed by the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (SI No. 1199).

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: The main regulations which implement Directive 85/337/EEC in the United Kingdom for projects which are not governed by the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (SI No. 1199) are as follows:
  Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1988 (SI No. 1221 (S. 122))
  Environmental Assessment (Salmon Farming in Marine Waters) Regulations 1988 (SI No. 1218)
  Environmental Assessment (Afforestation) Regulations 1988 (SI No. 1207)
  Land Drainage Improvement Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (SI No. 1217)
  Highways (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (SI No. 1241)
  Harbour Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (SI No. 1336)
  Harbour Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) (No. 2) Regulations 1989 (SI No. 424)
  Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1989 (SR No. 20)
  Electricity and Pipe-Line Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1990 (SI No. 442)
  Environmental Assessment (Afforestation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1989 (SR No. 226)
  Harbour Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1990 (SR No. 181)
  Drainage (Environmental Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1991 (SR No. 376)
  Harbour Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1992 (SI No. 1421)
  Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) Rules 1992 (SI No. 2902)
  Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 (SI No. 3160 (NI 15)) Article 67)
  545
  A number of minor amending regulations have also been issued.

  "Quality in Town and Country"
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those individuals and organisations who responded to the document, "Quality in Town and Country;" and if he will place copies of these responses in the Library.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 17 October 1994]: Yes. A list of responses received, excluding any who asked that their response be confidential, will be placed in the Libraries of the House on 1 November. Copies of individual responses will be available through the Library once our analysis of them has been completed.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the total amount spent on official hospitality by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies for each year since 1990.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The amount spent on hospitality by(a) the Northern Ireland Office and NI Departments and (b) their agencies for each year since 1990 is as follows:

  (a) NIO and NI Departments

  (b) Agencies

  1990–91

  294,819

  7,443

  1991–92

  276,583

  27,541

  1992–93

  503,846

  36,752

  1993–94

  511,350

  45,770

  NIO records for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are unavailable as they were destroyed in a fire.

  Hualon Corporation
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether his Department has yet made a full response to the points which were raised with him at his meeting on 11 August with the representatives of the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance in connection with the proposed grant to the Hualon corporation in connection with the development of new textile facilities in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: My right hon. and learned Friend responded in full to the points raised at the 11 August meeting by way of letter to my hon. Friend dated 11 October 1994.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what recent representations he has received concerning the proposed grant to the Hualon Corporation in connection with the development of new textile facilities in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: Apart from meeting the hon. Member and two representatives from Coats Viyella and Council of British Cotton textiles since July 1994, Ministers have received two written representations—both from individuals.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Guatemala
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to support the immediate resettlement of refugees returning to Guatemala under the terms of the 8 October 1992 accord, and to support the establishment and work of the Technical Commission agreed to under the 17 June 1994 accord for the resettlement of populations displaced by the armed conflict.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are major contributors both bilaterally and through the EU to UNHCR who continue to play an important role in the repatriation process. We have urged all sides to ensure that returnees can do so safely, to areas where adequate advance provision has been made for their reception. Together with EU partners we have made clear our intention to play a full part in supporting the peace process, including the resettlement of displaced persons.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid is being allotted to Indonesia in the current financial year.

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1994–95 we expect to spend about £40 million in Indonesia under the bilateral aid programme.

  Population and Development Conference
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he intends to take following the final resolutions of the Cairo international conference on population and development.

  Mr. Baldry
  We will be seeking to identify sound projects in population and reproductive health field so that by the end of next year we will have committed the £100 million of aid announced in July by my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. We will extend access to reproductive health services through intensified co-operation with the United Nations population fund and our other partners, including the private sector.

  The Gambia
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his European counterparts regarding aid to The Gambia.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have had extensive discussions with our European partners. On 12 October the EU announced that, in the absence of a timetable for an early return to constitutional government, they were suspending all military co-operation and balance of payments support to The Gambia; and would review new aid projects on a case by case basis.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much bilateral aid has been allocated to Rwanda since April.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have committed £60 million for Rwandan displaced and refugees in neighbouring countries since April 1994; £33 million of this is bilateral emergency aid and £27 million is our share of EC aid.
  547
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he is providing to the Governments of Zaire, Tanzania and Uganda to help them to cope with the influx of refugees from Rwanda.

  Mr. Baldry
  Our emergency aid is normally provided to operational field agencies. Almost all our £33 million bilateral emergency aid has been allocated through such agencies for relief activities and to encourage the safe return of refugees to Rwanda, which is the best help that we can give to neighbouring countries.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what steps he is taking to assist with the voluntary repatriation of refugees to Rwanda;

  (2) what assistance is being given to the new Government of Rwanda to assist with rehabilitation and reconstruction.

  Mr. Baldry
  Our present emphasis is to help create conditions within Rwanda which will encourage refugees to return. Thus we have recently provided over £2 million to NGOs involved in immediate rehabilitation, including seeds and tools provision, restarting of health care services and tracing and registration of unaccompanied children. In addition, £100,000 of equipment has been provided towards the re-establishment of the Rwanda Ministries of Health and of Rehabilitation and Social Integration.

  We have also made grants to UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration, who are helping refugees return to Rwanda.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other aid donor Governments regarding provision of financial compensation to the Government of Tanzania for the environmental degradation caused by the influx of refugees from Rwanda.

  Mr. Baldry
  None. However, we recognise the importance of mitigating environmental degradation and have provided £35,000 to the non-governmental organisation, CARE, in support of an environmental impact assessment.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the United Kingdom is providing to the Government of Rwanda in re-establishing and training a civilian police force.

  Mr. Baldry
  In response to a request from the Government of Rwanda, a training programme, aimed at providing trainees with a basic knowledge of routine and investigative police work to enable them to address the immediate law and order problems in Kigali is now under way under UNAMIR auspices.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State, for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance. the United Kingdom is providing in the clearance of land mines in Rwanda.

  Mr. Baldry
  In response to a UN request, we provided mine detecting equipment valued at £30,000 to assist in 548
  the training of Rwandan teams. We are awaiting the outcome of current UN assessments.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Operation Lifeline Sudan has been able to send humanitarian aid to northern Bahr al Ghazal in Sudan; and what reports he has on the physical condition of the people in the region.

  Mr. Baldry
  Between January and August Operation Lifeline Sudan delivered 3,741 tonnes of food aid to more than 105,000 beneficiaries in Bahr el Ghazal as well as health care, seeds, tools and fishing equipment and veterinary care to promote food security. The rains have brought good prospects for harvests and pastures.

  OLS is currently assessing humanitarian needs in the region to plan future inputs. The results should be available by the end of this month.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in gaining access for international humanitarian agencies to the Nuba mountains in Sudan.

  Mr. Baldry
  There has been no significant change to the structure of relief aid since the answer that my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member on 10 May 1994 at column 79. However, assessments of 1994–95 humanitarian needs are now taking place at several locations in the transitional zone with participation from United Nations humanitarian agencies.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to amend the procedures relating to the aid and trade provision in the light of the findings of the Foreign Affairs Committee in its third report of Session 1993–94.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government set out our detailed observations in our response, Cm 2672, to the Foreign Affairs Committee's report. The Committee concluded that in principle the thrust of the reforms introduced in June 1993 following the ATP review was to be broadly welcomed, and that the ATP should continue. The Government have no immediate plans for further amendments to the procedures for operating the ATP, but they remain under constant review.

  Jordan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any debts from Jordan to Britain have been written off since the Israeli-Jordanian peace accord; and what future plans there are for such writing-off.

  Mr. Baldry
  All aid debts owed by Jordan to Britain have been forgiven following the Washington declaration by Israel and Jordan. There are currently no plans for further forgiveness of other official Jordanian debt.

  Refugee Camps, Zaire
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the United Kingdom is providing with security arrangements for aid workers in the refugee camps at Goma in Zaire.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have received no requests from aid workers for assistance in security arrangements, but we are closely monitoring situation reports from UN officials and remain in regular contact with aid organisations working in Goma.

  Pergau Dam
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the consortium of British companies involved in the Pergau hydro-electric project in the light of his observations on the third report from the Foreign Affairs Committee of Session 1993–94 (Cm 2672).

  Agencies

  PSD

  VMD

  CVL

  CSL

  ADAS

  1992–93

  12,928·01

  4,172·15

  9,672·00

  1993–94

  379·66

  942·13

  16,720·85

  4,744·80

  11,775·13

  1994–953

  128·15

  699·00

  8,957·27

  6,123·78

  10,766·67

  1 Inclusive of agencies except where indicated in table.

  2 Higher cost reflects the launching of both the ADAS and CSL Agencies.

  3 To end of September 1994.

  The principal items included in this expenditure were given on 27 October 1993, Official Report, column 659.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of press officers currently employed by his Department who are normally based(a) in the Department in London, (b) in the House and (c) at each other location.

  Mr. Jack
  MAFF employs a chief press officer and six press officers, all of whom are based at the Department's headquarters in Whitehall place, London.

  Milk Deliveries
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the figures for the amount of milk supplied to customers by doorstep deliveries in 1979, 1984, 1989 and the year to 30 June 1994, in terms of quantity in litres, value, and as a percentage of total milk sales.

  Mr. Jack
  The information for England and Wales is as follows:

  Year (ending 30 June)

  Doorstep sales(million litres)1

  Percentage of total household sales1

  Retail value £ million2

  1979

  5,146

  89·3

  1,492

  1984

  4,672

  85·8

  1,766

  550
  Mr. Baldry
  None.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total amount spent on official hospitality by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Jack
  The following amounts have been spent on official hospitality in each year since 1990–91:

  Department1

  1990–91

  £65,229·48

  1001–922

  £89,014·54

  1992–93

  £53,542·64

  1993–94

  £78,436·40

  1994–953

  £26,365·30

  1 Inclusive of agencies except where indicated in table.

  2 Higher cost reflects the launching of both the ADAS and CSL agencies.

  3 To end of September 1994.

  Year (ending 30 June)

  Doorstep sales(million litres)1

  Percentage of total household sales1

  Retail value £ million2

  1989

  3,808

  74·3

  1,869

  1994

  2,663

  53·8

  1,686

  1 National Dairy Council calculation based on Milk Marketing Board (England and Wales) estimates.

  2 National Dairy Council estimates. Absolute value.

  Milk Marque
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure equity of treatment in the transitional period before vesting day for milk producers who have contracted to Milk Marque and those who have not.

  Mr. Jack
  In the period between now and vesting day the milk marketing scheme remains in force. It would be unlawful for the milk marketing board to discriminate arbitrarily between producers. The ministry is continuing to monitor the board's activities as required by EC regulations.

TRANSPORT

  M11 Link Road
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement about the damage done to the gas main outside Wanstead station by workers on the
  551
  M11 link road and the consequences to the health of the local population of the resulting gas vapours;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed M11 link road on rights in respect of the free movement of cattle in the Whipps Cross area; what proposals he has to restrict those rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  These questions are operational matters for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 25 October 1994:
  The Minister for Transport in London has asked me to write to you in response to your Parliamentary Questions about the Al2 Hackney Wick to M1 I Link Road since they are operational matters for the Highways Agency.
  We are not intending to restrict the rights in respect of cattle in the Whipps Cross area, indeed, links across Epping Forest will be improved as a result of the Link Road. The layout of the existing Green Man Roundabout is being revised to accommodate slip roads to and from the Link Road which will pass under the junction in tunnel. As well as providing a special bridge over the Underground railway for pedestrians, equestrians, cyclists and cattle, a separate tunnel under the roundabout will allow safe passage, segregated from traffic, between the northern section of Epping Forest and Bush Wood and beyond to Wanstead Flats. This is a significant improvement on the existing situation where busy roads must be crossed. These proposals were fully discussed at the 1987 Public Inquiry into the Link Road.
  In order to prevent cattle from straying on to the Link Road once it is opened, we are proposing to install cattle grids on the slip roads at the new Green Man Roundabout, having consulted the local authorities and the Conservators of Epping Forest.
  The incident involving the gas pipe fracture at Mansfield Road was an unfortunate accident. The sub-contractor constructing a new sewer, was lowering a steel frame into a trench and hit a gas pipe at or close to a joint causing it to fracture. As a precautionary measure, British Gas sealed off the area, including Wanstead Station, while they repaired the pipe. It is our belief that there was little danger to the public as a result of the fracture, but we regret the inconvenience that was caused.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total amount spent on official hospitality by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Norris
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Department of Transport

  1990–91 — £204,040

  1991–92 — £170,015

  1992–93 — £233,762

  1993–94 — £234,986

  1994–95 — 1£63,969

  (b) Agencies

  1990–91 — £24,114

  1991–92 — £30,216

  1992–93 — £45,454

  1993–94 — £59,850

  1994–95 — 2£64,692

  1To 20 October 1994 only
  2To 30 September 1994 only

  Transport Statistics
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department published the 1994 552
  edition of "Transport Statistics Great Britain;" what were the main trends established in the report; and to whom it has been circulated.

  Mr. Watts
  The 1994 edition of "Transport Statistics Great Britain" was published on 28 September. Copies of the report were distributed widely, and also deposited in the Libraries of the House. The main trends established in the report were listed in the press notice which accompanied the publication of the report.

  Railway Investment
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much Railtrack will invest in track and signalling maintenance and repair in 1994–95;

  (2) how much will be invested in track and signalling renewals and new build schemes on the British railway network in 1994–95.

  Mr. Watts
  In 1994–95 Railtrack expects to spend some £550 million on investment in track and signalling, including some £100 million for channel tunnel services; and some £800 million for the maintenance of track, signalling and telecommunications.

  British Rail
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much (i) British Rail and (ii) Railtrack expect to spend this year on(a) lobbying Parliament and (b) press and public relations.

  Mr. Watts
  BR's headquarters public affairs department has a budget of £2.4m, but information in respect of individual business units, who have their own public affairs budgets as part of their overall management costs, is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Railtrack's headquarters press and public relations office has a budget of some £1 million. Neither has a special budget for lobbying Parliament.

  Bedford-Bletchley Railway
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards the use of the Bedford-Bletchley railway; and if he will give figures of the number of passengers who use the service and the profitability rating, after county council subsidy, of the cross-country link.

  Mr. Watts
  About 800 passengers use the Bedford-Bletchley services each weekday. No notice of any proposal to withdraw these services has been given. The financial performance of the services is a matter for the British Railways Board.

  MV Derbyshire
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to undertake a complete camera inspection of the located wreck of MV `Derbyshire'; and what assessment he has made of the relevance of such an inspection to future building and operational safety for ships of this type.

  Mr. Norris
  The marine accident investigation branch has been considering the sonar and video material supplied by the International Transport Workers Federation. We expect to receive a report from the chief
  553
  inspector of marine accidents very soon. We will then consider what further action needs to be taken.

  Night Blindness
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider making it a condition for the grant of a motor vehicle licence that the applicant should be subject to a test for night blindness.

  Mr. Norris
  Complete night blindness is a very rare condition, and such a general test would not be appropriate. It is notifiable under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and is normally a bar to driving. However, special tests are used to see whether a person so affected is capable of adequate vision driving at night using vehicle headlights. Night blindness is not to be confused with night myopia which is more common and not notifiable as it is normally overcome by vehicle headlights and street lighting.

  Nitric Acid
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 17 October,Official Report, columns 94–95, if he is aware of any planned import of radioactive nitric acid by sea from the United States of America.

  Mr. Norris
  I understand that the United States subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels plc has recently agreed a contract with the United States Department of Energy to recycle radioactive nitric acid from the Westinghouse Hanford site in. Washington state. The acid will be carried in purpose-built containers which comply with all national and international regulations.

  Channel Tunnel Link
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the reasons for not including a connection between the channel tunnel railway and crossrail in the tender documents recently issued to the four bidding consortia.

  Mr. Watts
  It will be for the private sector in taking forward the two railways to decide whether they want a connection and, if they do, to seek the necessary powers and to pay for it.

  Traffic Regulation Orders
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the temporary traffic regulation orders for which he has authorised an extension under section 15(5) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as amended by the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act 1991, stating in each case(a) the name of the authority making the order, (b) the public rights of way stopped up by the order, (c) the duration of the extension and (d) why he granted the extension.

  Mr. Norris
  This information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Railtrack (Safety Objectives)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will set safety objectives for Railtrack in respect of level crossings.
  554
  Mr. Watts
  This is a matter for Railtrack who have undertaken to include a safety objective for level crossings in the railway group safety plan for 1995–96.

  Personal Injury Accidents
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, columns 119–20, if he will publish the latest figures for personal injury accidents involving minibuses and motor caravans by police area from 1990 to 1993.

  Mr. Norris
  The required information is shown in the table.

  Personal injury accidents involving minibuses/motor caravans, by police force area: GB 1990–1993

  Police area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Metropolitan police

  114

  136

  133

  128

  Cumbria

  22

  28

  24

  32

  Lancashire

  37

  39

  48

  32

  Merseyside

  68

  77

  74

  86

  Greater Manchester

  109

  93

  82

  95

  Cheshire

  43

  37

  49

  29

  Northumbria

  24

  20

  18

  20

  Durham

  8

  17

  16

  9

  North Yorkshire

  56

  34

  44

  37

  West Yorkshire

  38

  30

  32

  36

  South Yorkshire

  48

  40

  42

  34

  Humberside

  28

  26

  25

  18

  Cleveland

  19

  11

  4

  8

  West Midlands

  51

  59

  55

  60

  Staffordshire

  28

  23

  21

  36

  West Mercia

  36

  18

  15

  22

  Warwickshire

  8

  9

  14

  12

  Derbyshire

  7

  6

  6

  11

  Nottinghamshire

  32

  20

  16

  31

  Lincolnshire

  40

  20

  27

  25

  Leicestershire

  58

  27

  40

  41

  Northamptonshire

  22

  25

  16

  7

  Cambridgeshire

  32

  40

  33

  26

  Norfolk

  51

  39

  26

  31

  Suffolk

  11

  18

  15

  25

  Bedfordshire

  13

  16

  17

  11

  Hertfordshire

  22

  18

  16

  16

  Essex

  42

  51

  49

  52

  Thames Valley

  52

  64

  65

  59

  Hampshire

  77

  74

  75

  81

  Surrey

  40

  26

  23

  25

  Kent

  78

  79

  56

  91

  Sussex

  63

  56

  63

  46

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  58

  34

  47

  52

  Avon and Somerset

  31

  48

  27

  27

  Gloucestershire

  18

  23

  17

  18

  Wiltshire

  8

  6

  20

  16

  Dorset

  24

  27

  23

  29

  North Wales

  41

  44

  34

  46

  Gwent

  24

  25

  19

  29

  South Wales

  51

  57

  65

  102

  Dyfed-Powys

  27

  35

  32

  27

  Northern

  27

  31

  26

  27

  Grampian

  40

  18

  22

  21

  Tayside

  17

  15

  14

  9

  Fife

  20

  11

  11

  12

  Lothian and Borders

  21

  36

  20

  18

  Central

  9

  6

  14

  16

  Strathclyde

  122

  88

  76

  74

  Dumfries and Galloway

  11

  10

  5

  6

  Total

  1,926

  1,790

  1,711

  1,801

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he plans to consider objections to the under-sea part of the proposed Scotland to Northern Ireland interconnector.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 15 July 1994]: The Department received an application for consent under section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 to the laying of an under-sea power cable from Ayrshire to Island Magee. Section 34 is only concerned with obstruction or danger to navigation. The application was advertised. No objections were received. A consent solely for the purposes of section 34 was issued on 22 February 1994.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Press Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number of press officers currently employed by his Department who are normally based(a) in the Department in London, (b) in the House and (c) at each other location.

  Mr. Heseltine
  (a) Seventeen (b) None (c) None. Some agencies directly accountable to the Department also employ full or part-time press officers.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many times during the 1993–94 Session information requested in parliamentary questions has been refused on the ground of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department has refused information requested in parliamentary questions on the grounds of commercial confidentiality on 50 occasions during the 1993–94 Session.

  Lord Archer
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) who decided that his Department should make a public statement on 7 July that Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare was the subject of an inquiry into alleged insider dealing;

  (2) what were the reasons for his Department's statement on 7 July that Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare was the subject of an inquiry into alleged insider dealing.

  Mr. Heseltine
  On 8 February 1994 I appointed two inspectors under section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986 to investigate possible insider dealing in relation to an agreed bid made by MAI plc for Anglia Television Group plc. On 7 July 1994 I was informed that The Times newspaper had informed my Department that it intended to publish the existence of the investigation and that Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare was concerned with the investigation. On the same day I was also informed that MAI plc had confirmed the existence of the investigation.

  I took the decision to issue a statement in the light of these circumstances.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of 556
  Trade what has been the (a) budgeted and (b) total cost of the inquiry into the allegations of insider trading involving Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare.

  Mr. Heseltine
  It is not my Department's practice to disclose details of individuals from whom legal advice is obtained. Both the advice and its source is regarded as confidential.

  Aluminium Industry
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has made to the European Commission to investigate state aids to the aluminium producers Inespal of Spain and Pechiney of France; and what response he has received.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has drawn these cases to the Commission's attention. The Commission has investigated the claims, but has so far found no evidence to substantiate them. We will continue to monitor the situation carefully.

  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has made to the EFTA surveillance authority to investigate state aids to the aluminium producer Austria Metal; and what response he has received.

  Mr. Eggar
  Following representations from my Department, the Commission agreed to draw this case to the attention of the EFTA surveillance authority. When we have a response I will write to inform my right hon. Friend of the result.

  Konver Funding
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether EU Konver funding will be available for the Doncaster area; and how this money will be administered and distributed.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government's view, conveyed to the European Commission on 1 August as it requested, is that the whole of South Yorkshire, including Doncaster, should be eligible for the renewed programme of Konver grants. The Commission's decision was due on 1 October.

  Before any grants can be approved, the eligible areas have to be settled, a United Kingdom operational programme document has to be sent to the Commission and approved by it, and applications examined against the terms of the document. Administrative details will be settled in good time.

  Post Office
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to support the recommendations of the Institute of Directors for full privatisation of the Post Office with no protected monopoly or uniform price guarantee.

  Mr. Eggar
  No

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been spent by his Department on preparations for the privatisation of the Post Office since he announced his review of its ownership and structure in the House in July 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: The Government announced their intention to privatise Parcelforce on 15 July 1992 and announced the review of

  557
  the structure and organisation of the Post Office on 29 July 1992. From those dates to 24 October 1994 a total of £1,613,002·28 has been spent on consultancy advice.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been spent by the Post Office on making the case for its own privatisation since he announced his review of its ownership and structure in the House in July 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: This is an operational matter for the Post Office.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidelines he has issued to the Post Office on expenditure incurred by it arguing for its own privatisation.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: No guidelines have been issued.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will instruct the Post Office board, with effect from the announcement of his review of the structure and ownership of the Post Office in July 1992, to embargo any moves of senior personnel from Post Office Counters to Royal Mail or Parcelforce if his plans go ahead.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: No.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for the operation of the Post Office Investigation Department if he privatises Royal Mail but keeps Post Office Counters in the public sector.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: The Green Paper makes it clear that the future of activities which are not part of Post Office Counters, Royal Mail or Parcelforce will depend on the decisions reached overall.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what account he has taken of a copy of a report by London Economics entitled "The Future of Postal Services - a critique of the Government's Green Paper", a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: We have read the London Economics report with considerable interest. In the Government's view it has not fully dealt with the difficulties in its proposals, but it is a worthwhile contribution to the debate.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what account he has taken of a MORI poll conducted in August on the views of the Post Office managers on privatisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: We have taken full account of all considered responses to the Green Paper.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many individual submissions he received from sub-postmasters on his Green Paper, "The Future of Postal Services"; and what account he has taken of an opinion poll conducted by MORI in August on the views of sub-postmasters about privatisation.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: We have received very few responses from individual sub-postmasters. We are aware of the opinion poll referred to.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to extend VAT to(a) contract parcels traffic undertaken by the Post Office and (b) Royal Mail letter and packet traffic.
  558
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: The Green Paper "The Future of Postal Services" made clear that the universal letter and parcels services, which under any option Royal Mail and Parcelforce will continue to provide, will remain exempt from VAT. It also made clear that the Government would be considering, in the light of EC law, the imposition of VAT on non-obligatory services, including contract parcels, provided by Royal Mail and Parcelforce. No decision has been taken.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has quantified the estimated value of the new commercial freedoms to be made available to Post Office Counters, outlined in his Green Paper, "The Future of Postal Services"; and whether this value will exceed the estimated value of the business lost by Post Office Counters over the next five years as Government Departments and the Royal Mail move business away from them.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: No. Any projections about increases in volume from new business, or increases or decreases in existing business, are an operational matter for Post Office Counters.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what was the response of the Mail Users National Council to his Green Paper, "The Future of Postal Services", and when he last met its representatives;

  (2) what was the response of the Post Office Users National Council to his Green Paper, "The Future of Postal Services"; and when he last met its representatives;

  (3) what was the response of the Periodical Publishers Association to his Green Paper, "The Future of Postal Services"; and when he last met its representatives;

  (4) what was the response of the Direct Marketing Association to his Green Paper, "The Future of Postal Services"; and when he last met its representatives;

  (5) what was the response of Protecting Postal services to his Green Paper, "The Future of Postal Services"; and when he last met its representatives.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answers 24 October 1994]: It is for respondents to make public their views if they choose to do so. I have met none of the organisations mentioned. My hon. Friend The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Industry and Energy met representatives of the Post Office Users National Council on 8 September and of the Protecting Postal Services on 12 September.

  Offshore Licensing
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the organisations his Department has consulted concerning the 16th round of offshore licensing, giving dates of any meetings with environmental organisations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: Listed are the organisations which my Department has consulted over the 16th round. Those environmental organisations which officials have met are indicated on the list.

  In addition, officials are arranging a joint meeting later this month with all other environmental groups who have requested a meeting or have provided substantive comments on the 16th round.
  559

  ORGANISATIONS CONSULTED OVER THE 16TH ROUND OF OIL AND GAS LICENSING
  Other Government Departments:

  Crown Estate

  Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland

  Department of Economic Development (Northern Ireland)

  Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland)

  Department of the Environment

  Department of Transport

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Health and Safety Inspectorate

  H M Inspectorate of Mines

  H M Treasury

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Ministry of Defence

  The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department

  The Scottish Office Industry Department

  The Welsh Office

  Environmental organisations and groups:

  Countryside Commission

  Dyfed Wildlife Trust

  Friends of Cardigan Bay (meeting held on 4 August 1994)

  Friends of the Earth Cymru

  Greenpeace

  Joint Countryside Advisory Service

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee (meeting held on 21 October 1994)

  who in turn consult—

  English Nature (meeting held on 21 October 1994)

  Countryside Council for Wales (meeting held on 21 October 1994)

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (meeting held on 21 October 1994)

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  Sea Mammal Research Unit

  Narberth Friends of the Earth

  The National Trust (meeting held on 26 August 1994

  RSNC Wildlife Trusts Partnership

  Strangford Lough Management Committee

  The Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust

  Wildlife and Countryside Link

  World Wide Fund For Nature

  Local groups:

  Cardigan bay Forum

  Dyfed Joint Liaison Group

  Gwynedd Standing Conference

  North Wales Coastal Forum

  Irish Sea Forum

  Offshore Minerals Forum - East Coast Authorities

  Standing Conference on Oil and Gas Exploration in the English Channel

  Local authorities - England:

  Avon County Council

  Cheshire County Council

  Cleveland County Council

  Cornwall County Council

  Cumbria County Council

  Devon County Council

  Dorset County Council

  Durham County Council

  East Sussex County Council

  560

  Essex County Council

  Humberside County Council

  Isle of Wight County Council

  Kent County Council

  Lancashire County Council

  Lincolnshire County Council

  Merseyside County Council

  Norfolk County Council

  Northumberland County Council

  North Yorkshire County Council

  Sefton Borough Council

  Somerset County Council

  Suffolk County Council

  Tyne and Wear County Council

  West Sussex County Council

  Local authorities - Wales:

  Clwyd County Council

  Dyfed County Council

  Gwent County Council

  Gwynedd County Council

  Mid Glamorgan County Council

  Pembrokeshire District Council

  South Glamorgan County Council

  West Glamorgan County Council

  Local Authorities - Northern Ireland:

  Antrim Borough Council

  Ards Borough Council

  Carrickfergus Borough Council

  Down Borough Council

  Newry and Mourne District Council

  Local authorities - Scotland

  Borders Regional Council

  Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council

  Fife Regional Council

  Grampian Regional Council

  Highland Regional Council

  Lothian Regional Council

  Orkney Islands Council

  Shetland Regional Council

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Tayside Regional Council

  Western Isles Regional Council

  Fishermen's federations and organisations:

  Association of Scotland Shellfish Growers

  The Association of Sea Fisheries Committees of England and Wales

  Firth of Forth Fishermen's Association

  Federation of Highlands and Islands Fishermen

  Highlands and Islands Fishermen's Association

  National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations

  Orkney Fisheries Association

  The Northern Ireland Fish Producers' Organisation Ltd

  Scottish Fishermen's Federation

  Southern Seas Fisheries District Fishermen's Council

  Ullerpool Boat Owners Association

  Other Organisations

  British Aerospace Defence Ltd

  British Coal Corporation

  British Telecommunication plc

  561

  Cleveland Potash Limited

  Isle of Man Government Offices

  Mercury Communications Limited

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on how his Department applies the Government's commitment to the precautionary principle contained in "Sustainable Development; The United Kingdom Strategy", paragraph 3.12 to licensing oil exploration, especially in environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: A central concern for United Kingdom policy with regard to sustainable development, will be to reconcile the demand for energy with the need to reduce the impact of its exploitation, generation and use on the environment. However, these concerns are not incompatible with the continued need for hydrocarbon exploration around the United Kingdom coast. The Government will apply the precautionary principle where there is a threat of serious or irreversible damage to the environment. There is no evidence to suggest that oil and gas exploration activity poses such a threat.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all the environmental organisations which have made representations to him either individually or in consortia, concerning the 16th round of offshore licensing; which organisations urged a complete suspension of the round; and which urged suspension in specific areas or blocks.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: Listed are the environmental organisations which have made representations to my Department concerning the 16th round. None of these has urged the complete suspension of the round. The organisations which have urged suspension of specific areas or blocks have been indicated on the list.
  ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANISATIONS WHO HAVE MADE REPRESENTATIONS TO DTI OVER THE 16m ROUND.

  Countryside Commission

  Cumbria Wildlife Trust (i)

  Devon Wildlife Trust (i)

  Dorset Trust for Nature Conservation (i)

  Dyfed Wildlife Trust (i)

  Friends of Cardigan Bay (i)

  Friends of the Earth Cymru (i)

  Greenpeace (i)

  Joint Countryside Advisory Service

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee (i) — co-ordination of the view of —

  Countryside Council for Wales

  English Nature

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  Sea Mammals Research Unit

  The National Trust

  North Wales Wildlife Trust (i)

  North Yorkshire Moors National Park (i)

  Strangford Lough Management Committee (i)

  The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (i)

  Wildlife and Countryside Link (i)—representation made on behalf of the following organisations (some of which have replied separately)—

  Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales

  Environment Investigation Agency

  562

  Friends of the Earth

  Friends of the Earth Cymru

  Friends of Cardigan Bay

  Greenpeace

  Marine Conservation Society

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

  Royal Society for the protection of Birds

  The Wildlife Trusts

  Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

  World Wide Fund for Nature

  Wildlife Trusts (Royal Society for Nature Conservation) (i)

  World Wide Fund for Nature (i)

  (i) Organisations who have urged suspension of specific blocks or areas.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the current regulations governing the repayment by the Child Support Agency to absent parents of any overpayment made by absent parents in respect of child support maintenance.

  Mr. Burt
  There are no regulations that permit the Child Support Agency to repay to absent parents any overpaid maintenance. Regulation 10 of the Child Support (Arrears, Interest and Adjustment of Maintenance Assessments) Regulations 1992 does, however, provide that a child support officer may adjust the current maintenance assessment where it has retrospective effect or where there has been an underpayment or overpayment of maintenance.

  "New Outlook"
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many copies of "New Outlook" were distributed direct to claimants; and what measures were taken to ensure that "New Outlook" was not sent to claimants who could not be eligible for the new child allowance;

  (2) what was the total cost of preparing, printing and distributing "New Outlook".

  Mr. Burt
  "New Outlook", a newspaper-style compilation of information on in-work benefits and Government training schemes, was distributed to lone parents on income support with a youngest child aged nine years or over — total of 260,702 families.

  "New Outlook" contained information on a wide range of help likely to be of interest to lone parents who might be thinking of returning to work. It was not intended solely to publicise the new help with childcare charges.

  The total cost of preparing, printing and distributing "New Outlook" was £74,009·30 inclusive of VAT.

  Pensions
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will publish the text of the letter currently being sent to pensioners advocating the payment of pensions through bank accounts rather than at post offices.
  563
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  There is currently no letter going from this Department to retirement pensioners advocating the payment of pensions through bank accounts rather than at the post office.

  People approaching retirement age are sent a pack containing a claim form covering all payment methods and leaflet AC 1 explaining payment to an account, including Girobank and National Savings accounts at post offices. Copies of the pension claim form and this leaflet are available in the Library.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether it is Government policy to seek by voluntary means a reduction in the proportion of pensions paid through post offices.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Our policy is to offer pensioners the choice of receiving their benefit over a post office counter or having it paid directly into a bank or building society account, including Girobank and national savings accounts at post offices.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the numbers of people who will claim incapacity benefit in 1995–96 and 1996– 97.

  Mr. Hague
  We forecast that around 1·1 million new claims' to incapacity benefit will be made in each of the years 1995–96 and 1996–97.Source: forecast based upon the projection of past trends in the data, rounded to the nearest 100,000.
  Notes:
  A "new claim" means a claim submitted at the beginning of a spell of incapacity for work. If a person has several separate spells of incapacity for work during the year, each spell is included as a new claim. The figure includes new claims which will not result in a payment of benefit.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total spending on housing benefit to the private sector in(a) 1993–94 and (b) to date in the current year; and what was the average amount per week of housing benefit paid in (i) the private sector, (ii) the council sector and (iii) the housing association sector.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The provisional total for housing benefit paid to private tenants in 1993–94 is £3,817 million; the forecast for 1994–95 is £4,320 million.

  The average weekly housing benefit at the end of May 1993 was

  £

  council tenants

  28·94

  housing association tenants

  35·75

  other private tenants

  46·80

  Sources:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System. DSS Departmental Report 1994.

  The May 1994 figures are not yet available.

  Disability Allowances
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of income support disability premium since April 1993 have had this premium withdrawn following a decision that they are capable of work; how many of these appealed; and in how many of these appeals the claimants were successful.
  564
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of income support in each region also receive the disability premium; and how many receive the disability premium by reason only of their incapacity to work.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table:

  Region

  Total number on IS in receipt of the disability premium

  Numbers in receipt of the disability premium because of incapacity1

  North Eastern

  84,000

  47,000

  London North

  84,000

  52,000

  South Western

  31,000

  18,000

  Midlands

  82,000

  43,000

  North Western

  103,000

  61,000

  London South

  67,000

  43,000

  Wales

  44,000

  28,000

  Scotland

  73,000

  48,000

  Total

  568,000

  340,000

  1over twenty eight weeks incapacitated for work, and people who receive invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance. People who qualify because they are registered blind or are provided with an invalid carriage are also included. The figure does not include those who qualify because of receipt of disability living allowance, attendance allowance, or disability working allowance.

  Source:
  Income Support Statistical Enquiry November 1993.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each public opinion survey commissioned by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies since 1 October 1992, showing for each the subject, objectives, total cost, the period in which it was conducted and the organisation from which it was commissioned.

  Mr. Hague
  The public opinion surveys conducted since 1 October 1992 by the Department of Social Security and its agencies are as follows:

  1. Benefits Agency

  (a) Title–1993 BA National Customer Survey

  Objective—To measure the satisfaction of BA

  customers with service provided

  Contractor—Public Attitude Surveys Ltd

  Period of Survey—October to November 1993

  Cost—£187,500

  2. Contributions Agency

  (a) Title–1992 CA Customer Satisfaction Survey

  Objective—To measure the satisfaction of CA

  customers with the service provided

  Contractor—British Market Research Bureau International

  Period of Survey—November to December 1992

  Cost—£75,000

  (b) Title–1993 CA Customer Satisfaction Survey

  Objective—To measure the satisfaction of CA

  customers with the service provided

  Contractor—BMRB International

  565

  Period of Survey—November to December 1993

  Cost—£154,000

  (c) Title–1994 CA Customer Satisfaction Survey

  Objective—To measure the satisfaction of CA

  customers with the service provided

  Contractor—BMRB International

  Period of Survey—November to December 1994

  Cost—£150,000

  3. Resettlement Agency

  (a) Title–1992 Resettlement Agency Customer Satisfaction Survey

  Objective—To measure the satisfaction of RA

  customers with the service provided

  Contractor—BMRB International

  Period of Survey—December 1992

  Cost—£50,000

  (b) Title–1993 RA Customer Satisfaction Survey

  Objective—To measure the satisfaction of RA

  customers with the service provided

  Contractor—BMRB International

  Period of Survey—October 1993

  Cost—£42,000

  (c) Title–1994 RA Customer Satisfaction Survey

  Objective—To measure the satisfaction of RA

  customers with the service provided

  Contractor—BMRB International

  Period of Survey—October 1994

  Cost—£19,500

  4. Child Support Agency

  (a) Title–1993 CSA Customer Satisfaction Survey

  Objective—To measure the satisfaction of CSA

  customers with the service provided

  Contractor—Market and Opinion Research International (MORI)

  Period of Survey—October to November 1993

  Cost—£187,000

  (b) Title–1994 CSA Customer Satisfaction Survey

  Objective—To measure the satisfaction of CSA customers with the service provided

  Contractor—MORI

  Period of Survey—October to December 1994

  Cost—£265,000

  Adjudication Rules
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to make changes to the Social Security (Adjudication) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1994 in response to the suggestion relating to housing costs mentioned by the chief adjudication officer at paragraph 2.7 of his annual report for 1993–94.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Amendments to the social security adjudication regulations were laid yesterday which will come into force on 14 November. These will enable the adjudication officer to adjudicate on those claims where they have insufficient information to decide the amount which may be allowed for items of housing costs. In those cases only those items of housing costs, if any, which can be determined immediately will be included in the applicable amount. Once sufficient information is available to enable other housing costs to be determined, the initial decision will be reviewed. The amendment makes similar provision for cases where it appears that 566
  the severe disability premium may be appropriate, but the AO needs additional information before deciding whether this premium is applicable.

  Incapacity Assessment Panel
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many members of the panel on assessment of incapacity have refused to have their names published; and on what grounds.

  Mr. Hague
  All those who participated as panel members were asked for their agreement to have their names published within the report, "The Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit".

  Ten members responded in the negative.

  Panel members had not been asked to give grounds for refusal and none was provided.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many war pensions are being paid to former service personnel in respect of asbestos-related conditions;

  (2) how many war pensions have been awarded to former service personnel since 1964 in respect of asbestos-related conditions;

  (3) how many service personnel have received war pensions because of deafness since 1964.

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

  Press Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of press officers currently employed by his Department who are normally based(a) in the Department in London, (b) in the House and (c) at each other location.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The number of press officers currently employed by this Department is set out in the table:

  Number

  The Department's headquarters in London

  10

  Seconded HQ press officer to the charity Motability

  1

  The Child Support Agency

  2

  The Contributions Agency

  1

  The War Pensions Agency

  1

  The Benefits Agency:

  National Press Office

  8

  Regional Press Office

  9

  This Department does not have press officers based in the House.

EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff are employed by his Department; and what proportion of them are employed in each of the standard regions.
  567
  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of staff currently employed by the Employment Department Group is 58,457.5. There are no standard regions in the Department. The Employment Department Group consists of four separate organisations: Health and Safety Executive, Employment Service, Employment Department and Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. Each organisation has a separate regional structure. However, the Treasury produces staffing information for standard economic planning regions, and the latest Treasury figures are as follows:

  Scotland

  5,064

  8·66

  Northern

  3,155·5

  5·4

  Yorks and Humber

  7,539

  12·9

  North West

  8,657

  14·8

  East Midlands

  3,593

  6·14

  West Midlands

  4,791·5

  8·19

  Wales

  2,701

  4·62

  East Anglia

  1,303

  2·2

  London and South East

  17,617·5

  30·13

  South West

  4,036

  6·9

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list each public opinion survey commissioned by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies since 1 October 1992, showing for each, the subject, objectives, total cost, the period in which it was conducted and the organisation from which it was commissioned.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Employment Department Group does not commission public opinion surveys. Full details of all research commissioned by the group are published in our annual reports on research. I would be happy to provide the hon. Member with reports for the relevant period if he so wished.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed by the TECs.

  Mr. Paice
  Training and enterprise councils are private companies and as such are not required to provide information on the number of staff they employ.

  Pregnant Workers Directive
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the deadline for incorporating into United Kingdom law the provisions of the EU's pregnant workers directive.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The date is 19 October 1994.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to table regulations implementing the health and safety provisions of the pregnant workers directive.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Draft proposals for regulations to implement the health and safety provisions of the pregnant workers directive were submitted by the Health and Safety Commission on 7 October 1994. I am currently considering these proposals with the aim of tabling regulations as soon as possible.

  Career Development Loans
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications for loans under the career development scheme have been made in 1994–95 for each region and for Great Britain as a whole and how many have been rejected; how many women have been awarded loans; how many training for work participants have been awarded loans endorsed by their training and enterprise council or local enterprise company; what have been the successful course completion rates in each region; how much has been awarded in total for each region and how much has been recovered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Paice
  Information by region on the number of loans approved under the career development loan scheme; numbers of applications rejected; number of loans approved for women; the value of loans approved and the successful course completion rate are shown in the following tables. The information given is for the period 1 April 1994 to 30 September 1994.

  Details of the number of training for work participants and of the amount of money repaid are not available.

  Further information on career development loans can be found in the 1993–94 annual report, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Region

  Number of loans approved

  Rejected applications

  Number of loans for women

  North East

  171

  46

  49

  Merseyside

  107

  36

  53

  North West

  271

  116

  89

  Yorks and Humberside

  414

  138

  152

  West Midlands

  314

  112

  117

  East Midlands

  249

  96

  86

  Eastern

  358

  129

  130

  South East

  816

  283

  333

  London

  1,315

  877

  466

  South West

  494

  129

  192

  Wales

  186

  44

  67

  Scotland

  505

  237

  164

  Great Britain

  5,200

  2,243

  1,898

  Region

  Value of loans (£)

  Course completion rate (per cent.)

  North East

  572,646

  78

  Merseyside

  399,492

  61

  North West

  970,014

  80

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,437,740

  74

  West Midlands

  1,009,404

  71

  East Midlands

  757,669

  67

  Eastern

  1,183,131

  72

  South East

  3,041,895

  82

  London

  4,915,906

  76

  South West

  1,802,144

  66

  Wales

  625,909

  74

  Scotland

  1,502,811

  86

  Great Britain

  18,218,761

  75

  569
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people(a) are currently on a course which has been supported by a career development loan, (b) are repaying a career development loan, (c) have had recovery action taken against them because they have defaulted on the loan and (d) have had to defer repayments of their career development loan because of hardship for each region and for Great Britain as a whole; what is the average amount of loan taken out; an if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Paice
  Information by region on the number of people currently in training supported by a career development loan and the number of people currently repaying a loan is shown in the following table.

  Details of the number of people who have had recovery action taken against them because they defaulted on the loan are not available. No information is held on the number of trainees who have had to defer repayment on loans due to hardship.

  At 30 September 1994, the average loan amount for loans taken out in the current financial year was £3,159.

  Region

  Number currently in training

  Number currently repaying loans

  North East

  168

  1,605

  Merseyside

  96

  838

  North West

  272

  2,502

  Yorks and Humberside

  413

  3,304

  West Midlands

  328

  2,548

  East Midlands

  273

  2,320

  Eastern

  365

  3,664

  South East

  842

  5,184

  London

  1,309

  8,797

  South West

  512

  3,689

  Wales

  187

  1,460

  Scotland

  545

  3,736

  Great Britain

  5,310

  39,647

  Woodlee Rehabilitation Centre
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to use the Woodlee rehabilitation centre, Egham, for the vocational rehabilitation of disabled people.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Sir John Hannam, dated 25 October 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the future use of the Woodlee Rehabilitation Centre, Egham for the vocational rehabilitation of disabled people.
  In keeping with the policy of delivering rehabilitation services through local providers announced in 1991 by Michael Howard, the then Secretary of State for Employment, the Woodlee Centre closed its rehabilitation services in 1992. The premises have since been used, pending their sale, to accommodate other services.
  The premises were placed on the open market in August and a total of eight bids were received. I have authorised acceptance of the highest bid representing the best return to the taxpayer. That bidder is a private educational establishment and will not be using the premises for the rehabilitation of disabled people.
  I hope this is helpful.
  570
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the cost of the redevelopment of the Woodlee rehabilitation centre, Egham.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Sir John Hannam, dated 25 October 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the cost of the redevelopment of Woodlee Rehabilitation Centre, Egham.
  The Employment Service has not had any plans to redevelop the Woodlee site since its closure as a rehabilitation centre in 1992. It was recently placed for sale on the open market and on 17 October I agreed acceptance of an offer from a private educational establishment.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of press officers currently employed by his Department who are normally based(a) in the Department in London, (b) in the House and (c) at each other location.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There are currently 13 press officers employed by the Department based in London, none in the House, and one in Sheffield.

  Employment Service Agency Agreement
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress the Employment Service has made in meeting the targets outlined in the 1994–95 agency agreement; and if he will list for each quarter(a) the total unemployed job placings and variance from targets, (b) the long-term unemployed job placings and variance from targets, (c) job placings of people with disabilities and variance from target, (d) inner-city job placings and variance from target, (e) the number of claims not pursued following initial contact and variance from target, (f) the number of claimants moved from unemployment benefit to another benefit and variance from target, (g) the number of people who withdrew their claim to benefit after contact with fraud investigators and variance from target, (h) the number of submissions to adjudication where there is an arguable case with supporting information to show that the claimant is not available for, actively seeking or willing to accept work and variance from target; (i) the number of positive outcomes for unemployed claimants invited to a 12 month advisory interview and variance from target and (j) the number of positive outcomes for unemployed claimants invited to a 24-month advisory interview and variance from target.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Employment Service is making progress against its target for 1994–95, meeting or exceeding almost all at the mid-year stage. It placed 992,100 unemployed people into jobs in the first two quarters, against an annual target of 1·7 million. This represents 133,100 more placings than at the same stage last year. Performance to date is set out in the following table. There is no target for the number of claimants moved from unemployment benefit to another benefit.
  571

  Employment Service Performance Against Target April—September 1994

  Annual performance targets

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Cumulative

  Target levels

  Total placings of unemployed people in jobs

  482,500

  509,600

  992,100

  1,700,000

  Long-term claimants placed into jobs as a percentage of total unemployed placings

  29·5 per cent.

  28·9 per cent.

  29·2 per cent.

  29·5 per cent.

  (c)People with disabilities placed into jobs as a percentage of total unemployed placings

  3·5 per cent.

  3·6 per cent.

  3·6 per cent.

  3·3 per cent.

  (d) Unemployed people in inner cities placed into jobs as a percentage of total unemployed

  26·7 per cent.

  27·2 per cent.

  27 per cent.

  26 per cent.

  (e) Benefit claims not pursued following initial contact with ES (as percentage of initial enquires

  11 per cent.

  10 per cent.

  10 per cent.

  9 per cent.

  (g) People signing off as a result of action by fraud officer

  21,850

  22,800

  44,650

  70,000

  (h) Adjudication submissions on availability for, actively seeking or refusal of employment (against profile)

  32,900

  49,000

  81,900

  135,000

  (i) Positive Outcomes for unemployment claimants invited to a 12 month advisory interview

  40 per cent.

  54 per cent.

  47 per cent.

  50 per cent.

  (j) Positive Outcomes for unemployment claimants invited to a 24 month advisory interview

  34 per cent.

  44 per cent.

  39 per cent.

  35 per cent.

  Bus Building Industry
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been employed in the bus building industry in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Estimates for the bus building industry are not available separately. The figures are included in the estimates for "Manufacture of motor vehicles and parts". The available information is given in the following table:

  Employees in the manufacture of motor vehicles and parts thereof (sic 35): Great Britain

  Thousands

  1979

  464

  1980

  434

  1981

  361

  1982

  315

  1983

  296

  1984

  278

  1985

  271

  1986

  263

  1987

  257

  1988

  268

  1989

  262

  1990

  246

  1991

  222

  1992

  226

  1993

  202

  1994

  197

  Figures as at June of each year.

  Sickness Benefit
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the number of claimants who have moved directly from the unemployment register to receipt of sickness benefit in each of the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment 572
  Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. James Wallace, dated 25 October 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of claimants who have moved directly from the unemployed register to claim sickness benefit in the last 12 months.
  Unfortunately, the information you have requested is not available. At present the computer system used by the Employment Service to process benefit claims does not record details of the reasons for claim closure.
  As from 2 December, enhancement of the system will enable us to provide this information, although not I am afraid retrospectively.
  I hope this is helpful.

WALES

  Tourism
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) of 17 October, column 12, what is the statistical basis for(a) numbers of tourist visits to Wales and (b) the amount of money spent in Wales by tourists; and how the figures distinguish between tourist and business visits and expenditure.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on domestic—that is, United Kingdom—tourists comes from the United Kingdom tourist survey commissioned jointly by the Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland tourist boards. It is based on interviews with United Kingdom residents and measures tourism trips of one night or more for any purpose.

  Information on overseas visitors comes from an international passenger survey conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on behalf of the Central Statistical Office.
  573
  Survey totals estimated 7·7 million trips by United Kingdom residents to Wales and a spend of £945 million comprising £745 million on holidays, accounting for 70 per cent. of trips, with business spend at £90 million and (9 per cent. of trips)—the balance being for other purposes. Estimates of 670,000 overseas visitors with a spend of £132 million do not identify business travel.

  Health Service Pay
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many and what percentage of chief executives of national health service trusts in each of the last four years have been paid on a performance-related pay basis.

  Mr. Richards
  This information is not held centrally. NHS trusts have the freedom to set local terms and conditions of service.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has received from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on the volumes of low-level radioactive waste to be committed to the Cilgwyn quarry waste disposal site for burial; and what quality control checks exist for nuclear waste disposal in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Only very small amounts of radioactive waste are disposed of at the Cilgwyn site and under individual authorisation from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. No waste from the nuclear industry are involved. Because of his appellate role under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, my right hon. Friend cannot become involved in the specific detail of authorisation.

  One of the options explored in the recent Government consultation document "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy - Preliminary Conclusions", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House, is that of encouraging waste producers to make greater use of the controlled burial of radioactive waste at suitable landfill sites. No specific sites have been identified. The views of respondents concerning the option will be carefully considered within the consultation process.

  Households
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of households, at the latest available date, was economically inactive in each of the boroughs at district council areas in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested in respect of district council areas can be obtained from the 1991 census of population data on the Nomis database in the House of Commons Library.

  Predicted M4 traffic flows

  1995

  2000

  2005

  2010

  2015

  2020

  Section

  High

  Low

  High

  Low

  High

  Low

  High

  Low

  High

  Low

  Newhouse-Magor

  47,000

  7,100

  6,700

  8,000

  7,300

  8,900

  7,850

  9,800

  8,800

  10,700

  9,000

  Magor-Coldra

  54,050

  63,300

  60,100

  71,500

  65,200

  79,600

  70,150

  87,500

  78,700

  95,600

  80,350

  Coldra-Caerleon

  72,350

  84,750

  80,450

  95,700

  87,250

  106,550

  93,900

  117,100

  105,300

  128,000

  107,550

  Malpas-Tredegar Park

  87,300

  100,250

  95,150

  113,200

  103,200

  126,050

  111,100

  138,500

  124,550

  151,400

  127,200

  Sheep and Beef Production
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the European Commission concerning the interpretation of regulations governing the operation and allocation of quotas for sheep and beef production.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food normally represents the United Kingdom in negotiations with the European Commission. Several amendments to the regulations have already been negotiated which will bring welcome flexibilities in the way livestock quotas are administered.

  Badgers
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many licences have been granted by the Countryside Council for Wales for interference with badger setts following the Badger Act 1991, now the Protection of Badgers Act 1992; and for which purposes listed in section 10 of the 1992 Act such licences were issued.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I am advised by the Countryside Council for Wales that 82 such licences have been issued for the purposes of conservation, development and the investigation of offences.

  Baglan Hospital
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money is estimated to be spent on the Baglan hospital in the current financial year; and how much in 1995–96.

  Mr. Richards
  It is too early in the planning of the proposed hospital to estimate spending profiles.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when it is now expected that a restart will be made on the work of constructing the Baglan hospital; in what stages; and on what dates it is now expected to go out to tender on the initial contracts.

  Mr. Richards
  These are matters for the West Glamorgan health authority, which has responsibility for progressing the scheme.

  M4 (Traffic Volume)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of traffic volumes of the M4 from(a) New House roundabout to the Coldra, (b) the Coldra to St Julians, (c) Malpas to Tredegar Park and (d) Tredegar Park to Tongurynlais in 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is given in the following table:
  575

  Predicted M4 traffic flows

  1995

  2000

  2005

  2010

  2015

  2020

  Section

  High

  Low

  High

  Low

  High

  Low

  High

  Low

  High

  Low

  Tredegar Park-Castleton

  80,200

  92,100

  87,400

  104,000

  94,800

  115,800

  102,000

  127,250

  114,500

  139,100

  116,900

  Castleton-Coryton

  44,300

  50,900

  48,300

  57,450

  52,400

  64,000

  56,400

  70,300

  63,250

  76,850

  64,600

  1 All flows are 24-hour annual average daily flows. Predictions are based on current national road traffic forecasts.

  2 On the Newhouse to Magor section, predicted flows for years 2000 and beyond reflect the opening of the second Severn crossing scheme in 1996.

  3 Figures take no account of the proposed M4 relief road between Magor and Castleton.

  Hill Farms
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of hill farm incomes in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Farm incomes for 1992–93 are contained in "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom", published in March 1994. Estimates of hill farm incomes for 1993–94 together with forecast for 1994–95 are due to be published as part of the autumn hill review on 29 November. Final figures for 1993–94 are not yet available but on the basis of data currently analysed incomes are expected to have risen compared to 1992–93.

  Sea Wall Works
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Wales region of the National Rivers Authority concerning the funding arrangements and expected start date of work on the raising of the sea wall between Newport and Cardiff.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department has been liaising for some time with the Welsh region of the NRA about funding arrangements and a start of work on raising of the sea wall between Newport and Cardiff.

  Agreement in principle was given on 18 October to proposals recently submitted to the Department for works to this length of sea wall.

  Drugs Advice Centres
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen of the South, Mid and West Glamorgan health authorities concerning the setting up of street-based drop-in drug prevention advice centre.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Hospital Patients
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has in relation to amending the guidelines to the rights of health authorities and the rights of patients and their spouses or other carers in relation to(a) bed blocking and (b) transfer to private nursing or residential care homes.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office and the Department of Health have consulted widely on guidance which reaffirms health authorities' responsibilities for meeting the continuing health care needs of patients, as set out in the NHS and Community Care Act 1990. The outcome of this consultation will be known shortly.

  Health Service (Complaints)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to issue the guidelines on new unified complaints procedure for the NHS patients in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The unified complaints procedure is one of the recommendations of the Wilson report on NHS complaints procedures, "Being Heard", which are being considered by the Government in the light of consultation responses received.

  Rail Freight Garage Centre
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with South Glamorgan and Gwent county councils, the relevant city or borough councils and British Rail in relation to the proposed Rail Freight European garage centre for south Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am keen to see more freight transported by rail where practicable. The Welsh Development Agency, in conjunction with local authorities and others, is considering the commercial options for a European freight terminal in south Wales. I look forward to receiving proposals soon.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the grant-maintained status schools had(a) deficits, (b) surpluses and (c) neither on the final date of accounts before transferring into grant-maintained status; and if he will list the subsequent transactions between the relevant schools and local authorities with respect to making the appropriate refunding arrangements.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 19 October 1994]: The financial position of the 16 grant-maintained schools in Wales on acquiring grant-maintained status was as follows:

  (a) Four schools had overspent their local management of schools allocation;

  (b) Nine schools were in credit; and

  (c) Three schools had neither a deficit nor a surplus.

  Before the Education (Grant-maintained Schools) (Finance) (Wales) Regulations 1994 came into force on 1 April this year, it was left to local education authorities and schools to resolve any differences. Under the regulations, however, any deficit incurred or surplus accrued by a school while under any LEA control can be taken into account in calculating its annual maintenance grant for its first year as a grant-maintained school. This has applied in the case of only one school; the deficit is being repaid.
  577
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools there were in each local authority in Wales by 1 October; how many in each case had held ballots under section 61 of the Education Act 1988; how many ballots in each case resulted in votes in favour of seeking grant-maintained status; and how many ballots in each case resulted in votes against seeking grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Richards
  The number of LEA-maintained and grant-maintained primary and secondary schools in Wales as at 1 April 1994, the latest date for which details are available, is as follows:

  Primary

  Secondary

  Clwyd

  245

  32

  Dyfed

  313

  31

  Gwent

  213

  33

  Gwynedd

  191

  23

  Mid Glamorgan

  305

  42

  Powys

  108

  13

  South Glamorgan

  159

  26

  West Glamorgan

  164

  27

  Of these, 10 primary and 18* secondary schools have held ballots on whether they should apply for grant-maintained status under section 61 of the Education Reform Act 1988. In six primary and 12 secondary schools, the vote was in favour; in four primary and seven secondary schools the outcome of the ballot was against.
  * one secondary school balloted twice.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Court of Justice
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many judges there are in the European Court of Justice from each member nation of the European Union; and how many of them were jdges in their own country before their appointment to the European Court.

  Mr. David Davis
  The European Court of Justice consists of 13 judges, one from each member state and a 13th, appointed on rotation, who is currently from Italy. Four of the judges were judges in their own member state before their appointment to the European Court of Justice. All the judges more than meet the treaty requirement to "possess the qualifications required for appointment to the highest judicial offices in their respective countries or … are jurisconsults of recognised competence".

  North Korea
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress made over the scrutiny of North Korea's nuclear capacity.

  Mr. David Davis
  On 21 October 1994 the United States and North Korea signed an agreement on nuclear matters in Geneva. Under this, North Korea has agreed to freeze and eventually dismantle its graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities. It has also agreed to remain a party to the non-proliferation treaty and will allow implementation of its safeguards agreement under the treaty. We hope that this will lead to a resolution of the 578
  nuclear problem in North Korea. We now look to the North Koreans to demonstrate their willingness to comply with this agreement. The United Kingdom has supported United States efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement and we welcome the agreement.

  Taiwan
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of relations with Taiwan.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Although the United Kingdom has no diplomatic relations with Taiwan, we attach great importance to our commercial, cultural and educational links. United Kingdom exports for the period January—august 1994 were £448 million, an increase of 13 per cent. compared with the same period in 1993. The British trade and cultural office in Taipei is being reinforced with additional staff to develop these links.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy regarding the question of the marking and mapping of all minefields.

  Mr. David Davis
  The United Kingdom strictly adheres to the 1981 United Nations weaponry convention and its protocols, which govern the use of mines, including the mapping and marking of minefields.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated proportion of the annual casualties world-wide caused by anti-personnel mines used(a) in accordance with protocol II of the 1980 United Nations inhumane weapons convention and (b) in breach of that protocol.

  Mr. David Davis
  Reliable estimates of the casualty rates world-wide caused by anti-personnel land mines are not available.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest estimate of the annual casualty rate world-wide resulting from the use of anti-personnel mines of all types.

  Mr. David Davis
  Reliable estimates of the casualty rates world-wide caused by anti-personnel land mines are not available.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what value is placed on the term excessive as used in protocol II of the United Nations inhumane weapons convention in respect of the relationship between loss of civilian life and military advantage.

  Mr. David Davis
  Article 3, paragraph 3, of protocol II of the said convention prohibits the use of land mines or booby-traps which may be expected to cause incidental civilian losses which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Whether any such losses might be considered excessive must depend on the individual circumstances of given cases.

  Azerbaijan
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he assesses to be the cause of instability in Azerbaijan and the likely
  579
  repercussions on the concessions recently granted to British Petroleum and others offshore in the Caspian sea.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcome the fact that recent difficulties in Azerbaijan were resolved with minimal bloodshed, and stability has returned. There has been no effect on the production sharing agreement signed on 20 September between the state oil company of Azerbaijan and a consortium of western oil companies.

  British Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of the British Council

  Mr. Baldry
  The council has in place a range of performance measures and indicators, agreed with the FCO, through which their efficiency and effectiveness is monitored. We also receive regular reports on council activities from our diplomatic missions overseas.

  Gibraltar
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was his response to the recent remarks of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar about the development of financial services and the appropriate regulatory regime.

  Mr. David Davis
  We support the development of financial services in Gibraltar supervised to a standard consistent with EC obligations and legislation and supervisory practice within the United Kingdom.

  We welcome the passage through the Gibraltar House of Assembly in May of amendments to the Financial Services Commission Ordinance which introduce a supervisory regime designed to achieve these ends.

  OECD
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom contribution towards the cost of running the OECD in cash and as a percentage of the whole for
  each year since 1979.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Members' contributions are based on GDP, using an average of their GDP for the previous three years. The United Kingdom's contributions to the OECD general expenditure budget are as follows:

  United Kingdom contribution Year

  (£'s 000)

  Percentage of OECD budget

  1982

  2,580

  6·73

  1983

  2,633

  7·25

  1984

  3,304

  7·67

  1985

  3,702

  7·48

  1986

  4,298

  7·14

  1987

  4,118

  6·93

  1988

  3,710

  6·48

  1989

  4,319

  6·23

  1990

  4,455

  6·19

  1991

  5,049

  6·27

  1992

  6,306

  6·33

  1993

  6,427

  6·25

  The United Kingdom is paid in French francs and therefore subject to exchange rate fluctuations. The
  580
  figures are calculated using the average exchange rate for the relevant year.

  The corresponding figures for 1979–1981 could not be obtained except at a disproportionate cost.

  Caspian Sea
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the present participants in oil and gas exploration licences recently granted to British Petroleum and others in the Caspian sea area.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  JKX are understood to hold an exploration licence for a block in the Caspian Sea offshore Daghestan. Amoco, BP/Statoil, Delta, Lukoil, McDermott, Nimir, Pennzoil, Ramco, TPAO and UNOCAL are signatories to a production sharing contract offshore Azerbaijan. AGIP, BP/Statoil, British Gas, Mobil, Shell, Statoil and Total are signatories to an exploration contract offshore Kazakhstan.

  Czech Republic
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge the Government of the Czech Republic to return the property in Usti Nad-Labem that was confiscated from Karel and Jitka Lorenc of Plymouth by the former communist regime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to intervene with the Czech authorities. The restitution of property in the Czech republic confiscated by the former communist regime is a matter for Czech law; a number of laws on this subject have been passed since 1990. There have been no new developments since my letter of 20 September to the hon. Member, in which I advised that Mr. and Mrs. Lorenc should seek expert advice from a Czech lawyer on how best to pursue their case.

  Iraq
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what circumstances Her Majesty's Government would authorise British forces to carry out a pre-emptive attack on Iraqi forces on Iraqi territory; and in what circumstances Her Majesty's Government would support military forces of any other country carrying out such pre-emptive military action.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Any decision relating to the use of force would depend on the circumstances at the time.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange for reports, submitted by Rolf Ekeus, the head of the UN Special Commission for Iraq to the UN, to be placed in the Library; what are the main conclusions of the reports submitted by Mr. Ekeus, to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The report of Ambassador Ekeus on the status of Iraqi compliance with section C of Security Council Resolution 687, UN document S/1994/1138, and the parallel IAEA report, S/1994/1151, have been placed in the Library of the House. Conclusions can be found in paragraphs 37–39, and 49 respectively.

  These are thorough, comprehensive and well-balanced reports which do credit to the professionalism of the UN special commission, UNSCOM, and the IAEA in their

  581
  task of uncovering Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme, establishing current capabilities and setting up a monitoring and verification regime to ensure that no such weapons can be regenerated in the future.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of press officers currently employed by his Department who are normally based(a) in the Department in London, (b) in the House and (c) at each other location.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There are nine full-time press officers employed in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, three in the Overseas Development Administration and none based permanently in the House. Overseas, each of our embassies or high commissions has at least one officer whose work is wholly or partly press-related.

  Armenia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to establish a British overseas post in Armenia; if he will list those countries which are(a) officially represented in Armenia and (b) intend to be officially represented in Armenia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are at present no plans to establish a resident British mission in Yerevan. The pattern of our overseas representation is kept under review. HM ambassador in Moscow is accredited to Armenia. He and his staff visit Yerevan regularly.

  We understand that Albania, Canada, China, France, Germany, Greece, Iran, Japan, Kazakhstan, Russia, and the USA are represented in Yerevan. We have no information on the intentions of any other countries.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to assist with the funding and deployment of human rights monitors to encourage the return of refugees to Rwanda.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have contributed £250,000 to the UN monitors fund and have also provided four four-wheel drive vehicles for the use of monitors in Rwanda. The EU is considering sending 50 monitors in support of UN activity. This is being pursued by the Commission.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the United Kingdom is providing to the Government of Rwanda in re-establishing and training the judiciary.

  Mr. Baldry
  Together with our EU partners we are considering what further assistance we can offer to Rwanda from EU funds. This might include help to restore their legal system, which we hope will also be a priority for the UN.

  International Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution was committed by Her Majesty's Government to the International Atomic Energy Agency's annual budget at the IAEA's 38th general conference; what is the total IAEA budget; and how this is planned to be spent.
  582
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The IAEA 38th general conference approved a regular budget for 1995 of US $211.5 million of which US $202.7 million would be met by member states. This represents zero growth in real terms. The United's Kingdom's contribution was set at 5·277 per cent.

  The regular budget provides for the costs of running the agency. It also provides the costs of the agency's programmes on nuclear energy and safety, on research and isotopes, and on safeguards. The regular budget has been subject to zero real growth since 1983.

  Australia
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what residual constitutional powers and duties reside with(a) the United Kingdom Government and (b) the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in respect of the Australian states and for which the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has no jurisdiction.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: The Australia Act 1986, and parallel legislation enacted in Australia, removed the remaining constitutional links between the United Kingdom and the Australian states, achieving complete legislative independence for Australia from the United Kingdom.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are employed by his Department; and what proportion of them are employed in each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Freeman
  At 1 July 1994, the Ministry of Defence employed some 120,000 full-time equivalent civil servants, excluding casual staff and locally employed civilians overseas. Of this number, 114,000 were employed in the United Kingdom: the table below gives the number and percentage employed in each economic planning region.

  Economic planning region

  Number of MOD civilians

  Percentage of UK total

  South East

  45,837·5

  40·2

  East Anglia

  2,738·5

  2·4

  South West

  24,771·0

  21·7

  West Midlands

  8,153·5

  7·2

  East Midlands

  3,737·0

  3·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,465·5

  3·9

  North West

  2,641·5

  2·3

  Northern

  2,620·0

  2·3

  Wales

  4,864·0

  4·3

  Scotland

  11,237·5

  9·8

  Northern Ireland

  2,941·0

  2·6

  Total United Kingdom

  114,007

  100

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the public appointments for which he is
  583
  responsible (a) in the West Midlands region and (b) in Shropshire, indicating in each case the duration of the appointment, the date when a new appointment is due, and the salary.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not recorded centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. None of my Department's non-departmental public bodies are, however, based in either of these regions.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of the visit by Field Marshall Sir Peter Inge to Indonesia in early October; and what military support commitments he made to the Indonesian President.

  Mr. Soames
  Field Marshal Sir Peter Inge's visit to Indonesia in October formed part of a programme of calls on his counterparts in the region. As is usual, details of his discussions are confidential.

  Gulf War (Claims)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to establish an investigation into the claims by former Territorial Army member Kathryn Lamb, former RAF member Richard Turnbull, former Royal Artillery man Ian Dowden and former Eleventh armoured workshopman Robert Lake that they have suffered from physical ailments induced by participation in Operation Granby in the Gulf in 1990–91

  Mr. Soames
  These claims are already being investigated. They are among a number of potential claims for compensation notified to my Department. Arrangements have been agreed with their solicitors to invite all potential claimants to come forward for a medical assessment by a service consultant.

  Service Meals
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many meals a day each service man in(a) the Royal Marines and (b) the Army is allowed.

  Mr. Soames
  Service personnel in both the Royal Marines and the Army are provided with three meals per day. Where they are employed on extra duties an additional meal, such as supper, is provided.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many calories the Army Catering Corps is expected to provide each soldier with on a daily basis for the sum set as a food allowance; and how many calories are actually provided on average.

  Mr. Soames
  Ration scales vary according to location. The home ration scale used in all United Kingdom establishments is designed to provide 2,900 kilo-calories nett—that is, after loss through preparation and cooking. The general overseas ration scale used in overseas bases includes an arduous duty allowance, to allow for climate and provides 3,400 kilo-calories nett. In field conditions, where personnel are fed from operational ration packs, 3,800 kilo-calories are provided.

  It is not possible to calculate how many calories are actually provided. Most establishments offer a "self-serve" system of service and by their choice of food
  584
  service personnel may marginally increase or decrease their actual calorific intake.

  Asbestos (Compensation)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have received compensation for asbestos-related conditions since 1987.

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MoD civilian employees have been awarded compensation for asbestos-related conditions since 1964.

  Mr. Soames
  Statistics have been maintained only since 1 April 1985, since when there have been 1,340 payments of compensation to civilian employees of my Department for asbestos-related conditions.

  Deafness (Compensation)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian MoD employees have received compensation following deafness claims since 1964.

  Mr. Soames
  Statistics have been maintained only since 1 April 1985, since when there have been 4,617 payments of compensation to civilian employees of my Department for deafness.

  Nuclear-related Materials
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian MoD employees have received ex gratia payments due to exposure to nuclear-related materials since 1964.

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have received ex gratia payments due to exposure to nuclear-related materials since 1964.

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of press officers currently employed by his Department who are normally based(a) in the Department in London, (b) in the House and (c) at each other location.

  Mr. Freeman
  At present, the number of service personnel and civilians employed in complemented press and public relations posts in London is 39. A further 117 are employed in districts and commands at home and overseas. No staff are employed in the House.

  NSA Menwith Hill
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ministry of Defence police are employed at NSA Menwith Hill station.

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our policy to comment on specific security arrangements.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which organisation employs the chief of station at Menwith Hill station; and what is its nationality.
  585
  Mr. Soames
  The chief of station at Menwith Hill is employed by the national security agency of the United States.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) breaches of security, (b) arrests and (c) successful prosecutions there have been at Menwith Hill station in the last year to date.

  Mr. Soames
  Between 1 January and 20 October 1994 the figures are as follows:

  Breaches

  520

  Arrests

  27

  Successful prosecutions

  4

  The figure for breaches relates to the number of incursions on MOD land. None of the reported incidents led to any entry into secure areas within the Menwith Hill station site.

  Mr. Maddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost of the two new radomes, support buildings, roads and security fencing at Menwith Hill station; and how this cost is being met.

  Mr. Soames
  The cost of the two new radomes and support structures has been borne by the United States Government. The total cost is a matter for the United States authorities.

  HMS Forest Moor
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost of the new security system at HMS Forest Moor.

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our policy to comment on specific security arrangements.

  NSA Molesworth
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times polychlorinated biphenyls have been found in concentrations exceeding legal limits in the past year at NSA Molesworth; and how and where they have been disposed of.

  Mr. Soames
  There have been no confirmed cases in the past year of polychorinated biphenyls being found in equipment passed to the US defence reutilisation and marketing organisation at RAF Molesworth. However, five items received by the DRMO were suspected of containing PCBs and were therefore disposed of through an approved United Kingdom contractor licensed to dispose of PCB-contaminated equipment.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which organisation operates and controls the joint analysis centre at NSA Molesworth; and what is its nationality.

  Mr. Soames
  The joint analysis centre at RAF Molesworth is operated by the United States European Command. RAF Molesworth is a Ministry of Defence site made available to United States visiting forces and the facilities operate there with the full knowledge and consent of the British Government.

HEALTH

  Private Finance Initiatives
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in taking forward the private finance initiative in the North West region.

  Mr. Sackville
  Good progress has been made taking forward the private finance initiative in North West region. Since the initiative was launched in November 1992, six projects have been approved, each with a capital value of £1 million or over. That is bringing £19 million of private sector capital to the region.

  I shall place full details in the Library.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in taking forward the private finance initiative in the South Thames region.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member of Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) earlier today.

  Breast Cancer
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to instigate a national action plan on breast cancer.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have no plans to instigate a national action plan specifically for breast cancer. The Chief Medical Officer's expert advisory group on cancer published earlier this year a report recommending general principles to improve all cancer services. The Department is currently evaluating comments on that report; so far those are very largely favourable.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last met representatives of the British Dental Association to discuss the Green Paper on dental services.

  Mr. Malone
  I met representatives from the British Dental Association on 29 September, when a range of matters were discussed.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has received within the past 18 months from individual dental surgeons and the various professional bodies which represent them.

  Mr. Malone
  We received many written representations from, and held many meetings with, dentists and their representatives in the 18 months to July 1994. Since then, our consultation on the Green Paper "Improving NHS Dentistry" has increased our contacts with the profession. Officials have gone to many meetings organised by local dental committees and others to listen to dentists' views. The consultation period ends on 1 November.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what arrangements a dentist may reclaim a proportion of the business rates from his local family health services authority by declaring their percentage NHS private income; what details she has for the last three years of the trend in private dental income for non-completely de-registered dentists; and if she will make a statement.
  587
  Mr. Malone
  Dentists supplying treatment under the general dental services are entitled to reimbursement of non-domestic rates under determination 9 of the statement of dental remuneration. The level of remuneration is subject to annual minimum and maximum levels and reflects the percentage of general dental services income to the dentist against his total income. No information on the individual entitlement calculations is available centrally.

  Performance Tables
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the publication of performance tables in the North West region.

  Mr. Sackville
  Performance tables for the North West region are included in "The Patient's Charter Hospital and Ambulance Services Comparative Performance Guide 1993–94", published by the Department of Health in June, copies of which are available in the Library. Information has not been published separately for the North West region.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received regarding the availability of infertility treatment under the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  Between 1 April 1994 and 30 September 1994 we received 92 letters about the provision of infertility treatment.

  Under-16s (Pregnancies)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress in limiting the rate of conception among the under 16-year-olds.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1991, the rate of conceptions among under 16s fell from 10.1 per thousand to 9.3, the first fall in 10 years. The 1992 conceptions data will be available later in the year.

  Junior Doctors
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many junior doctor posts which entail working more than 83 hours remain in the Trent region; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  There are no posts contracted for more than 83 hours a week in Trent region. Those had been eliminated by 1 April 1993.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many junior doctor posts which entail working more than 83 hours remain in the South West region, and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  There are no longer any posts contracted for more than 83 hours a week in the South and West region.

  Community Care
  Mr. William O' Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received about the adequacy or resources for the provision of community care in the Yorkshire and Humberside region; and if she will make a statement.
  588
  Mr. Bowis
  We have received representations about the community care resources for Wakefield and North Yorkshire. No such representations have been received about Humberside's resources.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners are fundholders in the North West.

  Mr. Malone
  There are currently 1,091 general practitioner fundholders in North West region, serving 34 per cent. of the population; more are preparing to join next April.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the change in the number of GPs in the London implementation group in its first two years.

  Mr. Malone
  The London implementation group has recently appointed two general practitioners, who practise within the capital, to provide direct advice on general practice issues. This is a shared, part-time, appointment.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the conditions and terms and budget of the early exit scheme for GPs in the London implementation zone.

  Mr. Malone
  There is no early exit scheme for general practioners in the London implementation zone.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received regarding her policy on the treatment of long-term mental health patients.

  Mr. Bowis
  Various, from a variety of sources.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the names and relevant district health authority of each of the residential psychiatric hospitals(a) closed since 1979 and (b) scheduled for future closure; and if she will give for each hospital (i) the date of actual and expected closure, (ii) the numbers of sectioned and voluntary patients in each prior to any run down, (iii) the sums received for completed sales and (c) the maximum number of doctors or qualified nurses employed since 1979.

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 17 October 1994]: The information available centrally will be placed in the Library and has been compiled from data collected as part of the surveys of English mental health hospitals conducted on behalf of the mental health task force. Those surveys are confined to the 130 long stay "water tower" hospitals which were open on 31 December 1960 and information is not held on other psychiatric hospitals which may have closed or be scheduled for closure.

  Information has not been collected centrally on the numbers and status of patients in the long-stay hospitals before run down or on receipts from particular land sales.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the effects of the weighted capitation formula on mental health services in inner city areas such as Leeds, with particular reference to the effect of the absence of any weighting for social deprivation; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowls
  A review of weighted capitation has taken place and the national formula is to be modified in a number of respects to take account of new information
  589
  and better statistical techniques. The sensitivity of the formula has been improved by including a separate index of the factors which affect the need for psychiatric services. This modified formula will be applied to regions in 1995–96.

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific analysis her Department has conducted on the cost and efficiency of introducing performance-related pay to the clinical grades in the national health service.

  Mr. Malone
  Implementation of local pay arrangements is for national health service trusts to determine, taking into account the individual health care objectives contained in their agreed business plans. The assessment of the cost and efficiency of schemes is also a local matter.

  NHS Executive Building, Leeds
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the final cost of the new NHS Executive building in Leeds; how many staff it was designed to hold; how many staff it currently holds; and how many staff it will hold after the planned reductions.

  Mr. Sackville
  Quarry house houses staff of the Benefits Agency and Central Adjudication Services in the Department of Social Security, as well as the national health service executive. The final cost of the main construction contract was approximately £55.4 million. Quarry house was designed to hold around 2,000 staff. Current numbers are around 1,880. The forward staffing requirements of the NHS executive headquarters in Quarry house have not yet been decided.

  Conception Rates
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 21 July,Official Report, column 607, if she will give the same information on rates of conceptions for each regional health authority.

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

  Measles-rubella Immunisation Campaign
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total projected cost of the schools-based measles- rubella immunisation campaign.

  Mr. Sackville
  The cost of the measles immunisation campaign in England has been estimated at about £20 million. This covers the cost of vaccine, syringes, other consumables, cost to the national health service of immunising children and publicity.

  Children in Care
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress made in implementing the recommendations of the 1991 Utting report on children in the public care and the 1992 Warner report on choosing with care.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr Kirkwood) on 24 October,Official Report, c. 446.

  Eating Disorders
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she has given to health authorities on establishing help lines for families and sufferers of eating disorders; and what advice she has given to health authorities on establishing clinics dedicated to helping sufferers of eating disorders following the publication of the report on eating disorders published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in 1989.

  Mr. Bowis
  General advice to purchasing authorities on the development of local mental health services is given in the second edition of the mental illness key area handbook published last month. Eating disorders are mentioned among the disorders primarily affecting women for which appropriate provision should be made. Copies of the mental illness key area handbook are available in the Library.

  Blood Supply
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are for donors to be paid for blood donation; and what plans there are for introducing charges for the supply of blood.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no plans for donors to be paid for blood donation. We have always supported the principle of voluntary unpaid donation which underpins the safety of the blood supply in this country. We are justly proud of our blood service, and our system of voluntary donation, which we believe to be among the best in the world.

  The National Blood Service recoups, through blood handling charges, the cost of collecting, testing, processing and transporting the blood it supplies to hospitals. There is never any charge for the blood itself which is freely given by our voluntary donors.

  Pain Relief
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many specialists in pain relief there are in the NHS.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally, but all doctors receive training in pain control.

  VAMP Research Database
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for the future of the VAMP research database in primary care.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health is currently reviewing the use of the general practice research database for public health monitoring and other health purposes and will decide before the end of the year whether it will contribute any funding to it beyond March 1995.

  Foetal Tissue
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she has taken as a result of the publication of the report by the Human Fertility and Embryology Authority on the use of foetal ovarian tissue for research into Parkinson's disease and other afflictions.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's report relates only to the genetic material in ovarian tissue which might be used to treat women who are infertile or to produce embryos for
  591
  research. The Government have welcomed the authority's conclusions. Copies of the report have been sent by the authority to all research and treatment centres licensed under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

  Guidelines on the use of foetuses or foetal material for other purposes is set out in the report of the "Review of the Guidance on the Research use of Foetuses and Foetal Material"—the Polkinghorne report. This was distributed in 1989 to all health authorities and to private sector places approved under section 1(3) of the Abortion Act 1967. Copies of both reports are available in the Library.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for health (1) if she will make a statement setting out the reasons for her Department's policy in respect of the making available of alternative vaccines for parents who do not wish their children to be vaccinated with products manufactured using the tissue of aborted babies;

  (2) upon what dates she received letters from the hon. Member for Congleton registering concern about the use in vaccines of tissue from aborted babies; and what action he took as a result of those warnings to ensure that alternative products were made available.

  Mr. Sackville
  A letter was received from the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) on 7 October 1994 about the growth of rubella vaccine on a cell line derived from cells taken from an aborted foetus in 1966. All rubella vaccine is grown in this way and so no alternative can be made available. To develop rubella vaccine grown in an alternative cell line would require full safety and efficacy testing as this would be a completely new vaccine. Even if successful, this would take seven to 10 years.

  Rubella and oral polio are the only vaccines in the childhood immunisation programme which are grown in human cell lines. Where there is an alternative vaccine source which is not grown in a human cell line, it can be offered. That applies to oral polio vaccine. For rubella vaccine, there is no alternative source.

  Operations
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations will be performed at(a) Ealing hospital and (b) other national health service trust hospitals during the current year; what were the figures for the final year before they became national health service trust hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information about prospective operations is not available centrally. Ealing hospital national health service trust had 8,070 operating theatre cases in 1992–93 compared with 7,626 in 1991–92 before its establishment as a NHS trust. Corresponding figures for the NHS in England are 3,543,119 in 1992–93 and 3,514,751 in 1991–92.

  National Blood Authority
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultancies have been engaged by the National Blood Authority; for what purposes; and at what cost in each case.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Blood Authority was established to tackle the acknowledged duplication of effort and inconsistency which previously existed. The authority operates with a small headquarters organisation, preferring to employ expert consultancies for limited 592
  periods to undertake particular tasks rather than increase its headquarters management posts. The following consultancies have been engaged by the headquarters of the National Blood Authority since its formation on 1 April 1993.

  £

  Bain & Co.

  To assist with a major review of Bio Products Laboratory

  350,000

  Bain & Co.

  To assist with a major strategic review of the Transfusion Service

  682,000

  Butler Bloor

  To review the Information Technology systems in place at all Regional Transfusion Centres

  20,000

  CSC

  To assist in the formulation and implementation of a new Information Technology strategy for the Transfusion Service

  152,000

  Fitch & Co

  To assist the Authority in formulating and implementing an identity and communications review

  46,000

  Comind

  To assist with the preparation of standard operating procedures in the Transfusion Service

  7,000

  The proposals for the future structure of the transfusion centre network, if implemented in full, are expected to produce savings available to the National Health Service for improved blood collection and lower handling costs to hospitals for blood and blood products, for £10 million per year.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of press officers currently employed by her Department who are normally based(a) in the Department in London, (b) in the House and (c) at each other location.

  Mr. Sackville
  A total of 15 press officers are currently employed in the Department. They are all based in London. None are based in the Palace of Westminster.

  Care of the Elderly
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has of elderly residents of private care or nursing homes being transferred to more specialised units in the ownership of the same company some considerable distance from where they originate, when similar units exist in the ownership of other companies either in their home area or nearer to it; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish details of the effects of air pollution from road transport on the health of people(a) in towns and cities and (b) in rural areas.
  593
  Mr. Sackville
  Road transport generates a range of air pollutants including oxides of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds and particulate material. The Department of Health advisory group on the medical aspects of air pollution episodes—MAAPE—has considered the effects on health of certain traffic-related pollutants and the Department has published its reports. Those are on ozone, 1991, sulphur dioxide, acid aerosols and particulates, 1992, and oxides of nitrogen, 1993. Copies of the reports are available in the Library.

  MAAPE is currently considering the health effects of combination of air pollutants. Its report is expected in the first quarter of 1995. The Department of Health expert committee on the medical effects of air pollutants is keeping the health effects of air pollutants under review, and will report on the findings of its two sub-groups, on asthma and particles respectively, in late 1994 and early 1995.

  In rural areas, the air pollutant of most concern is ozone; levels in summer sometimes exceeding those at which effects upon health would be expected in some individuals.

  The Transport Select Committee is publishing today its report on transport-related air pollution in London, to which the Government will respond in due course.

  Asthma
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice her Department gives to health authorities to ensure that carers for children with asthma require the best possible training; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has established a programme of chronic disease management for asthma. The objective of this programme is to make the treatment of patients with asthma more systematic. Approximately 90 per cent. of all general practitioners have been approved to take part in the programme. Those doctors give advice to the parents of children with asthma, who in turn give the vast majority of day-to-day care. To qualify, the programme must include a call and recall system from a register of patients, the education of newly diagnosed patients, or their carers when appropriate, and continued education. GPs must ensure that all patients with asthma, or their carers as appropriate, receive relevant continuing education, including supervision of inhaler technique if appropriate. GPs are also responsible for the preparation of individual management plans for each patient which are generally subject to review every six months.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health is she will make a statement on co-operation with the Department of Education in ensuring that all schools have an active asthma policy, taking into consideration the total school environment.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is our joint policy that teachers should, in consultation with parents and with advice from general practitioners and the school health service, do all that is reasonable to enable children with medical conditions such as asthma to obtain maximum benefit from education and to participate as fully as possible in school life. As far as is practicable, children are encouraged to manage their own conditions.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions in the past two years she or her ministerial colleagues met representatives of local authorities to discuss local health matters; on what date such meetings were held; and with which local authorities.

  Mr. Bowis
  The level of detail requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Ministers meet frequently with individual local authorities and with local authority associations to discuss a very wide range of issues. National health service health authorities liaise with local authorities to discuss local health matters.

  Long-term Health Care
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many comments have, to date, been received on the draft guidance to health authorities on clarifying responsibilities for long-term health care; when she expects to issue final guidance to health authorities; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Some 164.

  Health Care International
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated cost of the west midlands regional health authority's plans to transfer patients awaiting treatment at west midlands hospitals to Health Care International medical centre in Glasgow analysed between(a) travel costs, (b) hospital costs and (c) hotel costs.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a local matter. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Bryan Baker, chairman of West Midlands regional health authority, for details.

SCOTLAND

  Civil Servants (Sport)
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current cost to the public purse of providing all forms of sports facilities for civil servants in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  I can speak only for the Scottish Office. There is currently no direct expenditure by my Department on sports facilities for civil servants by accommodation is made available in some buildings for sports and recreational activities. The cost of this accommodation, calculated by reference to the area as a proportion of the total floor area of the building, is estimated to be, £35,000.

  Forestry
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he intends to make sure that the "Forestry Enterprise" framework document will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

  Sir Hector Monro
  As is usual with framework documents, it will be placed in the Library of the House. Hon. Members will be able to raise it, like any other published document, in the House.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the total amount spent on official hospitality by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Lang
  The total expenditure on official hospitality for the Scottish Office for the years in question is shown in the table.

  Year

  SASA £

  SFPA £

  ROS £

  HS £

  1990–91

  1—

  1—

  3,586

  772·85

  1991–92

  1—

  400

  2,513

  2,591·80

  1992–93

  3,235

  300

  5,536

  7,778·65

  1993–94

  6,244

  450

  4,374

  8,012·47

  1994–95 (to date)

  not available

  not available

  not available

  8,012·47

  1 Figures for these years are included on the table for The Scottish Office hospitality.

  Figures for other agencies are included in the departmental hospitality table and any other agencies were not in existence on the dates specified.

  Health Care International
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about the numbers(a) of in-patients at Health Care International in Clydebank in each week since it opened, (b) patients from overseas and (c) patients in Britain.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information about non-NHS patients is commercially confidential to the company. Information on NHS patients treated is not held centrally and can be obtained from individual health boards.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by whom he has been represented at Health Care International's restructuring talks; and what proposals were put on his behalf.

  Mr. Stewart
  Officials of Locate in Scotland and Scottish Enterprise have been involved in talks, the details of which are subject to the normal conditions of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he(a) was informed and (b) agreed that the Health Care International hospital in Clydebank should sell its equipment to its funding banks and lease the equipment back.

  Mr. Stewart
  The financing of any company's equipment is a matter for it to determine.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he received in respect of contracts won by the Health Care International hospital in Clydebank to treat overseas patients.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is commercially confidential to the company.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions have taken place between his representatives and those of the Ministry of Defence to discuss Health Care International in Clydebank; and what was the outcome of those talks.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend's officials sought and obtained confirmation from officials in the Ministry of Defence that the Department has no interest in the hospital in the context of the re-organisation of defence medical services arising out of "Front Line First", the defence costs study. There have been no other discussions.
  596

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  65,123

  1991–92

  62,800

  1992–93

  94,385

  1993–94

  49,115

  1994–95 (to date)

  20,300

  The total expenditure for agencies is as follows:

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the date of(a) Government and (b) private sector commitment to Health Care International in Clydebank.

  Mr. Stewart
  Negotiations for both public and private sector support for this project were concluded in July 1991.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has accepted any proposal to turn Health Care International into an NHS trust.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: No.

  Health Service Pay
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give figures based on current performance for the number of health service staff she expects will see earnings(a) fall and (b) rise as a result of the introduction of relating pay to performances.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The proposals made to staff sides and the professions who represented groups covered by NHS review bodies and included in pay offers to staff sides of non-review body groups would strengthen the links between rewards and performance of their local organisations. Such schemes would be locally determined and depend on the achievement of local objectives for the delivery of high quality services. I would expect average earnings to continue to rise.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of chief executives of national health service trusts in each of the last four years have been paid on a performance-related pay basis.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The pay of general and senior managers in the NHS in Scotland is related to performance. While the pay of a trust chief executive is determined by the remuneration committee of that trust, this is carried out within the context of the principles applying to general and senior managers' pay.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what specific analysis his Department has conducted on the cost and efficiency of introducing performance-related pay to clinical grades in the national health service.
  597
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Implementation of local pay arrangements is for NHS trusts to determine, taking into account the individual health care objectives contained in their agreed business plans. The assessment of the cost and efficiency of schemes is also for local determination.

  Care Homes
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce dual registration of residential and nursing homes similar to the practice in England and Wales.

  Mr. Lang
  The Registered Establishments (Scotland) Act 1987 amended the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938 do allow joint registration of residential care establishments which provide both nursing and social care with local authority social work departments and health boards. This is directly comparable with similar provisions which apply in England and Wales under the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to establish joint health board and social work inspection and registration units for nursing and residential homes.

  Mr. Lang
  The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, as amended, and the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938 already allow for collaboration between local authority social work departments and health boards in the field of joint registration of residential care establishments.

  M74 Contract
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the value, progress and penalties associated with the M74 contract awarded to Messrs. Castelli and Girola;

  (2) which comparable projects carried out by Messrs. Castelli and Girola persuaded his Department that they were eligible for consideration as tenderers;

  (3) if he will list those occasions and locations on which officials of his Department met representatives of Messrs. Castelli and Girola prior to the award of the M74 contract;

  (4) if he will list the value of tenders submitted for the M74 contract which was secured by Messrs. Castelli and Girola;

  (5) what steps he took to ascertain that Messrs. Castelli and Girola were competent contractors, prior to the awarding of the M74 contract.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The requirements of the European Union procurement directive have meant that our major road construction contracts are open to tenders from companies throughout the EEC. In 1992 a joint venture company formed by Castelli and Girola submitted an application for inclusion in the tender list for the contract to upgrade the A74 to motorway between Eaglesfield and Kirkpatrick Fleming.

  To support their tender application they submitted considerable documentation covering numerous examples of major road contracts carried out by each firm. Scottish Office officials met representatives of the joint venture in October 1991 in Edinburgh regarding an earlier application for an A74(M) contract and satisfied themselves that they were major contractors with
  598
  worldwide experience of road construction. The two companies were also subjected to the normal vetting procedures with regard to their financial standing.

  The value of the successful tender submitted by the joint venture was £23,403,562. Other tenders submitted for the contract were:

  £24,902,956

  £26,186,241

  £26,789,409

  £29,517,413

  £29,994,952

  £30,343,045

  Although well advanced, the contract is running late and the completion date next month will not be met. The penalty for late completion without mitigating circumstances is £250,000 per month.

  Breast Treatment
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the average time taken in each health board area in Scotland(a) to provide appointments to patients who detect breast lumps, (b) to diagnose whether or not the lump is malignant and (c) to operate if the lump is a tumour.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: Information requested is not centrally available in the form requested. However, the table gives details of waiting times for confirmation or treatment.

  Mean and median waiting time (days for patients admitted from the waiting list and operated on for confirmation or treatment of malignant neoplasm of female breast (ICD9 174), by health board of treatment, calendar year 1993

  HB Treatment

  Mean Wait (Days)

  Median Wait (Days

  Argyll and Clyde

  8·0

  7

  Ayrshire and Arran

  12·3

  8

  Borders

  9·4

  6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  12·5

  11

  Fife

  12·7

  8

  Forth Valley

  10·9

  8

  Grampian

  9·8

  7

  Greater Glasgow

  14·0

  11

  Highland

  12·9

  10

  Lanarkshire

  10·3

  7

  Lothian

  14·0

  11

  Orkney

  5·8

  5

  Shetland

  6·4

  5

  Tayside

  18·9

  15

  Western Isles

  6·7

  4

  Scotland

  12·9

  9

  Source:

  SMR1

  Ref:

  ISD.UNIT3.HASU, M4435

  Notes:
  1. Diagnostic codes are based on the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD9). Codes used in the analysis are as follows:
  ICD9 174 Malignant Neoplasm of Female Breast.
  2. Operation codes are based on the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys 4th Revision Classification of Surgical Operations and Procedures (OPCS4). Codes used in the analysis are as follows:
  OPCS4 B27-B37 Breast Operations and Procedures.
  3. The table is for elective admissions from the waiting list (SMR1 TADM-1 & WAIT>0).

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the guidelines given to area health
  599
  boards in setting limits on the length of time between breast lumps being detected by patients and being diagnosed as malignant or otherwise; and what are the time limits thereafter being set for operations to remove the lumps if malignant tumours are discovered.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: The Government-funded Scottish Cancer Co-ordinating and Advisory Committee and the Scottish Cancer Therapy Network have established a joint focus group to examine all aspects of the subject ie aetiology, prevention, diagnosis, treatment and palliation, so that the adequacy of existing arrangements may be scrutinised and best practice determined. No formal guidelines exist at present.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to increase resources available for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
  600
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 October 1994]: The incidence, morbidity and mortality associated with breast cancer are sources of concern to the Government, and we are committed to encouraging research into the causes, diagnosis, treatment and cure of the disease. The Government also funds the Scottish breast screening programme, which aims to reduce mortality in the screened population by 25 per cent. by the year 2000. All referrals under the programme are to a designated breast surgeon, who in the majority of cases will have been nominated by the woman's health board of residence. Where more complex techniques are likely to be required, referral will be to a breast surgeon working in one of the five specialist multi-disciplinary teams in Scotland. The Scottish Cancer Therapy Network, which we have established to ensure the delivery to cancer patients of the most effective and up-to-date treatment, is forming a focus group in co-operation with the Government-funded Scottish Cancer Co-ordinating and Advisory Committee to look specifically at all aspects of breast cancer, including diagnosis and treatment.

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

Lord Blaker
The Right Honourable Sir Peter Allan Renshaw Blaker, KCMG, having been created Baron Blaker, of Blackpool in the County of Lancashire and of Lindfield in the County of West Sussex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hamilton of Dalzell and the Lord Howe of Aberavon.

"Estonia" and Ferry Standards
2.48 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which of the categories referred to in paragraph 6 of the Merchant Shipping (Ro-Ro Passenger Ship Survivability) (No. 2) Regulations 1994 would have applied to the "Estonia" if that ship had come within the scope of those regulations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, preliminary inquiries have revealed that the "Estonia" had a two compartment standard of subdivision and an A/Amex of just over 95 per cent.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. First, will he tell the House for how long the ship would have been able to operate under the regulations referred to without being modified to full modern safety standards? Secondly, the Royal Institution of Naval Architects issued a statement following the "Herald of Free Enterprise" disaster warning that such ships were highly vulnerable in a damaged state. The institution recently having issued a further statement, will the noble Viscount now urge his right honourable friend to take steps to ensure that those ships cannot operate after the end of 1995 unless they have been modified to the latest safety standards?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, had the "Estonia" come within the scope of the UK regulations, which it did not, it would have been required to comply by 1st December 2004 with the requirements of the Merchant Shipping (Ro-Ro Passenger Ship Survivability) (No. 2) Regulations 1994 as they relate to damaged ability standards. I believe that the United Kingdom has been in the forefront in pushing for strict regulations. We are doing everything that we can. We shall be taking forward further research on survivability and stability of ro-ro ferries.
Lord Carver: My Lords, will the noble Viscount tell the House what progress the Government have made in
436
seeking to persuade the International Maritime Organisation that formal safety assessment is the right principle upon which to base ship safety regulation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as I mentioned, the United Kingdom has taken a leading role in pushing for higher standards. Indeed, we did not accept the standards which the IMO put forward. We brokered our own agreement with our European partners in order to bring forward the higher standard we preferred.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the "Estonia" have qualified under the regulations to which the noble Viscount referred? He stated that because it did not come under those regulations, he did not know whether that was so. Surely he knows now.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is not what I said. I said that had the ship come under the regulations, the date referred to in 2004 would have been the required date.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the ship have qualified?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the reason the ship did not qualify was that there was a special agreement brokered and negotiated by ourselves with our European partners concerning vessels operating to and from the United Kingdom. The "Estonia" was not such a vessel.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, when one hears of a disaster such as that relating to the "Estonia" one naturally thinks of the "Herald of Free Enterprise". At the inquiry into the "Herald of Free Enterprise" it was believed that a system failure caused the problem; that is, the inadequacies of the drill for closing the doors. Are we now sure of that fact? Does that belief not shield the fact that, as well as inadequacies in that respect, there may have been more important inadequacies of design, a factor we have certainly discovered with the "Estonia"? Is the department looking at all of those factors?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. We have put great emphasis on improving the operating regime. Since the "Herald of Free Enterprise" tragedy, we have introduced a safety operation regime which requires, for example, that ro-ro ferries are fitted with doors-closed lights, TV monitoring of the doors and a positive reporting system which informs the master that the doors are closed. I have every conviction that the inquiry into the "Estonia" tragedy will look at every aspect of its operation and construction.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my company owns P&O European Ferries and I am chairman of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company? Is the Minister further aware that our ships have been passed by the Marine Safety Agency and that, as the biggest British ferry company, we are totally committed to supporting any safety work which has been carried out? Does the Minister agree that it is important that precipitous action is not taken until we are aware of what happened to the

437
"Estonia"? At the moment there is a purely preliminary report and as yet it is not known under what operational standards the ship operated.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's assurance of co-operation which is of great value to the Marine Safety Agency. I agree that we must put this terrible tragedy in the context of the millions of passenger journeys that are travelled in safety. We shall take fully into account the findings of the inquiry when it is completed and the findings are published.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, we fully appreciate that a new type of ro-ro ferry might well have to be designed in the longer term. At the same time I should point out that travel by ferry is, by and large, seven times safer than travelling in a motor car. Will the Minister agree that priority should be given to the maintenance of the highest standards of operation and crewing? Moreover, particular attention should be paid to the efficiency of current methods of evacuation of water from car decks, systems which are designed at present to cope with water from a sprinkler system in the case of a fire.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord that operating standards are of crucial importance. We have learnt great lessons from the "Herald of Free Enterprise" and we continue to put forward an operating regime which is of the highest standard and which examines the very issues which the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister take my question on board? It is very simple: if the standards of construction which apply to our own ships had been applied to the "Estonia", would the ship have passed them?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is not possible for me to answer that question. The "Estonia" was not operating to or from the United Kingdom. It was operating on an entirely separate route. It is, therefore, certainly not possible for me now to make any pronouncements on the fitness or otherwise of the "Estonia" before the relevant authorities have examined the report of the inquiry.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, is it not clear that any through-deck ship is inherently more unsafe than the traditional type of vessel with compartments? Are the Government addressing their attention to that matter as well as to the safety of the opening of the ship at the bow? May I inquire whether that is the Government's policy?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we are examining every aspect of the operation, design and construction of roll on-roll off ferries. We believe that when they are properly operated and maintained they are safe, with that strong proviso. A great deal of research has gone into the design of the ships. We are co-operating with the International Maritime Organisation on that research.

Vehicle Noise: Offences
2.56 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many prosecutions there were during 1993 for excessive exhaust noise emitted by (a) motor cars; (b) motor cycles; and (c) commercial vehicles; and how many convictions resulted.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is not possible to give the detailed statistics requested but I am able to give provisional figures for all vehicle noise offences in England and Wales for 1993. They were: 7,857 prosecutions and 5,352 convictions.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Will he agree with me that the British public are becoming increasingly frustrated with the noise emitted by motor cycles whose owners have been tampering with their exhausts, removing them altogether or maintaining them badly? Would it not help if the Government were to give a stronger lead to the enforcement of existing regulations, let alone the new ones coming from Brussels, in order that the machines may be taken off the road and have their silencers improved? Finally, will my noble friend agree that unless the rules are enforced it brings the whole law into disrepute?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can reassure my noble friend that the Government take the issue of vehicle exhaust and other noise extremely seriously. We recognise that many members of the public have anxiety about perhaps a small number of especially noisy motor cycles. That is why we have brought forward regulations to control the construction of replacement silencers. We have also addressed the issue of noise from new machines. I agree with my noble friend that enforcement is equally important.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when motor cycles leave the factory they are commendably quiet? In many cases, they are quieter than a motor car. It is a very small minority of motor cyclists who tamper with the exhaust or sometimes fit a replacement exhaust because they cannot afford the high cost of replacing the original exhaust system. Will my noble friend agree that it is quite wrong to tar all motor cyclists with the same brush?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on that point. The issue of tampering is important, the problem is largely caused by a small number of irresponsible motor cyclists who have perhaps fitted

439
racing-type silencers or have tampered with the original device. That is why the enforcement of the law on the issue by police is extremely important.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that if this is a matter of a very small minority, that small minority get about to a quite remarkable extent?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the advantage of riding a motor cycle is being able to get about quickly.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, in my experience, the motor cyclists who "get about" all seem to try to get about between midnight and 2 a.m. I have had experience of the problem. One night, in a street in Glasgow I spoke to a passing policeman and suggested to him that he could radio to another officer on patrol, who could catch the lad involved before he got home; and that was done. Does the Minister accept that is a way to deal with the problem? It is nearly always at night that one hears the really excessive noise. Does the Minister agree that such patrols on the part of the police would very soon make motor cyclists riding on particular routes realise that what they were doing was not worth the candle?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that enforcement is not exactly straightforward. It is a matter for the police, who have to make an operational decision. There are of course difficulties with measuring noise; but I agree that the small minority of those riding motor cycles which have very loud exhausts can be spotted. Perhaps the motor cycles have had holes drilled in the exhausts or have the wrong type of silencer fitted. That is why we have brought forward regulations and measures to make the job of the police easier; namely, by requiring a particular marking on silencers that have been approved.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the emissions from exhausts are far more dangerous than the noise? What steps are the Government taking to control emissions?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the issue of gas emissions from exhausts is an extremely serious one. I would also say that his question is different from the one that we are considering. We are taking a number of measures to address this important issue.

School Bullying
3.1 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further steps they have taken to reduce school bullying.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Government continue to give priority to action against bullying. In July we released a public information film on the theme "Don't Suffer in Silence", which has been shown extensively on television. On 29th September we published an anti-bullying pack which makes clear the importance of
440
the "whole school" approach to bullying. I am pleased to say that demand for the pack has been high: over 17,000 schools in England have already applied for a copy, and we expect many more to do so.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the 6,000 schools that have not applied for this excellent advice pack are probably the schools that are failing to tackle the very serious problem of bullying? Will the Government ensure that every school receives a copy of the pack; and will they use their powers to issue a directive to all schools to set up an anti-bullying policy and investigate all complaints?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the essence of the "whole school" approach is that it is a policy adopted by every part of the school by consent because it wishes to do so. It would not be in line with that approach—which has been shown by research to be the best approach—if we were to force the advice pack on schools. Schools have to want it. Ofsted has clear instructions to monitor the ways in which schools are acting to prevent bullying. I am sure that that incentive will be enough to make sure that schools take the issue seriously.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I admire Her Majesty's Government's initiative in this area. However, is my noble friend aware that, in my day, victims of bullying were identified and strategic alliances were formed; they then, in concert, knocked seven bells out of the bulliers, and the whole problem of bullying mysteriously disappeared?
Lord Lucas: No, my Lords, I am not aware of any such thing. Certainly my experience and that of many others is that bullying was rampant in our day and was not dealt with at all successfully.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, has one of the anti-bullying packs been sent to Gordonstoun School?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, all independent schools have been informed that the pack has been issued; and it is open to them to buy it.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister agree that local education authorities can play a very important part in supporting state schools in overcoming the problem? Can he assure the House that adequate resources are made available for this vital task? Can he tell the House how many local authorities have applied for such assistance and how many grants for it have been made?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, dealing with bullying is not primarily a question of resources. It is mostly a question of attitudes. There may be occasions when additional resources are required. If a school has put in place an all-school anti-bullying policy and needs further resources, and makes the reasons clear in its application, I am sure that it will be considered sympathetically.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the problem that one has to get over is somehow to encourage those who are bullied either to let their parents know and then for the parents to have the

441
courage to go to the school and see the head; or else for that boy or girl to have the courage to go to a member of staff to say that he or she is being bullied? Is that not one of the great hurdles besides anything else in tackling this problem?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. In order for it to be worth while for a child to complain to anyone about bullying, that child has to know that his complaint will be taken seriously and will be dealt with properly.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not the case that a bully is essentially a coward? And would it not be wise for the Government to give that aspect of the matter some attention with a view to creating a climate of opinion which discourages bullying by pointing out how cowardly it is?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, quoting Nigel Molesworth: "Everyone says stand up to bulies and they will run away but do not believe them. A lot of them stand still and then where are you eh? i will tell you you are in the duck pond and it is joly freezing"!
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have no real quarrel with the Government, and that I think they have handled the issue rather well? Some people take bullying rather frivolously. The Minister does not. It is a very serious problem, causes very deep unhappiness, and in some cases suicide. That cannot be solved by clever comments about "knocking seven bells" out of people. The Minister is quite right to take this matter very seriously. But is he aware that it is wrong to wait for the consent of all schools, because those schools which neglect bullying and allow it to flourish are the very schools upon which the Government should lean and bring pressure to bear to do something about the problem?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Lord's support, and to the many other people in organisations who help to deal with bullying in schools. But to deal with bad schools by trying to compel them to have anti-bullying policies would be to go down a road that is contrary to best practice. We shall do our best to make sure that they do so through the Ofsted system of inspections. We believe that to be the best way of approaching the matter.

Dr. Jawad Hashim: Legal Aid
3.8 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why legal aid was given to Dr. Jawad Hashim when charged with large scale frauds; who took the decision to grant legal aid in this case; and what was the total cost to public funds.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, Dr. Jawad Hashim was granted legal aid for civil proceedings. Decisions on the grant, discharge and revocation of civil legal aid certificates
442
are delegated by regulation to an area director of the Legal Aid Board. Assessments of applicants' means are carried out by the legal aid assessment office of the Benefits Agency. The London area office has been dealing with the Hashim case. The total costs claimed in this case to date amount to £4.1 million, of which £2.8 million has been paid. I am considering what changes might need to be made to the legal aid scheme in the light of this and other cases, and I expect to issue a consultation paper shortly seeking views on some specific proposals.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that extremely interesting Answer. However, is it not a really appalling thing that the British taxpayer should have had to find this very large sum of money to finance the operation of this very rich man? Can my noble and learned friend assure the House that, thanks to what he has said, this kind of thing will not happen again?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the precise circumstances of Dr. Hashim are a matter on which I am not able to give comment. As my noble friend knows, the details submitted in connection with a legal aid application are protected as to their confidentiality by the statutory provisions. However, I emphasise that the rules which govern entitlement to civil legal aid are the same for everyone. Those rules are applied by the Benefits Agency. But it may well be that, in the light of cases such as this one, it is right to consider changing the rules. The Law Society has made some proposals, as have some others. I have sought to consider them and, as I said, I hope shortly to issue a consultation paper on specific proposals. No proposals in this area are without a degree of difficulty. I believe that it would be right to have some opportunity for discussion of them before any decision is taken about amending the rules.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor recognise that many in this House are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for exposing these apparent problems? Does he understand that there is deep public disquiet about the donation of public money to those who are not British nationals for the resolution of their private disputes, particularly when the countries from which they originate have no reciprocity by way of benefit for British subjects in their jurisdictions? Is he aware that there is serious concern about the inadequate checking of true financial resources and about the grossly insufficient attempts to recover substantial sums of public money from those who are the beneficial owners of very considerable assets?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am aware of concerns on matters of this kind. However, it is important to try to deal with such concerns through practical proposals. It has been a principle of the legal aid scheme since its inception that legal aid is to be granted in relation to cases in our courts. Up to now, it has not been a principle to distinguish between litigants on the ground of nationality. I am not sure whether the

443
noble Lord was suggesting that that would be a good principle to incorporate in the legal aid scheme now for the first time.
The checking of assets is a matter concerning which the Benefits Agency has certain skills. I seek to learn from the experience of some recent cases whether or not there may be scope for improving that aspect. As to the recovery of costs, as the noble Lord knows, in so far as cases are successful in recovering money for the applicant, the Legal Aid Board has a first charge on that recovery for recoupment of the public funds involved in the grant of legal aid in the first place.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that although the Legal Aid Board is completely independent, it is regulated by rules and regulations set out by Parliament? Surely the regulations must be at fault when the situation of rich people, who ostensibly have no assets but whose family have massive assets, is not taken into account when the Legal Aid Board decides whether or not legal aid is to be given? Clearly, it is scandalous that the British taxpayer should pay over £4 million to a man who, apart from not being a national of this country, has a high standard of living while many people who have applied for legal aid are denied it for various reasons.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble friend referred to a man with no assets and then described him as wealthy. For me, the problem is that the regulations have to apply to the man and those members of his family, particularly his wife, covered by the regulations. The question of what should be covered in regulations is the matter about which I propose to consult. Obviously, it is necessary that funds which are taken into account in this connection should be funds on which the person would be entitled to draw in relation to defraying the cost of his litigation. I am very open to any practical suggestions that can be made to ensure that legal aid is given to those who need it. That is the object of the scheme and the regulations made under the scheme. Certainly, I am very anxious to consider any improvements that can be made to the regulations to make them even more effective in achieving that aim.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will recall that he has already told me in a parliamentary Answer that in this case leading counsel for the defendant has already been paid £671,000 with more claims to come. Has the noble and learned Lord received any reports or suggestions from the Bar Council about how those fees might be curbed and what part counsel are prepared to play in resolving the matter?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that the Bar Council has proposals which seek to deal with these matters. One of the proposals relates to regulations which we have been preparing in draft for some time and which I hope to be able to lay quite shortly in relation to the number of counsel that should be instructed. The Bar Council has made other proposals which might well have a beneficial effect, particularly
444
in relation to the type of opinion that is furnished to the; Legal Aid Board in regard to the merits of a claim for which legal aid support is sought by the applicant.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, when consideration is given to the amendment of the rules, as assuredly it must be-it is a total scandal -can my noble and learned friend give an assurance that each and every one of the questions put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will receive serious attention, because those were the very questions, including the issue of nationality, which I would have put myself?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, such a coincidence would surely make me consider the matter even more carefully. But the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised the question is certainly sufficient for me to give it serious consideration. Questions of that type have been in my consideration and the consultation paper will attempt to deal with them. However, I am particularly concerned about the idea of distinguishing between people before the courts in this country on the basis of nationality. I had not thought to make that kind of distinction. No doubt it will be for consideration and certainly it will be open to consultees during the consultation to raise that point. For myself, I thought that the principles of legal aid established long ago did not allow for that particular consideration to play a determining part.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend say what are the provisions for the repayment of legal aid by a recipient of that aid?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are a number of provisions. For example, if it turns out that the information on which legal aid was granted is not correct-if the information was false-there are consequences in respect of repayment. There is also an important point which is not always understood; namely, that the legal aid fund has first call on any assets recovered or preserved as a result of the action for payment of outstanding fees previously covered by legal aid. That is a very important aspect when the applicant is successful. I believe that those are the principal systems for recovery. There is machinery for the recovery of contributions when for any reason contributions are unpaid. However, I took it that my noble friend was referring in particular to the recovery of costs which are not covered by contributions.

Business
3.20 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the conduct of public life.

London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]

  Bodmin Moor Commons Bill [H.L.]
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That the promoters of each Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon on Wednesday 2nd November next and that all fees due on or before that day have been paid.
  That such Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 3 p.m. on the second sitting day in the next session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present session;
  That the proceedings on such Bill in the next session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
  That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to such Bill in the next session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present session;
  That in the case of any Bill against which there is any petition outstanding—

  (i) any such petition which has been presented (if not withdrawn) stand referred to any select committee on the Bill in the next session;

  (ii) any minutes of evidence taken before a select committee on the Bill during the present session stand referred to any select committee on the Bill in the next session;

  (iii) no petitioners be heard before any select committee on the Bill in the next session unless their petition has been presented within the time stipulated for the deposit of petitions in the present session or deposited pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 109(b);

  (iv) Private Business Standing Order 110 have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 109" were omitted.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
  3.22 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Consideration of Commons Reasons and Amendments
  [The page and line refer to Bill (47) as first printed by the Lords.]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  1 Clause 1, page 2, line 16, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A) below")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  1A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A. For the convenience of the House I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 to 18, 21, 188 and 189 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reasons numbered 2A to 5A, 7A and 8A, 10A to 18A, 21A, and 188A and 189A.
  This is the first of three issues on which another place has chosen to disagree with this House without offering an amendment in lieu. We shall, of course, be turning to look at the other two issues—the provision of gypsy sites and criminal injuries compensation—later this afternoon.
  It is worth recording at this stage the considerable impact that your Lordships have had on the Bill and how much agreement there is between both Houses. Many amendments were proposed by Members on all Benches and accepted by this House, and other amendments were proposed by the Government in response to anxieties expressed on all sides of this House. In another place all but three were either accepted in whole or modified in such a way as to address the principal concerns of your Lordships. Therefore this House can be well satisfied that it has lived up to its reputation as a revising Chamber. Subjects which were amended to take account of your Lordships' concerns include imputations on character, the right of silence, juries, child evidence, public order, classification of videos, sexual offences, homosexual acts in the Armed Forces, confidential information, closed circuit television, ticket touting and probation. That adds up to a substantial list of areas where your Lordships have had an influence.
  I should like to record my thanks to those noble Lords who have been in correspondence or who have met with me and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary during the Recess to discuss issues relating to the Bill. I certainly found it most helpful. However, it is in the wider context that those issues on which the House of Commons disagreed with your Lordships should be viewed. On each of those issues your Lordships' amendments invited colleagues in another place to reconsider their original stance. After full consideration by the Government and full debate in another place, it was decided that the amendments should not be accepted.
  I now turn to your Lordships' amendments to the Government's proposals concerning secure training orders. The Government believe that all of those awarded the secure training order should serve the secure part of the order in the new secure training centres. That is also the view of another place, as is made clear in the reasons which they have given. The arguments on each side have been rehearsed many times and are well known to your Lordships. It is, perhaps, important to make it clear that courts will continue to enjoy a great deal of flexibility in sentencing persistent juvenile offenders. We have always made it clear that the secure training orders will be introduced in addition to the existing powers of the courts, to deal with a specific group of offenders for whom those existing powers are not effective. The full range of the existing court powers will remain, as will local authorities' powers, to place children in secure accommodation. None of those options will be lost. The secure training order makes an extra provision available to the courts; it gives the courts the powers they need to deal with young offenders.
  There is deep public concern about the problem of persistent young offenders, concern which the Government share and which, I know, many of your Lordships share also. Much of that concern is based on the fact that a relatively small but significant number of young persistent offenders are not responding positively to the range of measures available to the courts. The Government's proposals will not only give communities a respite from those offenders but will also provide the offenders with high quality education and training to tackle their offending behaviour in a secure training centre.
  The Government have listened and I think allayed some of your Lordships' fears and concerns. Another place, at your Lordships' invitation, reconsidered the issue of where a secure training order should be served. The other place decided that a court should always order a youngster subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.
  I hope that your Lordships will accept that careful consideration and, indeed, reconsideration has been given to the amendment and accordingly I commend to your Lordships' House the Motion not to accept Amendment No. 1.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I deeply regret the advice given by my noble friend the Minister to this House, though I realise of course that she is doing no more than her absolute duty in giving that advice, given the fact that the other place considered the matter again and came to the decision which it did. However, I fear that experience will prove the Home Secretary's advice to the other place, which the other place accepted, to be misguided when we see the order executed in practice.
  Perhaps it would be convenient to your Lordships for me to state my position at the outset. I am sorry that
  448
  what I shall say will disappoint many of those who supported my amendment at Committee stage. But having discussed the matter at length on two occasions, personally with the Home Secretary during the Recess— I am grateful to him for finding the time for that—and also having exchanged long letters with him about it, I am convinced that he will not change the advice that he will wish to give to the other place. Moreover, having listened last week to the whole of the debate in the other place I am convinced also that the other place will not change its mind unless the Home Secretary gives different advice. Therefore it seems to me of no value to ask Members of another place, who have already thought again once, to think again for a second time; indeed, I feel that constitutional damage may be done by that rather than good.
  Regretfully I came to that decision and that is the reason I did not table an amendment to the Motion, and also why I shall not vote against the Government should there be a Division at the end of the debate; but nor shall I vote for them. I shall therefore abstain if there is a Division. I feel so strongly that the Home Secretary is wrong in the advice that he gave that I wish to place on record—though I assure your Lordships briefly—my main reasons for that view.
  There are two strictly practical reasons. The first concerns the refusal to allow children sentenced to this order to be kept in custody in any place other than one of the new centres, when they are created. In my view that will inevitably lead to fewer children receiving the sentence. Children who should receive it will not receive it because local courts, particularly in areas far removed from one of the centres, will not feel it right to sentence children to serve sentences so far away from home. The first practical effect, therefore, is that fewer children who should be treated will not be treated and that is a serious practical objection.
  Secondly, we must face the fact that if we are to depend entirely and only on the use of the new centres, nothing can be done until they are built and made operational. That seems to me to mean a delay of at least one year and more likely two years before the new sentence can operate at all. That need not have been the case if use of local accommodation could have been contemplated on some basis or another even for a trial period or in certain types of case. So there are these two great practical objections to the line which the Government have taken and which the other place has taken on the Government's advice.
  Perhaps I may also give some reasons of more fundamental penal policy. The Home Secretary's case, which I have heard him make in public as well as in private, is that we are dealing here with a relatively small, discrete group of tearaway children who need a special tailor-made treatment and who can only be dealt with successfully by such a special tailor-made treatment. One could question, although I shall not take your Lordships' time today, whether he is right in his

  449
  diagnosis of this being a discrete, definable group. I suspect that there are as many different types as there are numbers of children behaving in this way. I do not think that they can be grouped but I shall put that on one side.
  Let us assume that it is right. Supposing they do need custom-built institutions created specifically for the purpose and that they must have this tailor-made, custom-built treatment. What is it to be? We have not been told. I have before me a splendid document. It is called Invitation to Tender and deals with tendering procedures for the establishment of these new institutions. It sets out splendid objectives. One could criticise here and there; but, by and large, I think that they are fairly splendid objectives. But they are objectives, not methods. There is no indication as to what the methods will be for achieving these objectives other than that they are to be in five special new centres, each holding up to, but not more than, 50 young children. When I asked the Home Secretary—I was delighted when he told me this: I am not giving away any confidences because I know that he has said this publicly as well as to me privately—whether the treatment will be precisely the same in all five centres, he said, "No, each successful tenderer, provided he is seeking these objectives, will be able to develop his own methods of achieving those objectives". Excellent; they are not going to be five standard centres, all doing the same. So we shall have, within the strict limits of working in these institutional centres, some experiment; and my goodness, experiment is needed!
  However, if there is to be experiment in treatment within the different centres and if there is not to be a uniform tailor-made treatment in the centres, on what possible grounds is it right to rule out experiment with locally organised secure treatment as well? We are not going to have this uniform tailor-made treatment. If there is to be experiment, it ought to be a wider experiment. That must be the case if we want effective results from the way we are trying to deal with this problem. We ought to recognise that none of us— certainly not I—has a real clue as to what will bring these tearaway persistent offenders into normal living in the community. Whatever we do, it will be an extremely difficult task. We are bound to meet enormous disappointments. We are bound, I suspect, to meet a high degree of recidivism after this treatment. If that is so, we must be able to experiment and to compare. I think it is a shame and a great mistake to limit the experiment to within national institutions and not to bring in local experiment as well.
  Moreover, and finally, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to another aspect. The last half of the sentence proposed is to be served locally. Therefore, we start off by breaking the local bonds by sending these recalcitrant children away from home and away from all their home influences and then we bring them back, at which point we shall have to re-establish those bonds. That may be worth while in the case of long sentences where one could have this special treatment for, say, a year and one could try to change, as I heard it put in another place, the souls of some of these recalcitrant children.
  450
  But I cannot believe that that could be done in three months. The shortest sentence is six months. Break the bonds for three months and bring them back for only three months, when a large part of the time will be spent re-establishing the local bonds. I should have hoped that the Government would at least have compromised to the extent of allowing the shorter sentences to be served locally or allowing local treatment in a case where a court was situated 100 miles or more away from the nearest centre.
  I could go on but I must not go on. However, I want to put on record why, on the severely practical ground of relieving the public of this ghastly menace which they are suffering, the Government are making a big practical mistake in insisting on this monopoly for operating what I believe is a hopeful new sentence. It is a great pity that we should be reducing the chances of this important new sentence operating successfully for the safety of the public.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will have listened with respect to the thoughtful and honourable speech which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley. We know how strongly he feels about this matter and we know how effectively he spoke and argued on the matter when it came before your Lordships in the summer. I start by saying, as the noble Lord did, that I do not believe that this is an issue on which we should seek to contradict the Commons in the conclusions to which they have come, although I say that with the same degree—indeed perhaps in some ways a greater degree—of regret as that which he expressed. That is the judgment I make about what view we on these Benches should take. It is not in any way an expression of agreement or sympathy with the view that another place took on this matter. It is a much wider principle to which I adhere, which is the principle of the primacy of the elected Chamber. However, when we look at the reasons—the so-called reasons—which have been given to us by another place we realise the extent to which the consideration it has given to the matter is inadequate. These are not reasons at all. They are simply assertions.
  The reason says:
  "Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre".
  It does not even start to say why. It just says, "That is what we believe. You had better like it or lump it". Indeed, it is worse than an assertion. Since it is repeated on 20 occasions, it becomes a mere asseveration. The reason why there is no reason in the Commons reaction to our amendment is extremely clear. They cannot admit—and perhaps we were chary of saying too openly when we considered the matter before—that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carr, would have driven a coach and horses through the secure training order provision.
  We know, although no one dares quite say so, that very few magistrates, given the choice, would choose to send a child to a secure training centre perhaps many hundreds of miles away from their home in a regime which cannot, as the noble Lord, Lord Carr, explained, even be defined as it is up to the tendering procedures

  451
  of those who are putting in for the privatised contract. No, my Lords, everyone knows that, given the choice, magistrates would much rather send a child to local authority secure accommodation, and everyone knows in their heart that if the Government had only observed the promises they gave some years ago to provide the funds for an increase in the number of local authority secure places then; would have been no need for this provision. In other words, what we are faced with is not a penal judgment of the Home Secretary. What is being made is purely a political judgment.
  Even as a political judgment it is deeply defective. What is the effect of the Commons rejecting the amendment? The effect is that nothing will happen for three years. If our amendment had been passed there would have been secure training orders; all the provisions which the Government had wished to make for more concentrated attention on the problem of young tearaways aged between 12 years and 14 years would have come into effect very much more quickly. By the way, I am not going to pay any attention to anybody who says, as a radio interviewer said to me recently, that it is our fault that the implementation of this Bill has been delayed until October. That was because the Government wanted the House of Commons to rise before Tony Blair was elected leader of the Labour Party. If they had wanted to, the Government could have perfectly well dealt with our amendments in July. The Bill could have returned here and it could have become law before the end of July.
  So, from every point of view, from the deep reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, on penal and political grounds, the Commons rejection of our amendments is deeply regrettable. As I say, it is only because of our more profound and wide-ranging constitutional beliefs that we do not invite your Lordships to divide on the matter.
  Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words in rather a different sense. Of course I respect and admire the constitutional point taken by my noble friend Lord Carr and repeated in slightly different. words by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. It would be wrong for this House to enter into a constitutional battle with the Commons on this particular issue. I feel sure that the House will be wise for one reason or another—there will be argument in what follows—not to dissent from the Commons refusal to accept the amendment which was passed here.
  It will also be remembered that, with great diffidence and in the face of very powerful and highly respected opinions of noble friends and Members on the opposite side of the House, during the debate in your Lordships' House I took a somewhat different view of the merits of the amendment which was subsequently passed although I voted against it.
  I am now addressing the merits of the case and not the constitutional issue. We have to bear in mind that what is proposed in this part of the Bill is a new form of custodial sentence and treatment applicable on the order of a court to a limited group of offenders—I shall call them "persistent offenders" for the sake of
  452
  compendiousness. Two things can be said. First, almost everything that was said by my noble friend Lord Carr and by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, could be said as an argument against this experiment, because experiment it is and a novel one.
  It can be said that it is not desirable partly because of some of the grounds which have been put forward and partly because there will be a number of places too far removed from the special centres for the treatment to be fairly applicable at all. So be it: it will be an experimental treatment and at first it will be limited to a few places. If I were sitting on a bench either as a judge or magistrate and it was said that this measure would be for a comparatively short time and that someone would be sent 250 miles, or whatever, from home, I would simply make the ordinary order which is still applicable to deal with persistent offenders under existing law. Therefore, it is basically an argument against the experiment.
  The other factor we need to bear in mind is this. The Bill has been very carefully and rightly drafted for the court to make the order for a secure training order and a new form of custodial treatment in pursuance of its discretion as a sentencing body. It is obviously true that if that is to be so the actual exercise of the treatment, like any other form of custodial penal treatment, must be under the control of the statutory limits which are set but, like any other form of custodial sentence, it is still part of the ordinary right for penal treatment in custody which is the responsibility of the Home Secretary under the authority of Parliament.
  The idea of making a half-way house between the new form of very highly specialised treatment and the distance from home which may make it totally unsuitable is a muddled idea about the real purpose of what is proposed in Part I of the Bill. I can well understand someone voting against Part I of the Bill on the basis that it is far too imprecise and ineffective and probably unequal in its application to different parts of the country. However, I cannot understand the idea that one can set up a great deal of argument basically designed against the penal treatment and saying that the provision should not be for the Home Secretary, as is every other form of custodial treatment. That is the only way to make the matter accountable to Parliament.
  Therefore I suggest that not only is the constitutional point the correct argument, which I highly respect, coming from my noble friend and the noble Lord opposite, but that there is a powerful argument in favour of the merits of the Home Secretary's original policy which has commended itself to the Commons.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, as my name was attached to the original amendments perhaps I shall be allowed to make a brief comment. I do not regard the amendments as being in any way muddled. I am sorry to say that I find this rather a sad occasion. It is especially unfortunate that discussion of the amendments made by your Lordships has been coloured by widespread ignorance and misapprehension of what the noble Lord, Lord Carr, actually proposed. I refer in particular to suggestions which were repeated to me only today;

  453
  namely, that it would mean the children being sent to children's homes from which it would be easy to abscond or even to be sent on safari.
  I do not want to go over all the ground again, but it bears repeating that, on the contrary, it would mean the courts being given power for the first time and, where suitable, to send children directly to secure units which are indeed secure and have an excellent record of preventing escapes. There are units, too, where, with the resources of the local education authority, it is possible to provide a high standard of education, as I have seen for myself. It is a standard which, I believe, the new centres will find hard to match.
  The point has been taken that it would also mean that in an appropriate case the child could be detained near his or her family, doctor and social worker. That would not always necessarily be appropriate. It might be suitable to get a child well away from his family. But where it was suitable it would greatly help in the important arrangements for aftercare, to which the noble Lord referred. It is quite extraordinary that the Government are prepared to move murderers to Northern Ireland so that they can be near their families but condemn children from Wales, say, to be detained miles from home where family visits at best will be very hard to manage.
  It is also claimed that these are children for whom everything has been tried and it has all failed, but one has only to glance in the Bill to know that the entry qualifications fall a long way short of any such requirement. The Government do not regard this as an experiment in the general sense, as I understand it, but think that the new centres will be such remarkable institutions and will provide such a high calibre regime of education and training that they will at last achieve the results of rehabilitation and reform which have eluded all the other attempts that have been made over the years. The details may still be a bit hazy, but at last it seems to the Government that they are about to win the glittering prize for which so many have contested for so long and hitherto always in vain.
  That is one view, but another view that is held by quite a lot of people is that, even for children, detention in a prison-like institution is an expensive way of making bad offenders worse and that by sending children to a prison environment at an early age the courts (now with no alternative open to them) will be starting children off in a criminal culture with every opportunity to learn new tricks from their fellows and with the likelihood, it is feared, of a criminal career to follow. Time will show which of those views is right.
  I respect the decision which the noble Lord, Lord Carr, reached today and I much admired his dignified speech. However, speaking for myself, I still have to hear any argument which comes near to persuading me that the noble Lord's amendment was mistaken.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I very much agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has just said. I believe that it is accepted by all of us (in whatever part of the House we may sit) that a number of children who have repeatedly
  454
  committed significant offences require to be detained in secure accommodation. That is common ground. Indeed, the case of a number of us against the Government is that for far too long they have chosen to ignore the problem despite the fact that concern has been expressed repeatedly by the courts.
  The Government have allowed the number of places in local authority secure accommodation to decline below the level it had reached before the present Government came into office, as was demonstrated in a number of Written Answers given in this House. I shall take as an example what has happened in the London Borough of Wandsworth, the local authority that we are told that we must admire because of its record. Wandsworth closed all its units of secure accommodation, thus contributing to a significant rise in the number of burglaries and other offences committed by young people who could not, as a result of Wandsworth's policy, be detained in secure accommodation in that local authority area. Now, having ignored the anxieties expressed by many magistrates, the police and by many in Parliament, the Government have introduced proposals which have been opposed by the majority of those who have expert knowledge in the area.
  Faced with that situation, the noble Lord, Lord Carr, speaking on the basis of his substantial experience as a former Home Secretary, came forward with a sensible and balanced amendment. It did not alter the Government's proposed new sentence of secure training orders in any way. It merely allowed a court at its discretion to direct that the requirement of the secure training order could be carried out in the secure accommodation provided by the local authorities, which is now belatedly being increased.
  The Government have, as we all know, used their majority in the House of Commons to reject that modest proposal, just as they have rejected a number of other amendments carried against them in this House, many of which were supported by noble Lords on all sides of the House who possess a lifetime's experience of criminal justice policy. I thought that that was most regrettable.
  But worse has been the remarkable language used by Ministers to attack this House for fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities. I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said a few moments ago that the House has lived up to its reputation as a revising Chamber. That is what the noble Baroness said today, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer used remarkably different language when he appeared on a television programme with Sir David Frost on 25th September. Referring to this Bill, the Chancellor said that the Government and Mr. Howard had been opposed all the way not only by sections of the press and the opposition parties, but also—I quote his words from the transcript which I have obtained—by,
  "the rather limp-wristed establishment in the House of Lords who blocked his Criminal Justice Bill".
  That is presumably how the present Government see this House —as a "limp-wristed establishment". Those are interesting words to use, and I remind the Government that that "limp-wristed establishment" included a

  455
  substantial number of the noble Baroness's noble friends as well as seven noble and learned Lords who are either present or past Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.
  That was the language of abuse that was used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer towards this House when we were merely fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities. I find that an interesting commentary on the Government's attitude. They appear to resent any expression of opinion by this House which does not coincide with the opinion held by Ministers. However, at the same time, they attack those who advocate any change in the composition of this House. If we are indeed a "limp-wristed establishment", why do Ministers insist that the composition of this House should remain precisely as it is today? No doubt the noble Baroness will be able to assist us.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, as the first of your Lordships to put his name to the amendment that was tabled by my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley, perhaps I might raise my limp wrist for a moment in defence of his position.
  There are two questions before the House at the moment. The first is constitutional and can be dealt with swiftly although not entirely as noble Lords have so far suggested. I entirely agree that it would not be proper to test for the second time the opinion of the other place in exactly the same terms as we tested it before, but we need not have been in this position. Indeed, had I not been forced to spend the past four days in hospital, it is a position that I should have striven to avoid because we could have offered an amendment in lieu of that proposed. However, that opportunity has passed us. I therefore agree with my noble friend that we should not now seek to resist the proposal although we may disagree with the terms in which it has been put.
  During my four days of enforced inactivity, I spent some time wondering how I might sugar the pill of accepting a policy decision with which I am profoundly uncomfortable. It seemed to me that it would be possible to be comforted on the grounds that the Government have shown that they are absolutely convinced and confident that the new sentence (and the means of administering it) will work, but we have not heard their grounds for saying that, which is perhaps why we do not share their confidence.
  I therefore spent my time preparing 10 questions to ask my noble friend the Minister, of all of which I have given her notice and which I hope she will be able to answer in terms which show that that confidence is indeed well founded. The proposal is for a secure regime for groups of 40 children aged 12 to 14 whose time, we are told, will be fully allocated to education with emphasis being placed on training as a separate issue. My first question is: may we please have a definition of "training" as distinct from "education", of its component parts and of how its achievement will be assessed?
  The first problem facing the people in charge of these institutions will be one of control. That can be achieved, in part, by the use of rewards and punishments. Can we be told what rewards and punishments will be available to the contractors' staff? These children will be among the most difficult in the land to teach. Each of them will
  456
  have defeated every teacher in whose hands he or she has been placed before being sentenced. May we know, as my third question, how it is proposed to ensure that the contractors recruit only staff of the outstanding calibre needed for this challenging work and retain them in it?
  Fourthly, what will be the numerical ratios between the children and staff generally, and between children and security, administrative, education and training staff severally? Fifthly, will those criteria be set by the department universally for all STCs—I understand from my noble friend Lord Carr that they will not—or will they be negotiated in the bidding process? If the latter, what assurance have we that the Home Office will give sufficient weight to those items in relation to straight financial considerations? I have not given my noble friend notice of this small sub-question, but if there are to be different criteria may we know what the minimum criteria will be throughout?
  My next question is, with the current steady and regrettable rise in female offending at all ages, will my noble friend tell us whether all the STCs or only some will be equipped to deal with the minority of female children to be expected? The experiment will in any case be costly. My noble and learned friend is speaking contrapuntally, and I find it difficult to keep my thread which will be shorter if it is not interrupted.
  The crucial point about the success of this experiment, as it is universally accepted to be, is: will it be possible to take children out of the community and out of their schools, in so far as they are in them, put them through the process and reintroduce them to the schools and the societies from which they have been taken in a way in which they can adapt successfully to an orderly life, and pick up their educational threads at the point which the school to which they are reintroduced has reached in its curriculum?
  My next question is: how will the contractor be apprised of the educational and other achievements, if any, of these children, and how will the contractor be enabled to ensure that such children are returned to mainstream education, whether or not through an offsite unit, at the point the rest of the community in the school has reached? If that does not happen, this will not work. What similar arrangements will be made to secure continuity with the social work and probation services?
  That was the ninth question, your Lordships will be relieved to hear.
  Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not sure that I am encouraged by that noise, but I shall nevertheless ask my tenth question which is a crucial one: what overall system will there be for the appraisal of the performance of the STCs in terms of the effect they have on children as well as financially, and to disseminate best practice, and how will their findings be publicised? 1 have heard mutters of, "beside the point". It is not beside the point.
  Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, it is wholly.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, it is not beside the point. Whether that rejection is made sitting or standing, it is

  457
  not beside the point. We are talking about 200 children of the age of 12 —the height of that Dispatch Box— annually for the next 10 years; the well-being of 2,000 children depends upon this experiment being properly thought through and properly launched. Your Lordships have a duty to see that it is if we are to stand aside, as I still hope that I may be able to do, and have undertaken to do—I hope that we may all be able to stand aside— when the Question is put.
  Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, two weeks ago while sitting in court, my colleague and I decided that a defendant should go to prison. I was in the chair and had to announce that decision with, of course, the reasons. I cannot tell your Lordships how much I hate having to do that. My heart thumps as I am aware of the enormity of our action in depriving someone of his liberty. I know that many of my colleagues feel the same, but I know also that that is the responsibility we accept when we are appointed. I mention that because I am anxious to allay thoughts that I might be seen as heartless and thoughtless.
  I feel that this stage of the Bill is not the time to rehearse old arguments but to augment those arguments with new facts. Since we last debated the matter in your Lordships' House, there have been further examples of mayhem caused by some of these persistent young criminals. For example, there has been much publicity over the case of a boy who, having been placed in local authority care, brought chaos to a holiday park where he was enjoying a break with his social workers. At last the "safari holiday boy" who has already been referred to, having reached an age when he can be named, has been sentenced for the crimes that he has committed since his holiday abroad.
  We delude ourselves if we do not listen to the majority view of the public in these matters. People are fed up with their lives being disrupted by the comparatively few hardened young offenders who bring such misery to their communities. Members of another place are being told constantly by their constituents that something must be done. Your Lordships' decision has been reversed, and I believe that we would show a total lack of awareness and judgment if we did not support that decision.
  Last week, a taxi driver told me his view of the House of Lords. "You see," he said, "I believe that it is the conscience of the nation". We must not abuse such trust. Young people who cannot and do not learn in any other way should not be allowed to terrorise the lives of a few vulnerable and elderly people, particularly, but also decent and law-abiding people who want to live a peaceful life.
  I cannot sit down without expressing again my revulsion over the use of local authority secure accommodation for these delinquents. I just cannot understand how anyone, however well intentioned, can believe that it is right to place these young hooligans among vulnerable young people, many of whom have
  458
  committed no crime, but are in need of care and protection. I believe that it is criminal to do so. I urge your Lordships to support the Commons amendment.
  Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I shall speak briefly. On 16th May, I moved an amendment in your Lordships' House that there should not be secure training units. Many people have written to me to say that they have read the reports in Hansard. They felt that the argument was won but that the vote was lost, perhaps on constitutional grounds.
  On 5th July, I supported my noble friend Lord Carr. Like him and some other noble Lords on this side of the House, on the grounds of consistency and professional integrity, I shall not vote against Her Majesty's Government today when the Question is put to the House.
  I wish to make just two points. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said that this was a new form of treatment and a new form of custodial sentence. It is no different from the old approved school system. The approved schools were closed in 1962. The research of the Home Office, the Dartington Research Unit, and many criminology departments show this to be so. I have looked also at the specifications of the new units. They are no different from the old approved schools that we had way back in 1962.
  Perhaps I may take the opportunity to thank my noble friend the Minister for giving me so much of her time and for discussing this whole question with me. Perhaps I may ask one question of which I have given her notice and to which I do not expect an answer today. Is there any possibility of the Home Office funding voluntary organisations which provide education, discipline and a structure to some of the most delinquent, disturbed and disruptive children referred to them by local authorities? I cite the Caldecott Community and the homes of the Charterhouse group, the Hesley group in the North of England and other voluntary homes. Many of these homes and schools, which give a sound service, are having to close down as local authorities are unable to pay the fees. Such homes and schools have staff with experience of such children who come from fragmented families known to social services. The social services are helping to support and assist those families.
  As my noble friend the Minister is well aware, under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 local authority social services departments can place a child in a local authority secure place. If the child needs to be held for longer than 72 hours the local authority can apply to the magistrates at the youth court to hold the child in a secure unit run by a local authority. After assessment, some such children may need longer terms in residential homes, of which there are many. It is intended that over five years £30 million will be spent on secure training units. Surely the Home Office can be asked to support some of the voluntary homes. That would help and would provide a secure service, good discipline and trained staff in a difficult area. Will the Minister tell the House where the trained staff for the secure units will come from?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, reference was made to a constitutional principle, most notably by the

  459
  noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. I do not dissent from that. However, there is another constitutional principle for which I contend. It is that it is best always not to seek to limit the discretion of the sentencing tribunal. I believe that the underpinning of the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, is entirely directed to that proposition. If magistrates, who have a whole body of knowledge and an informed view when dealing with children as young as 12, believe that the children whom they sentence can appropriately be dealt with at least for part of the sentence in local authority secure accommodation, why on earth do the Government, with their whipped majority, seek to take away that discretion from the judiciary? That is an important constitutional principle.
  I have only one question to ask. With my limited education, I cannot stretch to 10. Is it correct that there will be no secure training centre in the whole of the Principality of Wales? If so it is undoubted that local magistrates will be exceptionally reluctant to impose appropriate sentences, dragging children from community, social worker, parents and home 250 or 300 miles away. The proposal simply will not work and no one to whom I have spoken with any knowledge of dealing with the problems of such disturbed children believes that it will.
  4.15 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Elton asked a number of specific questions and I am grateful to him for giving me notice. I shall attempt to answer them because they touched on many of the points raised by other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Carr. We are talking about the new system of secure training centres. Many of the questions have centred on the modus operandi of how they are to be run as opposed to whether they will be run. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have respected the constitutional position that perhaps we should not resist the Government's proposal.
  My noble friend is rightly concerned about the education and training which juveniles will receive in secure training centres and during the second half of the secure training order which is served in the community. For each juvenile received in a secure training centre an
  individual plan will be drawn up setting out his or her needs for education and training. That might include training in social skills or anger management or, in the case of older juveniles, vocational skills such as computing; never forgetting not to neglect basic skills.
  In drawing up the plan, the secure training centre will be expected to make every effort to obtain information about the youngster's previous educational experience through court reports prepared by social workers and the schools themselves and details of the educational record from the trainee's local education authority.
  In implementing the plan, my noble friend is right to emphasise the need to recruit staff of a high calibre. It will be for the provider of the secure training centre to recruit the necessary staff and to ensure their retention. I am baffled by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that, for some reason I know not, secure training units run by local authorities can provide
  460
  quality training but the secure units cannot. There is no evidence to support that view. Many skilled and appropriate people are sufficiently professional to provide the service.
  As part of the invitation to tender a schedule has been produced which gives advice on staff selection, training, qualification and certification. It also includes guidance issued by the Department for Education in respect of teachers. It is expected that the staff of the secure training centre will be multi-disciplinary with the appropriate qualifications necessary for their respective professions. It will be for potential providers to satisfy the Home Office that their proposed staffing arrangements are appropriate and acceptable.
  As regards the ratio of staff to trainees, that will be a matter for potential providers to decide in the formulation of their bids to the Home Office. The number of staff required will be determined by the type of regime proposed. I can reassure my noble friends that the number and type of staff proposed will need to satisfy the Home Office requirements set out in the operational specification and the rules for the secure training centres. Education will need to provide a broad and balanced curriculum in line as far as possible with the national curriculum.
  As regards rewards and punishment, the service provider will be required to provide a just and fair system which recognises and takes account of the legitimate rights and expectations of both trainees and staff and to propose a system of rules, incentives and sanctions which will be published, explained and understood by staff and trainees. The system should reward good behaviour by allowing trainees progressively more privileges and the chance to exercise control over aspects of their lives in the secure training centres. That should be accompanied by a counselling and informal warning system which supports and enforces the environment of good order and discipline.
  As your Lordships know, the secure training centres will be subject to inspection by both the social services inspectorate and the Department of Health, which will look at the general regime, and by Ofsted, the educational inspectorate, which will concentrate on the educational components. The reports of the inspections will be published. I believe that that goes a long way to allay some of your Lordships' fears.
  My noble friend has also drawn attention to the importance of continuity between the secure part of the secure training order and return to the community. The person who will be responsible for supervision after release will be appointed as early as possible during the secure part of the sentence, will become involved at an early stage in developing the trainee's individual training plan and will also take part in a continuing review and assessment process in order to give the best possible chance of successfully reintegrating the trainee into the community on release.
  One of the objectives of the educational part of the training plan will be to enable reintegration of the trainee into mainstream education on his or her return to the community. Successful reintegration will also be the main aim of the second part of the sentence. This

  461
  does not describe an institution which in any way compares with the old Borstals or institutions referred to in the debate.
  As your Lordships know, supervision can be undertaken by a local authority social worker, probation officer or any other person designated by the Home Secretary. The cost of supervision will be directly reimbursed to whichever organisation provides supervision by the Home Office. Each secure training unit will be required to provide accommodation for female trainees. Under the terms of the operational specification for a secure training centre female trainees must be located in sleeping accommodation which is physically separate from that of male trainees. The service providers will also have to take into account the possible need for female trainees to undertake education and training separately from male trainees and make provision for such a situation.
  The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, asked about provision in Wales. My understanding is that on current plans, it is not intended that there should be a secure training centre in Wales.
  I believe that there is a feeling in the House that somehow social services provision is more cost effective; but it is worth recording for the purposes of the debate that it costs between £1,700 and £3,000 per week for local authority social services provision. While cost will be a consideration, the quality of the regime to be provided will be a serious consideration when bids are submitted to run the centres. Therefore, I am able to assure and reassure my noble friend that that must be a very real consideration.
  I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Faithfull for her remarks. I undertake and put on record that I shall write to her in detail on the points that she raised. Should any noble Lord wish to see a copy of that reply, I shall place it in the Library.
  Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to cost. Will she assure us that when the bids are submitted, it will not always be the lowest bidder who secures the contract?
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point but I have just said that the quality of the provision, which is part of the tendering process, will be given very serious consideration, alongside costs. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, described the measure as limiting the discretion of the courts. We are adding to the discretion of the courts. This is an added facility.
  My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham was right to say that there is no guarantee that this will work. However, it is a very real and genuine attempt to address the incidence of young persistent offenders. The centres will provide programmes dedicated to the rehabilitation of such children with the objective of getting them back into mainstream education and the community. After the full consideration that has been given to this issue, I invite the House to support the Government, and I
  462
  recommend to your Lordships that the House do not insist on the amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENTS
  2 Page 2, line 18, at end insert:
  ("(2A) Where a court makes a secure training order under subsection (1) above it may specify that the period of detention shall be in secure accommodation; and where it does so the court shall designate the local authority by whom or on whose behalf the secure accommodation is to be provided.
  (2B) The local authority designated by the court under subsection (2A) above shall be—

  (a) in the case of an offender who is being looked after by a local authority, that authority; and

  (b) in any other case, the local authority in whose area it appears to the court that the offender resides or the offence or one of the offences in respect of which the secure training order has been made was committed.")

  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  2A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.
  3 Page 2, line 22, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsections (4A) and (4B) below")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  3A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre for the whole period of his detention.
  4 Page 2, line 24, at end insert:
  ("(4A) While any secure training order in respect of which a court has made such a specification as is mentioned in subsection (2A) above is in force, a relevant court may, on the application of the designated local authority, and if it is satisfied that it would be appropriate to do so, order that the remainder of the period of detention shall be replaced by—

  (a) a period during which the offender shall be required to live in other local authority accommodation provided by or on behalf of the designated local authority;

  (b) a period of supervision; or

  (c) a period of detention in a secure training centre.

  (4B) While any secure training order in respect of which a court has not made such a specification as is mentioned in subsection (2A) above is in force, a relevant court may, on the application of the director of the secure training centre, and if it is satisfied that it would be appropriate to do so, order that the remainder of the period of detention shall be replaced by—

  (a) a period of detention in secure accommodation provided by or on behalf of the designated local authority;

  (b) a period during which the offender shall be required to live in other local authority accommodation provided by or on behalf of the designated local authority; or

  (c) a period of supervision.")

  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  4A Because the Commons consider that a court should always

  463
  order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre for the whole period of his detention.
  5 Page 3, line 9, at end insert (";
  "local authority", "voluntary organisation" and "registered childrens' home" have the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989;
  "local authority accommodation" means accommodation provided by a local authority or on its behalf by voluntary organisations or persons carrying on a registered childrens' home with whom the local authority has made arrangements for its provision;
  "relevant court" means-

  (a) a youth court acting for the petty sessions area in which the secure accommodation or, as the case may be, secure training centre, is situated; or

  (b) a youth court acting for the same petty sessions area as the court which made the secure training order; and

  "secure accommodation" means local authority accommodation which is provided in a community home, a voluntary home or a registered childrens' home for the purpose of restricting liberty, and is approved for that purpose by the Secretary of State")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  5A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre for the whole period of his detention..
  7 Clause 2, Page 3, line 18, leave out ("a secure training centre") and insert ("his place of detention")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  7A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.
  8 Page 3, line 26, leave out ("a secure training centre") and insert ("the place of detention")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  8A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.
  10 Page 3, line 31, leave out ("in the secure training centre")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  10A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.
  11 Page 3, line 33, leave out ("such a place") and insert ("the place to which he is committed under paragraph (a) above")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  11A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.
  12 Page 3, line 42, leave out ("a secure training centre") and insert ("his place of detention")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  12A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.
  13 Page 3, line 47, leave out ("in the secure training centre")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  13A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.
  14 Page 4, line 6, leave out ("the secure training centre") and insert ("his place of detention")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  14A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be. detained in a secure training centre.
  15 Page 4, line 13, at end insert (";
  "place of detention" means the secure training centre, secure accommodation or other local authority accommodation in which a court has ordered the offender to be detained for the time being; and
  "secure accommodation" and "local authority accommodation" have the same meaning as in section 1 above.")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  15A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre..
  16 Clause 3, Page 4, line 14, leave out second ("the") and insert ("any")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  16A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre..
  17 Clause 4, Page 5, line 17, leave out ("secure training centre") and insert ("place of detention")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  17A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.
  18 Page 5, line 36, at end insert:
  ("( ) In this section, "place of detention" has the same meaning as in section 2 above.")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  18A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre..
  21 Clause 8, Page 7, line 15, after ("by") insert ("section 1 of this Act,")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  21A Because the Commons consider that a court should always
  order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre for the whole period of his detention..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 to 5, 7, 8, 10, 18 and 21 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 2A to 5A, 7A and 8A, 10A to 18A and 21A en bloc.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 to 5, 7, 8, 10, 18 and 21 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 2A to 5A, 7A and 8A, 10A to 18A and 21A en bloc.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Conduct of Public Life
  4.23 p.m.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the conduct of public life. The Statement is as follows:
  "Madam Speaker, with permission, I shall make a Statement on the conduct of public life, and put some proposals before the House. Before I do so, I shall refer to the report which I asked the Cabinet Secretary to undertake on allegations of impropriety against named individuals that had been made by Mr. Mohammed Al Fayed.
  "I have now received Sir Robin Butler's report and am publishing it in full in a Written Answer this afternoon. Before turning to wider matters, I should like to draw on that report. Perhaps it would be best if I quoted paragraph two of Sir Robin's report to me. It reads as follows:
  'In reporting those allegations the informant said that Mr Al Fayed wanted a meeting with the Prime Minister, principally because of Mr Al Fayed's wish to have the DTI Inspectors' Report on the takeover of the House of Fraser revised or withdrawn. He had made a number of allegations against Government Ministers and was contemplating passing them to others'.
  "Sir Robin then sets out my reply. He records that I replied that it would be impossible for me to see Mr. Al Fayed in these circumstances. If Ministers had been guilty of wrong-doing—as Mr. Al Fayed alleged—I was not going to make any sort of deal, regardless of the cost to the Government's reputation. I said that I would consider how to proceed, and suggested that, in the meantime, my informant should make no response to Mr. Al Fayed.
  "I said that I was not prepared to enter into discussions with Mr. Al Fayed on any of these issues. However, it was clear to me that I would need to establish whether there was any substance in the allegations. If there was, it was unlikely that they would remain private. Nor was it right that they should.
  "Upon the substance of the allegations, the House now knows that my honourable friend for Beaconsfield has resigned from the Government.
  466
  "My honourable friend, the Member for Tatton, has vigorously rejected, both orally and in writing, the allegations of impropriety made against him and is taking legal action. Sir Robin's report makes clear that he has found no evidence which controverts my honourable friend's assurances on these matters.
  "I have however to tell the House that since Sir Robin completed his report, other unconnected allegations, which were not the subject of his investigations, have been made against my honourable friend. I must consider whether the combined impact of these allegations disables my honourable friend from carrying out his responsibilities as Minister for Corporate Affairs. I believe they do and my honourable friend agrees and has resigned from the Government.
  "On the other allegations put to me, Sir Robin found that they are either demonstrably false or, so far as he has been able to establish after careful inquiry, are entirely unsubstantiated as well as being denied by the Ministers concerned.
  "I now turn to wider issues. It is important that the public have confidence in our system of public administration, our methods of making public appointments, the conduct of people in authority, and the financial and commercial activities of public figures.
  "It has always been the wish of this House that British Government, Parliament and administration should be entirely free of malpractice. I am determined to ensure it is.
  "In the present atmosphere there is public disquiet about standards in public life and I have concluded that action is imperative. I have listened carefully and have reflected upon the points raised by right honourable and honourable gentlemen in all parts of this House in framing my recommendations. I have decided to establish a body with the following terms of reference:
  'To examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public office, including arrangements relating to financial and commercial activities, and make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements which might be required to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life'.
  "For these purposes, public office should include: Ministers, civil servants and advisers; Members of Parliament and UK Members of the European Parliament; members and senior officers of all non-departmental public bodies, and of NHS bodies; non-Ministerial office holders; members and other senior officers of other bodies discharging publicly-funded functions; and elected members and senior officers of local authorities. This is a wide-ranging list and is intended to be so.
  "I have considered the nature of the body to be established. A Royal Commission tends to be cumbersome and would probably take too long. A committee composed solely of Privy Counsellors might be seen as too narrowly drawn, A Speaker's Conference traditionally only deals with electoral law. And a formal board of inquiry or judicial inquiry tends to carry out specific investigations rather than considering broader issues and making

  467
  recommendations to the Government. Arguments can be made for any of those bodies but I believe that a better way ahead exists.
  "The body needs to be able to respond quickly and to be sufficiently flexible to deal with the wide range of issues that I have outlined.
  "I have decided therefore to establish standing machinery to examine the conduct of public life and to make recommendations on how best to ensure that standards of propriety are upheld. It will contain prominent individuals who have practical experience of Parliament and public life but also others with expertise and knowledge of our principal institutions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, has accepted my invitation to chair the committee.
  "I have invited the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party to nominate a member of the committee, and I shall announce the full membership shortly. I hope that the committee will be able to produce at least a first report covering the main areas of current concern within six months—and then stay in being as a standing body to advise the government of the day.
  "It will be open to the committee to take evidence in public, though it could also invite evidence in writing, or in private, and would probably wish to deliberate in private. But the committee itself must determine that. Naturally, I would expect Ministers and Members of Parliament to give evidence to the committee if requested to do so; but I should make clear that the purpose of the body is not to replace the House's own machinery, which is the proper way to consider issues affecting individual Members of this House.
  "The new body will advise on general procedures, including procedures governing public appointments, rather than investigate individual cases. When the committee has reported I will publish its report, I hope in full, lay it before the House, and take appropriate action upon it. Recommendations affecting Members and procedures of this House will of course be for the House itself to decide.
  "I hope that I have made it clear that I am determined to ensure that this is a wide-ranging review of the safeguards of standards of public office.
  "It is vital that the system is seen and recognised to be beyond criticism. I shall naturally make available to the committee Questions of Procedure for Ministers and any other documentation concerning the proprieties in Government that they may seek.
  "This country has an international reputation for the integrity and honour of its public institutions. That reputation must be maintained and be seen to be maintained.
  "I hope that the Standing Committee I have announced today will enjoy the support of this House and reassure the people of this country about our determination to maintain high standards of conduct in public life".
  468
  My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
  4.33 p.m.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has just repeated a most sombre Statement. I am bound to say that my first reaction to the Statement is that it is about time. Up until recently, the Government apparently did not recognise that the problem even existed. However, we are now told that it is so bad that a major committee has to be established to inquire into all such facets of public life.
  I have some questions to ask on the detail of the committee which I shall put to the Minister in a moment. However, I should like to say, first, that it is perfectly true to say that the country needs reassurance; indeed, I do not believe that any of us can have any doubt about that fact. I hope that the committee will go a long way towards providing that reassurance. But it will only do so if its deliberations are, on the whole, in public and the people know what the committee is doing.
  Obviously there will be occasions when evidence will have to be taken in private. I accept that fact. However, the bias so far as concerns the committee should be for the evidence to be taken and tested in public and for as much of the committee's work as possible to be conducted in public and not in private. Indeed, much too much has been going on in private in this Administration.
  I turn now to my questions on the detail of the committee. First, is the committee to have powers of subpoena, both in relation to individuals and to papers? If it does not, it would seem to me that its powers of investigation will be severely limited. Secondly, can I take it from the Statement that individual cases affecting Members of the House of Commons will continue to be investigated by the Privileges Committee of that House rather than by the new Standing Committee? Further, does that apply in the case of Mr. Hamilton? I have to point out that, three days ago, the Prime Minister did not seem to think that it was necessary for Mr. Hamilton to leave his Administration. However, today, apparently, the Prime Minister does believe that he should do so; and, indeed, Mr. Hamilton has done so.
  I do not know quite what has changed, except for that rather elliptical phrase that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House used about some additional matters coming to light which, on reflection, Mr. Hamilton felt made it impossible for him to continue in the Government. I believe that the country is entitled to know the nature of those additional matters. Either it was a massive misjudgment on the part of the Prime Minister three or four days ago, or there is something about which we are unaware and about which, with respect, we should know.
  I turn now to the scope of the inquiry and the matters that it is to investigate. Page 6 of the Statement refers to,
  "Members of Parliament and UK Members of the European Parliament".
  I take it that Members of this House are Members of Parliament for the purpose of this committee's investigations. In that case, I also take it that, if one of the matters that is to be investigated—and it clearly is—

  469
  is whether the Register of Members' Interests in another place is doing the job it should be doing, then the issue of whether there should be a register of interests for Members of this House is another matter which is now on the table before the committee.
  In conclusion, I have to say—and it is a reflection rather than a question—what a mess. What a reflection after 15 years of the Administration of the party opposite that they now have to announce that there has to be a major cleansing operation of such magnitude. So far as we are concerned, if the Augean stables need to be cleansed, so be it; we will help with the hoses.
  However, the Government will not be able—indeed, we will not let them and neither will the country—to evade their responsibility for the fact that the stables have to be cleansed at all. The dirt has accumulated not within the past six months but slowly over a long period of time. However, despite warnings given to them, the Government have done absolutely nothing about it. I hope that the committee will restore public confidence in the honour and honesty of our institutions. My goodness, that is sorely needed under this Government.
  Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we also are grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. We welcome the establishment of the Standing Committee of inquiry and its scope and level. First, the fact that the Government have taken that grave step indicates that they recognise the dangerous undermining of public confidence which the drip, drip, drip of a series of scandals—some perhaps petty, some of them even squalid —has caused; in other words, its accumulative effect which has been extremely damaging and which points to some underlying malaise.
  Secondly, I turn to the composition of the committee. We accept the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, as a distinguished judge who is to chair the committee. We note that there will be one member nominated by each of the three parties. However, the Government also reserve the right to appoint an unspecified number of other members. Will the Government consult as to the nature of those other members so as to ensure that the overall shape of the committee commands cross-party and widespread confidence? One of the difficulties which forms part of the background to the problems that we face at present is that the Government have a record of showing inadequate regard for anything except Conservative opinion in their appointments policy. It is important that that is not repeated in the composition of this committee.
  Thirdly, will the committee have the right to recommend legislation? Surely its continuing function, which is specifically referred to in the Statement which states that it will advise the Government, should also be to advise and reassure Parliament and the public.
  I turn now to the report of Sir Robin Butler, whom we all like and respect. However, I must express grave reservations as to whether sitting in even superficial— and this appears to have been rather superficial— judgment on Ministers is a suitable role, from his own point of view, for the Cabinet Secretary. He should not be turned into a cross between the Lord Chief Justice
  470
  and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The behaviour of Ministers is a matter for the head of the Government and not for the head of the Civil Service. It is also undesirable that officials should be too closely involved in the political process. That is another unsatisfactory aspect of the way we live now.
  The report itself does not seem very reassuring. It exonerated Mr. Hamilton, on his own ipse dixit. That exoneration appears to have stood for a few hours, or at most a few days. If the committee, rightly, is to concern itself with general policy and not with individual cases, it is important that individual cases should be properly investigated. It should not be the position that someone against whom charges are made should only have to wait until the next scandal comes along in a few weeks and hope that his particular problem will be buried. That has happened in the past to some extent.
  I welcome the establishment of the committee and the fact that the Government are at last taking this grave matter seriously; but I should welcome replies and assurances from the noble Viscount on the points that I have raised.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Jenkins, for the general welcome which they have given to the committee. In particular, I am grateful for the welcome which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, gave to the idea that the committee should concern itself with general principles.
  So far as concerns the individuals who have been named, a number of avenues are open. In your Lordships' House we are always careful about commenting on House of Commons matters. However, a number of committees, not merely the Privileges Committee but also the Committee on Members' Interests, can concern themselves with individual matters affecting Members of the House of Commons. If matters of graver import are brought before any other authorities, it is open to the authorities to take the appropriate action. Naturally enough, Ministers are not exempted, any more than any other subjects of Her Majesty.
  The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that it was about time. I remind the noble Lord that as soon as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister heard about allegations concerning members of Her Majesty's Government he immediately referred the matter to the Cabinet Secretary. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said that the Cabinet Secretary is not a cross between a judge and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Indeed, he is not. However, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that the Cabinet Secretary is an entirely appropriate individual to conduct a preliminary investigation and to advise my right honourable friend on the appropriate action which might result from that inquiry.
  Inevitably, there was little time to go into the details of those allegations. However, it was perfectly clear to my right honourable friend that there were matters which needed attention. As soon as the Cabinet Secretary's conclusions were made available to my right honourable friend—and three weeks was a remarkably short time in view of the complexity of the matters

  471
  under consideration—he acted in the way which has been made clear to both Houses of Parliament this afternoon.
  The noble Lards asked a number of specific questions. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked whether the committee would sit in public. I have to say to the noble Lord that that is something which we would very much like to leave to the committee. However, the noble Lord is right to say that openness in matters of this kind is desirable if there is no good reason for that not to be the case. While I cannot speak for the committee, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, will read what the noble Lord said.
  The noble Lord also asked whether individuals could be subpoenaed. As yet, that is not settled. However, I shall make sure that the noble Lord's suggestion is brought to the attention of my right honourable friends. The only gloss which I would put upon my answer is that it is important that the committee should be given sufficient powers to carry out its job adequately. The noble Lord's suggestion will be taken urgently into account.
  The noble Lord, Lord Richard, wondered in particular whether individuals would be examined by the other place. The other place already has extensive powers to summon individuals. It is for the other place to exercise those powers, and it is not for the Government to circumscribe them in any way.
  The noble Lord, Lord Richard, also asked whether Peers would come within the scope of the committee's activities. So far as I am aware, your Lordships are Members of Parliament. I therefore have to conclude that your Lordships are indeed within the scope of the investigations of the committee. I am sure that your Lordships would not wish it to be any other way.
  I turn now to the question of a register of Peers' interests. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggests that I should look behind me. I am perfectly certain that behind me there was nothing but a row of nodding heads when I made that remark! I detect from the reaction of the Opposition Front Bench that that must have been so.
  Over the years the question of a register of interests for Members of your Lordships' House has become something of an old chestnut. Many of my predecessors, and indeed predecessors of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, have examined the question and rejected it for various reasons. I shall not go into those reasons now. All I shall say to the noble Lord is that in view of the current climate, it is clearly right that that question should be examined again. I should certainly be extremely happy, if it were the wish of your Lordships, for the matter to be raised at the next meeting of the Procedure Committee of your Lordships' House and a report to be produced in due course for discussion by your Lordships.
  The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, talked about the composition of the committee. I agree with the noble Lord that the composition of the committee is extremely important. It is right that not only Parliament but the public should feel that the composition of the committee is of such a nature that it will satisfy the high standards of investigation which both Parliament and the public have every right to expect. I hope that the noble Lord,
  472
  Lord Jenkins, will not be disappointed, in particular since his right honourable friend will be consulted on its composition.
  The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, also asked me whether the committee would have the right to recommend legislation. The scope of the committee's remit is deliberately extremely broad. It necessarily follows that its recommendations will probably be very broad, too. It would be entirely open to the committee to recommend legislation if it so desired. Of course, it would then be for the Government of the day to consider whether such legislation should be introduced. However, we would be the last to suggest that the committee should have no right to make such a recommendation.
  If I may, I wish to conclude by saying this. I apologise for having taken so long to answer the points made by both noble Lords. It is a matter of supreme importance to Parliament and the public of this country that they should have confidence in the institutions of public life and of government. I have to say that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is a shining example of honesty in public life. It is also extremely important that the administration over which he presides—the public administration, the local administration, and all the machinery of government of our country—in an age of supremely rapid change should not succumb to the pressures of today and should uphold the highest standards which the history of this country insists should obtain in our public life.
  4.52 p.m.
  Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, if the statements contained within the earliest part of the Statement are accurate—I am sure that they are—then it was a most improper proposal for Mr. Al Fayed to make. I hope that the noble Viscount will convey to the Prime Minister that anyone knowing him would not have expected him, or I hope any of his predecessors, to have made any other response.
  However, I wish that the Statement had contained what I believe to be absolutely true: that in the hysteria which has accompanied this matter in recent weeks the overwhelming number of Members of Parliament in another place understand perfectly well what is seemly behaviour in their dealings with other bodies and institutions. I do not believe that we should allow that possibility to go unchallenged in view of some of the statements made in the press today. I hope that that point will be made clear.
  I wish to raise one point. The Government have chosen to cover a wide-ranging area. There is no doubt that there has been disquiet. I believe that it is the arrogance shown in their pursuit of patronage in relation to appointments to other bodies which has aroused much of that disquiet. I trust that the new commission will be able to make recommendations which will avoid such arrogance in future.
  However, the commission does not cover one area. I refer to the infestation of our public life by the lobbyists who surround us in Parliament today. Perhaps I may ask the Minister this question. I do not see the issue referred to in the Statement. Will the committee be able to investigate the methods of work, the power and the

  473
  influence of lobbyists in their activities in seeking to secure the interests of their clients or their members? I do not wish this House to become a monastic institution. It would be quite wrong for us to be cut off from every outside influence. I believe that people who have outside interests bring valuable experience to the House. But I believe that the activities of the lobbyists are extremely suspect. Will the committee be able to investigate those activities?
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, for a number of the points he made. First, he recognises that outside experience is valuable to Members of Parliament. Perhaps your Lordships' House is the greatest shining example of that. It is perhaps the greatest collection of people with much outside experience of any legislative chamber anywhere. We all know how much your Lordships' House benefits from that experience.
  I am also grateful to the noble Lord for his instant recognition of the impropriety of Mr. Mohammed Al Fayed's suggestion. I shall say no more on that matter.
  I am grateful too for what the noble Lord said about the vast majority of Members of Parliament both in this House and another place. The noble Lord spent many years in another place; I spent very few. However, it is one of the great sadnesses of such moments—whether it is the atmosphere of 1994, Maundy Gregory, or other periods of scandal in history—that the overwhelming majority of honourable public servants are besmirched by the activities of a few. That is why it is important that we make sure that those few do not flourish, and cannot be allowed to flourish. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said.
  With regard to his other two questions, the issue of patronage is clearly within the remit of the committee. So far as concerns lobbyists, the committee has a wide remit to investigate any activities or individuals who influence the conduct of public life. It seems to me that lobbyists come firmly within that definition.
  Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend to pass on to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister my feeling of pleasure—I believe that it is shared by many noble Lords —at the establishment of this committee with these terms of reference. It seems to me exactly the right type of committee because it can act speedily and, with the composition that we have heard discussed already, will command public confidence. I believe that it will be able to make recommendations soon. That, unfortunately, is very necessary at present. The current atmosphere in which allegations of all kinds, about all sorts of people, are being flung about almost daily, and avidly pursued by television, radio and press, whether or not there is any factor which substantiates the allegations, is extremely damaging to our democracy.
  I hope that the committee will be able to re-establish our belief that our form of democracy is the best that there is.
  I ask my noble friend to pass on one point. In any recommendations which the committee makes, I hope that it will not seek so to circumscribe those who hold
  474
  any form of public office that they become totally removed from ordinary life. One of the charges that can be made against the "professional politician" is that he does not understand about ordinary people. If suggestions are made that anyone in public life should refuse to have any contact with ordinary people, that charge will be able to be maintained; and that will be a disaster. Therefore I hope that the committee will not make such a recommendation.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I shall of course pass on to my right honourable friend the messages that my noble friend asks me to do. I am glad that my noble friend likes the remit for the committee to act with speed and to report rapidly. I am also delighted to find that he supports the view of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, about the importance of outside experience in our public life. It is a message which I am sure will go out loud and clear and will be all the stronger because it comes from both sides of the House.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Viscount two questions. First, will the committee be able to examine the financing of political parties and the relationship between people who contribute to political parties and the political parties themselves? Secondly, the approaches made by Mr. Al Fayed were at least improper and perhaps illegal. Is any action being taken to refer the matter either to the police or to the Director of Public Prosecutions?
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that there will be a general remit for the committee to examine the propriety and conduct of public life and that the specific financing of political parties at the moment will not be included within the remit of the committee. In addition, if there is sufficient evidence for any criminal prosecution to be taken on any allegation arising from investigations, whether by the Cabinet Secretary or the committee itself, it will be up to the proper authorities to refer it to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, as someone who has spent some time in local government, I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on the Statement repeated by the noble Viscount to the House. I am certain that all political parties involved in local government and all chief officers of local government will welcome the committee.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for what he said. I know that his experience of local government is extremely long and I shall ensure that the message he gives is transmitted to my right honourable friend.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as regards honour, it is reasonable to assume that, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said, in this country we have a much higher standard than other countries. That is perhaps why we are so upset when our standards lapse from the perfection that we demand. After all, it is only relatively recently that our standards of public life have increased to the present heights.

  475
  Having said that, there is a slight difficulty about the way in which we are going. If we make too many individual rules on honour as opposed to leaving it to people's sense of honour—hoping that they have one— we will possibly encourage a certain legalism in what is right and wrong. That must be avoided at all costs. Will the committee bear that in mind? Otherwise, my right honourable friend must be congratulated on being both right and honourable.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. That has always been one of the arguments advanced in this House against the institution of a register of Members' interests. I have already said that I would be happy for it to be discussed in the proper quarter. Of course, I agree with my noble friend Lord Onslow; I am sure that people who are involved in public life in this country have a fair degree of Grecian taste but a little more obvious Roman virtue would be more than welcome.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, returning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount about the financing of political parties. Given that he referred to the need to investigate improper influences, is he aware of the many allegations which have been made in that area? Does it not seem odd that the issue will apparently be excluded from the committee's work, even if the committee wishes to look into it? Will the noble Viscount consider whether, if the committee indicates that it would like to look into the matter—all the more so because, as I understand it, it will be a permanent committee—the Government will agree to allow it to do so?
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that there are already arrangements in place to examine such matters. Those arrangements, particularly in relation to donations by individuals to political parties and any possible subsequent rewards for those donations that might be available, are already the subject of considerable scrutiny.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, following the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, can my noble friend tell me whether the membership of the committee will include someone who properly understands the working of local government? I feel that it will be important, in looking at local government matters, that that understanding exists in the committee.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will take careful note of the advice which my noble friend has given. I fully understand the force of what she said and will draw my right honourable friend's attention to it.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, will the noble Viscount agree that it would be most unfortunate if a convention or rule were to be introduced which obliged Ministers to resign the moment an unsubstantiated allegation of misconduct was made against them in the press? If that
  476
  were to happen, government of this country—whatever the political complexion of the Government—would become impossible.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord has a point which is incontrovertible and I wholly agree with it.
  Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question on a matter referred to in passing by my noble friend Lord Colnbrook. The remit of the committee is wide, it has a wide umbrella, and rightly so. We all know, however, that Ministers, Members of Parliament, lobbyists and anyone else are like dumb mutes unless what they say or do is expanded by the newspapers and all the various forms of the media. If the media misuse their powers, they are more dangerous to our standards and belief in our integrity than anything else. Will they come under the remit of the committee so that we can see that the matter is properly protected all the way through?
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He will be aware that I have already described that the committee will have a wide remit. If it wishes to investigate the effects of the media upon public life, it would be open to it to propose to do so.
  In addition, I should say to my noble friend that a considerable amount of work has been conducted, sometimes by Members of your Lordships' House, examining the position of the media. However, if we control the media too much there is a strong risk that it will become easier for interested parties to cover up much of the kind of allegations that have been made. We must always be aware of the importance in any parliamentary democracy of a free press.
  Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, am I right or wrong in thinking that any suggestion that there should be a power to subpoena witnesses would require primary legislation? I should like to know the answer to that, simply as a matter of information.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have to confess to my noble and learned friend that I do not know the answer. I hoped that he would be one of the people to whom I could turn for advice on the subject! However, since he cannot tell me the answer, I recognise that I should be able to answer it. I apologise for not being able to do so; I shall write to him on the subject with an opinion which he might be able to confirm or deny. I shall put the letter in the Library of the House.
  Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, will the noble Viscount be good enough to answer the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition as to what were the additional matters which caused Mr. Hamilton's position to become untenable and which were not known three days ago?
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, that is an entirely legitimate question from the noble Baroness. If she will forgive me, it is a little early for me to do that, for me to reveal all, for the very reasons that the noble Lord who spoke from the Cross Benches gave. It is important that when allegations are made, it is in such a way that

  477
  they do not encourage baseless rumour, but at the same time, it is important that when they are made, it is in such a way as not to prejudice anything that may subsequently be judged.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, with great respect, that is a most incredible answer. The additional allegations are raised by the noble Lord, not by this side. As I understood it, the part of the Statement which dealt with Mr. Hamilton's position made reference to additional matters which caused his position to be so eroded that he resigned. If that is what the Government say, we are surely entitled to ask what those matters are. I do not think that that is unfair. It is certainly not illegitimate.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I never said that it was illegitimate. I said that it was a perfectly legitimate question. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to correct that misapprehension. It is of course an entirely legitimate question. It is a specific allegation, and such allegations are susceptible to investigation by other bodies, and they will be so.

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
  5.10 p.m.
  Consideration of Commons amendments and reasons resumed.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  79 Clause 75, page 60, line 24, at end insert:
  ("( ) This section is subject to subsections (4A) and (4B) of section 152.")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  79A Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate for the repeal of the provisions to which this Amendment made by the Lords relates to come into force later than the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is passed or for those repeals to come into force piecemeal..
  79B Lord Avebury to move, That this House do insist on their Amendment 79, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 79A.
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do insist on their Amendment No. 79 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 79A. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carr, I deeply regret that after the consideration that has been given to the amendment moved on Report by my noble kinsman Lord Stanley of Alderley, the Government finally came down on the side of removing it from the Bill for what seemed to me to be totally inadequate reasons. I shall explain why in a few minutes.
  By way of preface, perhaps I may also say that it was unfortunate that the Government took the whole of the Summer Recess to reach a decision on this matter, only revealing it to those concerned at the very last moment and giving them no opportunity of making any further representations as they might have wished to do. As a result, the local authority associations, the Association of County Councils, the Association of Municipal Authorities and all the non-governmental organisations which had expressed opinions on this matter in Committee and at Report stage, and organisations
  478
  representing the gypsies themselves, were effectively deprived of making proper comment on the reasons given by the Government for disagreeing with your Lordships' amendments. Otherwise, I believe that they would have wished to make such representations and would have amplified the few remarks that I shall make on the subject.
  I did wonder whether it was a tactical decision on the part of the Government not to reveal the decision that they had made until the last moment so as to get the party conferences out of the way and to present as small a front as possible to criticism. There was nothing in the decision as it was finally revealed which could have taken them so long to make up their minds. There was nothing in the arguments of the Minister, Mr. Jones, in another place on 19th October which had not been rehearsed before the Recess. Nor did the Minister betray the slightest hint of having looked at the arguments that were deployed at some length in proceedings in this House and in subsequent correspondence.
  He began by stating, baldly and inaccurately, as Ministers have done all the way along:
  "The 1968 Act has failed".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/94; col. 372.]
  It is not the Act that has failed but the Government's political will to make it work.
  Let us consider the position in January 1994. According to the Government's figures, the number of pitches then on local authority sites amounted to 5,951 and on private sites, 3,271. The total number of caravans occupied by gypsies at that time was 13,060. So there was a shortfall of 3,838, about the same as it had been four years previously. The combined efforts of local authorities and private developers were only just keeping pace with the growth in the gypsy population although the figures for July 1994, which I have just seen, indicate quite a big improvement on the figures for the year earlier. There was a decrease in that year of 620 in the number of unauthorised encampments. It could be that we were excluding local authorities from providing any sites just at the moment when they were starting to get into their stride.
  In recent years the Government began to realise that, even with the incentive of a 100 per cent. grant, some local authorities were never going to meet their obligations under the 1968 Act without being prodded— a fact which had been obvious ever since the Act came into force. Yet directions under Section 9 had been given to only four authorities. Where directions have been given, they appear to have been partially effective.
  For example, in West Glamorgan a direction was given requiring the authority to provide 60 pitches in 1986. So far, 43 of them have been completed. In Hertfordshire—the worst case—directions were given in 1988 to provide 110 additional pitches. I am afraid that the authority was successful in providing only 35. As I said in Committee, one of the effects of this legislation will be that two further sites, to bring the number up to the 110 which the local authority would have provided in due course, are now to disappear from the plans.
  In Surrey, directions were given in 1989 to provide for an extra 190 caravans. So far, 48 have been provided for, but there are plans for another 144 pitches, which

  479
  would have been implemented in due course. Again, the result of the legislation is to cross the extra sites off the list of those that would ultimately have been provided. In Avon, directions were given in 1990 for 80 additional caravans to be provided for. Of those, 76 have so far been completed.
  On the whole, the figures show that directions under Section 9 of the Act were effective, and if the Government had wanted the Act to work they could have issued further directions to other local authorities which had not done their job. On the other hand, they could have accepted the recommendation made by Cripps some years ago that government and local authorities should get together and agree a programme with target dates for the whole country. I believe, however, that the Government wanted the Act to fail. Their Tory fundamentalist ideology would never have allowed them to consider a national plan or central co-ordination of proposals by local authorities to ensure proper sharing between them of the responsibility for the provision of sites.
  The Government were not even prepared to look at plans which the local authorities were already making to see whether completion of all the sites that were on the drawing board would have achieved a balance between the number of gypsy caravans nationally and the number of pitches which would have been on offer. Mr. Jones asserted, manifestly wrongly, that to delay repeal of the 1968 Act,
  "would simply add to the problem".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/94; col. 373.]
  I should like the Minister who is replying to the debate to tell the House how fewer local authority sites—which is the result of this legislation—will add to the problem. Clearly, the bigger the shortage of pitches, the greater the number of unauthorised encampments will be. For perhaps two years the schemes already in the pipeline will continue to be implemented. So there will be little change in the total provision in the near future. After that, with no new council plans coming forward, there is likely to be a shortfall of about 200 pitches a year, which would have been provided by local authorities. That estimate is based on the number which have been provided by local authorities over the past four years. It is probably on the low side. As I said, from the July 1994 figures it looks as though there will be some acceleration.
  I mentioned the example of Surrey where there are now 144 unauthorised caravans and where county proposals for future sites would have met that need in toto. But as the chairman of the county's gypsy sub-committee told me—I quote from a letter that she wrote—
  "enactment of the — Bill — will seriously affect the achievement of that aim".
  Mr. Jones said that local authorities have failed. He says:
  "We cannot simply turn round and say that they are likely to succeed if they have another five years".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/94; col. 373.]
  So the Act has failed and the local authorities have failed. But, according to him, the local authorities are entirely blameless. Undoubtedly some local authorities
  480
  have done less than they might have done and some would have benefited from the pressure that a Section 9 direction would have exerted on them. But it is a plain fact, which the Government cannot possibly deny, that fewer sites will be provided over the next 10 years as a result of the provisions of the Bill. There is no structural fault in the original legislation, but there is a whopping great structural fault in the Government's logic.
  Again, the Minister said:
  "The sites are plainly not being delivered on a large enough scale under the present arrangements and satisfactory provision is more likely in the future".
  I ask the Government whether we are in agreement that the rate of provision of sites has been too low. If the provision of sites has only just kept pace with the growth of the gypsy population, do we therefore need to increase the rate at which sites are brought into use? That is how I understand Mr. Jones's remarks in the other place.
  How can satisfactory provision be more likely when one removes from the scene the local authorities which have been responsible for providing two thirds of the accommodation which is available on authorised sites as at today? It is true that private operators have been making an increased contribution in recent years and that has to be welcomed. Over the past four years the number of additional pitches on private sites has been about the same as on council sites. It means as a matter of simple arithmetic that private operators would have to double their output to make up for the loss of local authority provision once the sites in the pipeline had been completed. But the Minister said that he wants to do more than that. He wants them to deal with the backlog as well. So the private site operators have to more than double the contribution that they have made in recent years.
  Do the Government believe that Circular 1/94 is likely to stimulate private site operators and owner occupiers to that extent and that local authorities will more than double the number of planning permissions that they award as a result of the circular? Have they indeed made any estimate at all of the increase in private site provision that is likely to result from the circular? They have been very careful to avoid mentioning any figures up to now. I believe that they do not have the faintest idea of what the outcome is likely to be.
  According to Mr. Tom Lee, the secretary of the Romany Guild, only one of its members has obtained planning permission since the circular—namely, Mr. Dunn of Maidstone—and even he faces an appeal against the award. Mr. Charles Smith of the Gypsy Council points out that Basildon Council is withholding the renewal of site licences for gypsies on private land pending the determination of new policies, presumably to take account of the circular and the repeal of the 1968 Act. So the immediate result in the local authority area of Basildon is to create uncertainty which never existed in the past about private sites.
  With regard to tolerated sites, we have just had the draft circular issued by the Department of the Environment. That leaves matters substantially as they are. The Secretaries of State say that where gypsies are unlawfully camped on council land, are not causing a

  481
  great nuisance and have no alternative authorised accommodation to go to, the authorities should continue to tolerate their presence temporarily. So in Kent, for instance, according to the survey of 1994, there were 64 tolerated caravans accounting for some 10 per cent. of the total of 693 in the county. But in the opinion of Mr. Bill Forrester, the chairman of ACERT, toleration is very much a short term expedient and not a substitute for authorised sites where proper facilities can be provided, and regulations observed which will minimise the causes of friction with any nearby occupiers.
  Do the Government agree with me that no increase at all can be expected in the rate of provision of private sites until the local authorities have revised their plans in accordance with the circular? If so, do they agree that the average time to incorporate the advice of the circular in the structure plans is roughly 18 months?
  If, on the other hand, the Government believe that the local authorities may be inclined to grant planning applications more readily now—for example, in consequence of the advice given in paragraph 21 of the circular—is there any evidence to that effect from the 9 months since the circular was issued, notwithstanding the experience of Mr. Lee and Mr. Smith that I quoted? Have they any idea how many pitches have been included in successful planning applications over that period and how that compares with the corresponding period of 1993? Or do they agree that what they are doing is a leap in the dark?
  In a letter to Mr. Andrew Hunter MP, the Minister Mr. Jones said that the result, if my noble kinsman's amendment were to be accepted, would be that:
  "the Department would be required, for at least five years, to continue to enforce the existing mandatory system of local authority site provision, and to support further site provision with 100% grants".
  I should be very happy if the 100 per cent. grants were to continue, but I see nothing about that in the amendment. I feel that the Minister was badly advised and has unintentionally misled Mr. Hunter and I am not sure how many other Members of another place in making that assertion in his letter. I should be glad if the Minister who is to reply will confirm that Mr. Jones was wrong to put that in his letter.
  Mr. Jones's letter continues with two arguments that I have not heard before at any stage of our lengthy discussions. He writes:
  "The amendments would thoroughly undermine our policy of encouraging private site provision, and would maintain a system of site provision that is long overdue for reform".
  In what possible manner, pray, could the temporary continuation of a role for the local authorities undermine the private operators? The gypsies will continue to buy land and apply for planning permission, just as they have always done in the past; and local authorities will continue to grant planning permission to private applicants based on planning considerations, as they have always done in the past. If they did not observe the injunction of paragraph 21 of the circular, that private applications are not to be refused on the grounds that public provision in the area is adequate, or that alternative accommodation is available on the
  482
  authority's own sites, there would be grounds for the applicant to appeal. So, in my submission, private site provision is entirely independent of anything done by the local authorities. I challenge the Minister to disagree with that proposition.
  The system of site provision in the 1968 Act was not long overdue for reform. It was long overdue for implementation and the Government had the means to do it if they had wished. That has been the message of every single NGO, including religious bodies such as the Quakers and those concerned with the interests of children, mothers, gypsy organisations and of all the local authority associations. On a previous occasion in this House it was also the view of a substantial majority of your Lordships and presumably it remains so, despite the strong arm methods of the Whips. The Government stand alone in their monolithic and invincible resistance to all the arguments of reason and humanity. They have forgotten the dictum of a former Prime Minister and great leader of the Conservative Party, Lord Salisbury, who said 100 years ago:
  "By a democracy I do not mean a society in which seven men may make six men do as they please".
  I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do insist on their Amendment No. 79, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 79A.—(Lord Avebury.)
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I understand from the Clerks that it is correct for me to say something now rather than after the Minister. I do not intend to repeat the case put forward in favour of the amendment. Your Lordships discussed the matter fully during the passage of the Bill. However, I am sorry that the Government instructed the Commons to reject your Lordships' amendment—a decision which both I and your Lordships believe will result in unauthorised and illegal encampments remaining—as, under the Government's plan, there will be nowhere to re-site the travellers. Indeed, the guidelines mentioned by my noble kinsman recently issued by the Department of the Environment, encourage local authorities to tolerate such unauthorised and illegal encampments.
  The Government decided to ignore your Lordships' views, which were supported by all the local authority councils, the Church and Save the Children Fund. But— and it is an important "but"—we are first and foremost a revising Chamber. I believe your Lordships performed that role in this case carefully and conscientiously. But your Lordships should now accede to the will of the Commons and do so gracefully. We win some; this one we lost.
  I conclude by saying that, having moved the cross-party amendment, I thank all noble Lords for their support, particularly my fellow Conservative Back-Benchers. It is never as easy as it looks to defy the Whip. But despite what The Times wrote last Thursday, all Conservative Chief Whips—even my noble kinsman Lord Denham—always allowed their Back-Benchers on this side of the House to vote according to our consciences. When I became a Member of your Lordships' House over 20 years ago I was told

  483
  that I should not hesitate or be frightened to do so. I hope sincerely that when the House is reformed and I and others are no longer here to keep our Front Bench happy, that will still be the case; otherwise this House will become a sycophantic mirror image of the Commons.
  Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Stanley whom I supported on this matter throughout the various stages of the Bill. I entirely agree that this is not the time nor the subject matter on which to insist that another place accept our amendment. I hope that your Lordships will bear that in mind.
  I believe that the Government have a good Bill in many parts. I do not pretend for one moment that it is perfect in all respects; and indeed there are areas where unfortunately some pigeons may come home to roost. Nevertheless, we have done our stuff as a revising Chamber on all these matters. We asked Members of another place to think again. They have thought again and, apart from airing our views, we should not "take on" another place.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am reluctant to follow the noble Viscount because I disagree profoundly with him regarding the quality of the Bill as a whole. In many ways the Bill, most of which we have not the opportunity of debating today—and some will say thank goodness!—is an extremely bad Bill, particularly Part V with which we are concerned. I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, whose speech I much admired, to agree with me about other parts of Part V.
  The issue of gypsy caravan sites and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 is, for obvious and admirable reasons, close to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He set out far better than I could the reasons why he continues to support the provisions which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, introduced into the Bill to enable that Act to continue for another five years.
  I read the debate: in the Commons carefully. I read the Minister's speech and the speeches of the two Conservative Back-Benchers who took part and I was deeply unimpressed by the arguments against our amendment. If Ministers can describe what they are doing in regard to the provision of sites for gypsies as a "reform", then they can only be described as using the word "reform" in an Orwellian sense. This is not reform; it is the abolition of opportunities which have existed— we must agree that they were never adequately used and nobody denies that the Caravan Sites Act has been patchy in its success—but which are not being replaced under the new legislation by any effective alternative provision. Therefore, unless the Minister has something remarkable and new to say to me and to the House this evening on the merits of the argument, I would wish strongly to support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
  I am in no way convinced that the Government put forward an adequate case to take out our amendment. However, the position to which I referred in regard to Amendment No. 1 still holds good. I believe in the primacy of the elected Chamber and, as the matter was fairly considered in another place, it would not be proper
  484
  for us to seek to overturn what has already been proposed. That is not to say that that applies to every single occasion and it may not apply to every single occasion today. But unless there are strong reasons to the contrary, this is not a matter on which my colleagues and I on the Front Bench wish to go into the Lobbies with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. What my colleagues on the Back-Benches choose to do is entirely a matter for them.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend will seek the opinion of the House, and it would be presumptuous of me to make any suggestion in that regard. But with your Lordships' permission, I should like to mention a number of matters that affect that judgment.
  Your Lordships' House is a revising Chamber; but it is also a constitutional watchdog. On this issue we are confronted with the way in which we treat a tiny and vulnerable ethnic minority—the gypsies. They are people who have faced hardship, adversity and discrimination in many countries. I remember the great saying of Hugh Gaitskell many years ago that the litmus test of a civilised society is the way in which it treats ethnic minorities.
  The effect of the Government's instruction in another place is certain to lead to international condemnation by the UN human rights committee for failure to comply properly with the obligations imposed on this country by Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since, under our system of government in a parliamentary democracy, there is no other way in which your Lordships can consider the matter, I apologise for taking a few moments to explain what I mean.
  Article 26 of the international covenant guarantees equal protection of the law and equality before the law without discrimination. It has been consistently interpreted by the quasi-judicial body, the human rights committee, as requiring positive protection and affirmative action for ethnic minority groups. The effect of the Government's instruction in another place will be to dismantle an important means of affirmative action or positive protection by local authorities in giving site provision to gypsies.
  Last year, when the Irish Government's report on their compliance with the international covenant was considered by the human rights committee, the human rights committee complimented Ireland on the positive steps it had taken to give greater protection to gypsies. It also urged that further steps should be taken. Our Government in this country are due to report to the human rights committee this month on our compliance with the covenant and next spring the human rights committee will have to consider our record. What is said and done in this House and in another place is certain to lead to argument, criticism and, in my humble opinion, condemnation if we leave the matter to stand as it is. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister can indicate in reply whether the United Kingdom Government have considered the effect on their obligations under Article 26 of the covenant of repealing the protection in the 1968 Act, whether their report to the human rights

  485
  committee will contain a summary of what has happened during the passage of this legislation, whether they will provide copies of the parliamentary debates and whether they have obtained any further advice on the international dimension of the problem.
  Baroness Seear: My Lords, I want briefly to underline a point made by my noble friend Lord Avebury. In this case it is not only a question of our acting as a revising Chamber and putting forward an improvement to the proposed legislation. In this case the law which was previously passed has been flouted by local authorities which have not provided the sites which they were required to provide. Is your Lordships' House really happy to go along with supporting people who are quite blatant lawbreakers in this regard?
  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley moved a cross-party amendment at the Report stage which was carried against the Government. Therefore, I am particularly grateful to him and to my noble friend Lord Mountgarret for speaking in the way that they did this evening. I understand completely the strength of my noble friend's feelings and I hope that my remarks will go some way to allay some of his fears.
  Clause 75 would repeal the provisions in the Caravan Sites Act 1968 which place a duty on local authorities to provide sites for gypsy caravans. It would also repeal the Secretary of State's powers to designate local authority areas and to direct local authorities to provide sites. At the same time the Secretary of State's power to pay grant for the construction of sites would be repealed.
  The amendments which this House agreed at Report stage would delay that commencement for at least another five years, until at least 1st July 1999. Even then the repeals would only be brought in piecemeal by means of commencement orders. In some areas that would mean the provisions of the 1968 Act lingering on for years. To add to that, the onerous and unwieldy nature of the affirmative resolution procedure required for each order would place an intolerable burden on the parliamentary timetable. We believe too that such orders would be hybrid.
  I know that the amendments were the expression of a genuine concern which this House felt at the time— noble Lords have expressed that feeling again today— for those gypsies who might be disadvantaged by bringing the current system of local authority site provision to an end. The Government have thought long and hard about the matter over the summer. I cannot accept the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about delaying it until the last possible moment, and I shall explain why. We have had in mind the undertaking in the 1992 Conservative election manifesto to reduce the nuisance of illegal camping by reviewing the 1968 Act, and we have considered what advice we should give to local authorities about using their new powers in a responsible and humane way. Our view remains, however, that the current legislation requires extensive reform and that local authorities generally, and not just those in the so-called designated
  486
  areas, should have a quick and effective means of dealing with the nuisance of illegal camping, which can strike anywhere.
  I know that these provisions have been debated at great length both in this House and in another place, with each House having the opportunity to express its views on the Government's proposals. When the Commons divided on these amendments last week they were rejected with a solid majority of 39. The fact is that despite the hours of debate which have been devoted to this clause we must conclude that the existing policy enshrined in the 1968 Act has not fulfilled its objective of providing sites for all gypsies. The time has come for a new approach. Illegal camping has not been reduced. The level of unauthorised camping has hardly changed in the past 13 years despite more than £87 million having been spent on local authority sites alone. Communities still suffer from the nuisance of illegal camping, and gypsies remain without homes.
  The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, may be surprised to hear from me that the 1968 Act has achieved a measure of success. I do not deny that. There are well over 300 local authority sites providing accommodation for 46 per cent. of gypsy caravans. That is a far cry from the pre-1968 Act days when only 10 per cent. of gypsy caravans had a legal site. But, more importantly, what is different now is that some 24 per cent. of gypsy caravans are on authorised sites on privately-owned land, often belonging to gypsies themselves. Furthermore, there is a substantial number of gypsies who have bought land on which they have sited caravans but do not yet have planning permission. Private provision has increased by 136 per cent. since 1981, twice the rate of council site provision.
  The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, quoted figures about the provision of local authority sites and said that the number was not sufficient. I have to agree, but it would not be right to draw an inference from one year's figures alone. The net increase in 1993 was only 47 pitches on local authority sites. The noble Lord also accused the Government of failure to enforce the Act by giving directions. The direction power is one of last resort. The Government have provided 100 per cent. grants since 1978 and have encouraged local authorities in a number of ways; for example, on monitoring of performance. I believe that in almost every instance local authorities have acted in good faith.
  Private provision is, I believe, the pointer to the future. There is a desire among many gypsies to take charge of their own arrangements for accommodation. Our planning guidance, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—Circular 1/94 issued in January of this year—aims to promote that process by putting gypsies in the same position as other developers under the planning system. Local authorities are advised to include policies in their development plans to meet the accommodation needs of gypsies and to offer practical help and advice to gypsies making planning applications. We are determined to see that the planning system works fairly for gypsies both now and when the local plans are adopted.

  487
  During the debates in this House I have been struck by the concern expressed by noble Lords for the plight of those gypsies who may genuinely find themselves without a legal site to go to and who might therefore fall foul of the new power in Clause 72 of the Bill. That concern was expressed again this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. The noble Lord asked me whether we had considered Section 26 of the international convention on human rights. The Government have considered their human rights obligations and do not believe that our proposals infringe international law. So much so that Ministers in both Houses, responding to the anxieties also outlined by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, have given a commitment that the Government will issue advice to local authorities recommending a policy of toleration towards gypsies on unauthorised sites.
  My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley may have seen the circular which has been provided. It will advise local authorities that they should not use their powers to evict gypsies needlessly. I believe that he said that they would continue the siting of these gypsies on illegal sites. However, in those cases where gypsies are causing no great nuisance the local authorities should exercise tolerance. Local authorities should also look at ways in which they can minimise any nuisance or hazard to public health, and that of the gypsies, which the site may cause. We go on to advise that in the longer term authorities should try to identify emergency stopping places in areas close to the gypsies' transit routes where they could camp for a short period.
  I know that another particular anxiety among noble Lords and others has been the effect which the nomadic life has on the welfare and education of gypsy children. I believe that that has been recognised from the very beginning on both sides as a persistent problem which the Government have addressed in various ways, and the local authorities; have done so as well, and which they will continue to address. Local authorities have their part to play and our advice will draw to their attention the need to take into account their statutory responsibilities towards these families under the Children Act, the Housing Act and the Education Act.
  The Department of the Environment has already consulted about this advice in a draft circular issued in September which many of your Lordships may have seen. We are currently considering the responses which we have received, not only from gypsies' own representative organisations, but also bodies such as Save the Children Fund and the Maternity Alliance. These latter bodies are particularly concerned about the health and welfare of families with young children. Both have said that they welcome our advice, which the Save the Children Fund say "goes a long way to addressing our concerns". The Maternity Alliance remark on the "generally sympathetic tone and approach of the circular".
  Local authorities have much experience in dealing with the problems that can arise when gypsies have nowhere to go. We consider that local authorities are in the best position to judge the nature of any encampment and whether eviction is warranted for the good of the community as a whole. But the draft circular makes it
  488
  clear that gypsies—that is, the traditional and genuine nomadic people—should be treated tolerantly. At the same time we believe that it is in the public interest that private land should be better protected against unlawful intrusion by trespassers, and we have given local authorities a quick and effective power to tackle unauthorised camping where necessary.
  I believe that it would fly in the face of reason and experience to continue with a system which can only produce ever diminishing returns. There has been a duty on local authorities to provide sites for some 24 years, and for the last 16 of those gypsy site grant has been available, too. And yet the job has still not been completed. For the past two years—since we announced our proposals to reform the 1968 Act—one might well have expected local authorities to deluge the Secretary of State with applications for grant for sites. That has just not happened, and I see no evidence that another five years of the current regime would result in accelerated activity on the part of local authorities. It is time to look to another solution to the problem, building on what has been achieved so far but recognising the very different situation that faces gypsies and local communities today than when the 1968 Act was drafted. In 1968 only 10 per cent. of gypsies were on authorised sites. Today that figure is nearer 70 per cent. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Government chose to look at that legislation—now nearly a quarter of a century old—to see if the statutory foundation for our policy on gypsy site provision was still valid.
  For these reasons, I commend Clause 75 in its original form to the House and not as amended by your Lordships at Report stage. I therefore ask the House to vote against the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, if he intends to press it.
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am sorry to say that that is a grossly unsatisfactory reply. I do not believe that the Minister has listened to a word that I said. I am reinforced in that opinion because I notice that he did not depart from his brief for the whole of the 10 minutes or so that he was addressing your Lordships. I asked him a number of specific questions and he did not have the courtesy to reply to one of them.
  I asked him whether he thought that more or fewer sites were going to be provided as a result of the insistence by the Government on removing the amendment. The noble Viscount did not answer that or any of the detailed questions on numbers which I put to him. I suggest that is because he knows the truth; namely, that removing local authorities from the equation is going to result in fewer rather than more sites being provided for gypsies and more gypsies having to camp on unauthorised sites which is what the Government say they are trying to avoid.
  He gives local authorities the power to move the gypsies on, but he knows perfectly well that that simply shoves them over the border into somebody else's area for them to pick up the pieces, which was the procedure before the 1968 Act came into force. The Government have no reply to the question why it does not use Section 9 directions. The Minister ignored that totally in his remarks. I asked him why only three local authorities

  489
  had been the subject of directions and why, as the experience was that local authorities which had been the subject of Section 9 directions had accelerated the provision of sites in their areas, they did not use the same mechanism in other areas.
  The Minister has no reply to any of the arguments put, including those of my noble friends, that the Government were abdicating all responsibility by failing to comply not only with Section 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but also with their obligations under the Copenhagen declaration of the CFCE which imposes a positive and affirmative duty on governments to take action in support of the preservation of the rights of minorities. The Government failed at the Warsaw seminar of the CFCE on gypsies to make any comment at all. They kept their heads down in the hope that nobody would notice what was happening in your Lordships' House although I sent a copy of the Official Report of the Committee stage. The Government probably hope that nothing will be said about their policy on gypsies at the present human dimension review meeting which is taking place in Budapest where the performance of states and their obligations under the Copenhagen declaration of 1990 is being examined. I shall make sure that somebody else raises the matter if the Government do not wish to present their policy on gypsies at that meeting.
  We are not now talking about the circular on which the Minister spent some time, although I agree that it contains some good things. The issue is whether or not we insist on the amendment which retains the duty of local authorities to provide sites for gypsies. That is a plain question which your Lordships now have to decide. I do not accept the arguments which have been put forward about the constitutional issue. I know that there is a particular argument which appeals to the Opposition; namely, that they will soon be in government and they will have to face the Conservatives on the opposite side of the House who may play the same trick on them. That is the reason and it has nothing to do with principle or the constitution.
  As far as I am concerned this is a matter of principle. I believe that the rights of gypsies need to be safeguarded and that your Lordships' House is the only body to which they can look to safeguard their position in the country which they have enjoyed for the past 17 years. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to insist on the amendment.
  5.59 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 208.

  Division No.1

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Birk, B.

  Airedale, L.

  Bottomley, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Avebury, L. [Teller.]

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Bath, M.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  490

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Meston, L.

  Diamond, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

  Monson, L.

  Elis-Thomas, L.

  Morris of Kenwood, L.

  Falkender, B.

  Mulley, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Nicol, B.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Portsmouth, Bp.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Rea, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Grey, E.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Rochester, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Russell, E.

  Seear, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Sefton of Garston, L.

  Jeger, B

  Shepherd, L.

  Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

  Skidelsky, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Stallard, L.

  Kagan, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L. [Teller.]

  Taylor Blackburn, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Longford, E.

  Tope, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Varley, L.

  Mason of Bamsley, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  McCarthy, L.

  Whaddon, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Addison, V.

  Cochrane of Cults, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Coleridge, L.

  Ailsa, M.

  Colnbrook, L.

  Aldenham, L.

  Courtown, E.

  Aldington, L.

  Cox, B.

  Alexander of Weedon, L.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

  Annaly, L.

  Cross, V.

  Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Arran, E. [Teller.]

  Davidson, V.

  Ashboume, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Denham, L.

  Astor, V.

  Denton of Wakefield, B.

  Attlee, E.

  Derwent, L.

  Balfour, E.

  Devonshire, D.

  Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

  Digby, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Dormer, L.

  Biddulph, L.

  Dudley, E.

  Blake, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Blaker, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Blatch, B.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Blyth, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Elles, B.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Fairhaven, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Flather, B.

  Bruntisfield, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Burnham, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Burton, L.

  Gibson-Watt, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Cadman, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Caldecote, V.

  Goold, L.

  Camden, M.

  Goschen, V.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Grantchester, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Gridley, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Hacking, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Hambleden, V.

  Carr of Hadley, L.

  Harding of Petherton, L.

  Cayzer, L.

  Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Harmsworth, L.

  Chelmsford, V.

  Harrowby, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Harvington, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Henley, L.

  491

  Hives, L.

  Parkinson, L.

  Holderness, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Pender, L.

  Hood, V.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Pike, B.

  Howe, E.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Huntly, M.

  Poole, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Porter of Luddenham, L.

  Inglewood, L.

  Pym, L.

  Ironside, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Jeffreys, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Rees, L.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  Renton, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Rippon of Hexham, L.

  Kirnberley, E.

  Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

  Kindersley, L.

  Rodney, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Roxburghe, D.

  Knutsford, V.

  Sandford, L.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Savile, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Seccombe, B.

  Leigh, L.

  Shannon, E.

  Lindsay, E.

  Sharples, B.

  Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Lucas, L.

  St. Davids, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

  Stevens of Ludgate, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Stockton, E.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Chancellor.]

  Strange, B.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Strathclyde, L.[Teller.]

  Mancroft, L.

  Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

  Manton, L.

  Stiathmore and Kinghorne, E.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Swinfen, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Tebbit, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Monckton of Brenchley, V.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Mottistone, L.

  Torphichen, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Trumpington, B.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Tryon, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Tugendhat, L.

  Munster, E.

  Ullswater, V.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Nelson of Stafford, L.

  Vestey, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Vivian, L.

  Norfolk, D.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Watkinson, V.

  Northesk, E.

  Waverley, V.

  Onslow, E.

  Wharton, B.

  Oppaaheim-Barnes, B.

  Whitelaw, V.

  Orkney, E.

  Wise, L.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Yarborough, E.

  Palmer, L.

  Young, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
  6.11 p.m.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  79 Page 60, line 24, at end insert:
  ("( ) This section is subject to subsections (4A) and (4B) of section 152.")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  79A Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate for the repeal of the provisions to which this Amendment made by the Lords relate;; to come into force later than the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is passed or for those repeals to come into force piecemeal..
  Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 79 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 79A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 79 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 79A.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  82 After Clause 82, insert the following new clause:
  Video recordings: criteria for suitability to which special regard is to be had
  (".—(1) After section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 there shall be inserted the following section—
  "Criteria for suitability to which special regard to be had.
  4A.—(1) The designated authority shall, in making any determination as to the suitability of a video work, have special regard (among the other relevant factors) to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers or, through their behaviour, to society by the manner in which the work deals with—

  (a) criminal behaviour;

  (b) illegal drugs;

  (c) violent behaviour or incidents;

  (d) horrific behaviour or incidents; or

  (e) human sexual activity.

  (2) For the purposes of this section—
  "potential viewer" means any person (including a child or young person) who is likely to view the video work in question if a classification certificate or a classification certificate of a particular description were issued;
  "suitability" means suitability for the issue of a classification certificate or suitability for the issue of a certificate of a particular description;
  "violent behaviour" includes any act inflicting or likely to result in the infliction of injury;
  and any behaviour or activity referred to in subsection (1) (a) to (e) above shall be taken to include behaviour or activity likely to stimulate or encourage it.".
  (2) In section 7(2) of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (contents of classification certificates), in paragraph (a), after the words "viewing by children", there shall be inserted the words "or young children".")
  The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment:
  82A Line 3, leave out 'section' and insert 'sections'.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 82A to Lords Amendment No. 82.
  When the matter of some sort of review of previous video classification decisions was raised in this House at earlier stages of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Ferrers indicated that there would be practical difficulties in the establishment and operation of such a scheme. However, in response to the concerns expressed in this House and elsewhere, we have engaged in very helpful discussions with the director of the British Board of Film Classification and bodies representing trading standards officers. What has emerged is a system of review which is likely to be applied in a small number of cases and which, therefore, will be unlikely to be subject to the

  493
  same practical difficulties as would be unavoidable in any wider approach. But the Government have decided that it is right to do something, and I hope your Lordships will agree that this is a measured and practical response to what is undoubtedly a real concern.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 82A to Lords Amendment No. 82.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  82 After Clause 82, insert the following new clause:
  Video recordings: criteria for suitability to which special regard is to be had.
  (".—(1) After section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 there shall be inserted the following section—
  "Criteria for suitability to which special regard to be had.
  4A.—(1) The designated authority shall, in making any determination as to the suitability of a video work, have special regard (among the other relevant factors) to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers or, through their behaviour, to society by the manner in which the work deals with—

  (a) criminal behaviour;

  (b) illegal drugs;

  (c) violent behaviour or incidents;

  (d) horrific behaviour or incidents; or

  (e) human sexual activity.

  (2) For the purposes of this section—
  "potential viewer" means any person (including a child or young person) who is likely to view the video work in question if a classification certificate or a classification certificate of a particular description were issued;
  "suitability" means suitability for the issue of a classification certificate or suitability for the issue of a certificate of a particular description;
  "violent behaviour" includes any act inflicting or likely to result in the infliction of injury; and any behaviour or activity referred to in subsection (1) (a) to (e) above shall be taken to include behaviour or activity likely to stimulate or encourage it.".
  (2) In section 7(2) of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (contents of classification certificates), in paragraph (a), after the words "viewing by children", there shall be inserted the words "or young children".")
  The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment:
  82B After Clause 82, line 28, at end insert;
  'Review of determinations as to suitability.
  4B.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision enabling the designated authority to review any determination made by them, before the coming into force of section 4A of this Act, as to the suitability of a video work.
  (2) The order may in particular provide—

  (a) for the authority's power of review to be exercisable in relation to such determinations as the authority think fit;

  (b) for the authority to determine, on any review, whether, if they were then determining the suitability of the video work to which the determination under review relates, they—

  (i) would issue a classification certificate, or

  494

  (ii) would issue a different classification certificate;

  (c) for the cancellation of a classification certificate, where they determine that they would not issue a classification certificate;

  (d) for the cancellation of a classification certificate and issue of a new classification certificate, where they determine that they would issue a different classification certificate;

  (e) for any such cancellation or issue not to take effect until the end of such period as may be determined in accordance with the order;

  (f) for such persons as may appear to the authority to fall within a specified category of person to be notified of any such cancellation or issue in such manner as may be specified;

  (g) for treating a classification certificate, in relation to any act or omission occurring after its cancellation, as if it had not been issued;

  (h)for specified provisions of this Act to apply to determinations made on a review subject to such modifications (if any) as may be specified;

  (i) for specified regulations made under section 8 of this Act to apply to a video work in respect of which a new classification certificate has been issued subject to such modifications (if any) as may be specified.

  (3) In subsection (2) above "specified" means specified by an order made under this section.
  (4) The Secretary of State shall not make any order under this section unless he is satisfied that adequate arrangements will be made for an appeal against determinations made by the designated authority on a review.
  (5) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (6) In this section "suitability" has the same meaning as in section 4A of this Act.'..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 82B to Lords Amendment No. 82.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 82B to Lords Amendment No. 82.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  122 After Clause 133, insert the following new clause:
  ("Male rape and buggery
  Male rape and buggery

  .— (1) Section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (offence of buggery) shall be amended as follows.

  (2) In subsection (1), after the words "another person" there shall be inserted the words "otherwise than in lawful circumstances".

  (3) After subsection (1), there shall be inserted the following subsections—

  "(1A) An act of buggery takes place in lawful circumstances if it takes place in private and both parties have attained the age of eighteen.

  (1B) An act of buggery by a man with another shall not be treated as taking place in private if it takes place—

  495

  (a) when more than two persons take part or are present; or

  (b) in a lavatory to which the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise.".")

  The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment:
  122A After Clause 133, line 6, leave out 'lawful circumstances' and insert 'the circumstances described in subsection (1A) below'.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 122A to Lords Amendment No. 122.
  It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 122B, 122C and 122D. These are all minor technical amendments. The main purpose of these technical amendments is to improve the wording of Amendment No. 122 to avoid any suggestion that rape in private might somehow be lawful. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 122A to Lords Amendment No. 122.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  122 After Clause 133, insert the following new clause:
  ("Male rape and buggery
  Male rape and buggery

  .— (1) Section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (offence of buggery) shall be amended as follows.

  (2) In subsection (1), after the words "another person" there shall be inserted the words "otherwise than in lawful circumstances".

  (3) After subsection (1), there shall be inserted the fallowing subsections—

  "(1A) An act of buggery takes place in lawful circumstances if it takes place in private and both parties have attained the age of eighteen.

  (1B) An act of buggery by a man with another shall not be treated as taking place in private if it takes place—

  (a) when more than two persons take part or are present; or

  (b) in a lavatory to which the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise.".")

  The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendments:
  122B After Clause 133, line 9, leave out 'An act of buggery takes place in lawful circumstances if it' and insert 'The circumstances referred to in subsection (1) are that the act of buggery'.
  122C After Clause 133, line 12, leave out 'a' and insert 'one'.
  22D After Clause 133, line 16, after 'otherwise' insert:
  '(1C) In any proceedings against a person for buggery with another person it shall be for the prosecutor to prove that the act of buggery took place otherwise than in private or that one of the parties to it had not attained the age of eighteen.'..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 122B, 122C and 122D.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 122B, 122C and 122D.— (Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  6.15 p.m.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  125 Before Clause 134, insert the following new clause:
  ("Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  (". In section 171 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988—

  (a) in subsection (2), for the words after "any provision" there shall be substituted the words "brought into force under subsection (1) above,"; and

  (b) after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

  "(2A) Sections 108 to 117 above and Schedules 6 and 7 to this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is passed.".")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  125B Lord Ackner to move, That this House do not insist on their amendment 125, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu:
  Insert the following new Clause—
  ("Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Criminal Injuries Compensation: Commencement and Modification of 1988 Act

  .—(1) Section 171 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.

  (2) For subsections (3) and (4) there shall be substituted—

  "(3) No later than 12 months after the passing of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 the Secretary of State shall by regulations made by Statutory Instrument make provision for the coming into force of sections 108 to 117 of and Schedules 6 and 7 to this Act.
  (3A) Regulations made under subsection (3) above may make such provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient in the light of current circumstances to modify the provisions contained in those sections or Schedules.
  (3B) No regulations shall be made under subsection (3) above unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
  (3C) Before the Secretary of State makes regulations under subsection (3) above he shall consult such persons and organisations as he considers appropriate, and shall lay before Parliament the results of the consultation.".").
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 125, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose Amendment No. 125B in lieu thereof. With the leave of the House, I shall speak also to my Motion No. 175B, although I am sorry to have to say that there is a printer's error on the Marshalled List which needs correcting because the word "not" was omitted from Amendment No. 175B, the first line of which should read:
  "that this House do not insist",
  rather than "insist".

  497
  My amendment in lieu relates to the much debated question of the compensation for victims of serious crime. The amendment in lieu is designed to provide the Government with all their legitimate anxieties properly satisfied, but before coming to the actual terms of the amendment in lieu, perhaps I may first explain, or remind the House briefly, as to why an amendment is required at all.
  Your Lordships will no doubt remember that it was over 30 years ago that the first criminal injuries compensation system came into existence. Successive governments have continued it in force right up until today. The basis of the compensation was a simple enough one. It was that the victim recovered that which he would have received if he had successfully sued the criminal. With some alterations, one major one that has to be kept in mind is that, so far as concerns loss of income or wages, there was a cap which is one-and-a-half times the national average wage.
  The common law measure of damages, as it has been referred to, is a fundamental tenet of justice, because it matches the compensation to the individual's circumstances. The amendment is designed to maintain that system in existence. The scheme started life as a non-statutory scheme. The payments were ex gratia. That matter continued without any form of criticism for some 15 years until the Pearson Commission on civil liability and the assessment of damages reported. It reported its agreement to that basis of compensation, but said that it should be put on a statutory basis. The reason for that, quite simply, was that large sums of money were being paid out and it was considered appropriate that there should be parliamentary control over such funds, and that could be achieved only if the scheme was put on a statutory basis.
  The Government, within months of the Pearson Commission so recommending, agreed to the recommendation, both as to the scheme being put on a statutory basis and continuing on the basis of common law damages—the ordinary method of compensation. But, although they agreed to that in 1979, it was not until 1988 that they actually implemented their promise, and the Government themselves in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 made extensive provision to put the scheme on a statutory basis. There are in fact some 16 pages to be found in the Queen's Printers' copy of the Act, dealing solely and wholly with compensation of victims of crime.
  The obligation to put the matter on a statutory basis was not brought into force immediately because it was discovered that there was an unprecedented rise in claims. Such was the backlog that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, who much regrets his inability to be present today as a result of a recent hip operation, asked that the implementation be delayed for the moment until the backlog could be coped with. Instead of the scheme being implemented in 1988 or 1989 it was agreed that it should be streamlined.
  Suddenly, on 23rd November 1992 the Secretary of State, in a Written Answer to a parliamentary Question, gave notice that the Government intended to introduced a new tariff-based scheme to compensate victims of
  498
  violent crime. Without prior consultation the Government produced in December 1993 a White Paper entitled Compensating victims of violent crime: Changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which set out their plans in more detail. The tariff system was said by the Government to provide "a better service to victims". Under the heading "Need for change", paragraph 9 of the White Paper states:
  "Against that background"—
  that is a reference to the need for greater speed and consistency of decision—
  "the Government concluded last year that a scheme based on common law damages was inherently incapable of delivering the standard of service claimants should now reasonably expect. That is a service which produces awards reasonably quickly and in an understandable and predictable manner. Accordingly, the Government decided to introduce a new scheme based on a tariff or scale of awards for injuries of comparable severity."
  The nature of the tariff scheme was simply that some 25 different categories of injuries were considered and a lump sum provided for each. No longer was there to be awarded loss of wages, compensation to cover the costs of medical services or special expenses such as adapting a house or dwelling to accommodate a particularly disabled person.
  Your Lordships probably know that under the common law basis for damages, a figure is provided for loss of amenities, pain and suffering. The figure is within a bracket worked out over the years and brought up to date in accordance with inflationary tendencies. It compensates the victim merely for the particular injury and the loss of amenities and the pain and suffering. It has been subjected to recent criticism that it is too low, the top figure allowed for the most injured person being about £125,000. The major part of the awards for serious injuries relates to the loss of wages, medical expenses and other such matters.
  Perhaps I may indicate how the award may be made up. Earlier this year there was a case involving a man in his mid-40s who had been paralysed from the neck down. He received an award which involved £72,000 for loss of earnings (that is £6,000 per year on the basis of 12 years' purchase), a sum for future medical and care costs and support of £726,000 (that is based on a 15-year period), and a sum for alternations to his house, special care, special transport and so forth of £255,000. None of those items would be provided now to a person thus injured.
  The tariff scheme pays no regard to the difference in age of the people injured, their sex or their way of life. Many examples have been given to your Lordships indicating how the seriously injured person will receive but a fraction of what has previously been obtained.
  The justification for the amendment to stop the implementation of the tariff scheme was initially that it would work gross unfairness. It would mean that those who suffered the most serious injuries would in future receive but a fraction of what they had previously obtained. Examples were given to your Lordships showing cases in which, under the tariff scheme, people would receive one-tenth or even less of what they achieve now. It operates not only in relation to the people who are most seriously injured but also to those

  499
  whose injuries have the most disabling consequences. They are those whose injuries are not, on the face of it, all that significant: under the tariff system they will achieve £10,000 or £20,000 but they will in fact lose large sums in loss of income, expenditure on medical treatment and the like.
  There is a third category of people who will be seriously affected—the dependent relatives of those who are killed as a result of criminal activities. Under the Fatal Accidents Act, which is followed in the ordinary claim and under the criminal compensation scheme, a dependant receives compensation on the basis of his dependency on the: person who had been killed. In criminal compensation cases, that was capped on the basis that the loss of wages had to be calculated as not exceeding one-and-a-half times the national average. It meant that in many cases a dependent widow would receive a six-figure sum for loss of dependency. Under the tariff scheme she will receive £10,000 plus funeral expenses. Therefore, as a result of the tariff scheme, dependent relatives of victims of murder or manslaughter are placed in a desperate situation.
  The first justification for the amendment was that the scheme was grossly unfair and that therefore it should not replace the system that had been in existence for the past 30 years. That system followed the well-acknowledged common law basis of taking each individual and compensating that individual in relation to the consequences upon him or her of the injury.
  The second justification for the amendment was, as I have indicated, that the Government had piloted through the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in particular 16 pages of provisions which made the non-statutory scheme statutory. Now, as I have indicated by giving an outline of the history, without consulting Parliament and without going back to Parliament to ask Parliament to legislate to change the position, the Government seek to exercise by executive action their prerogative powers and say, "We will not bring into force that which Parliament decided should be brought into force. We will bring into force, without consultation, something entirely different and in fact quite contrary to the whole of the common law basis." That was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, as an abuse of Parliament. The same observation was made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I referred to it as a serious affront to Parliament. My noble and learned friend Lord Bridge expressed the matter succinctly in a short intervention when he said:
  "It seems to me that there is one overriding principle upon which the amendment depends—and that is that the basis of the scheme should be one that is prescribed by law and approved by Parliament and not one that is decreed by ministerial discretion"— [Official Report, 16/6/94; col. 1842.]
  That was a matter which appealed very firmly to your Lordships, in particular when the White Paper said that the Government would take a convenient moment to bring in the necessary legislation to countervail what was in the 1988 Act. As has been pointed out frequently, a convenient moment was the Criminal Justice Bill which the Government refused to use for, I submit, the obvious reason; namely, the unfairness of the proposed scheme.
  500
  The last justification put forward was that the costs were spiralling out of control. That was not something referred to in the White Paper. In the White Paper the proposal was put forward on the basis that it would improve the situation from the point of view of the victim. A devastating reply to that suggestion was made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, in our debates. He pointed out that in 1988, when the Act was passed, the average award in 1993–94 prices was £3,486. This year, it is £3,778. If one goes back to 1965, at current prices the average award was £3,455.I notice that in the debate in the Commons, the Minister no longer made that point.
  I turn now to the amendment in lieu which is before the House. The Government's anxiety was that if our amendment was implemented, we should have achieved a situation in which a scheme which was fine 30 years ago and which should be altered now would become set in stone. We have sought to deal with that situation and also with the cost argument quite simply by providing the Government with what is a Henry VIII clause.
  The amendment in lieu reads:
  "No later than 12 months after the passing of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act",
  there should be brought into force by statutory instrument the provisions of the 1988 Act. But subsections (3A), (3B) and (3C) read:
  "Regulations made under subsection (3) above may make such provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient in the light of current circumstances to modify the provisions contained in those sections or Schedules.
  (3B) No regulations shall be made under subsection (3) above unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
  (3C) Before the Secretary of State makes regulations under subsection (3) above he shall consult such persons and organisations as he considers appropriate, and shall lay before Parliament the results of the consultation".
  All that we suggest should take place is that the scheme should be placed on a statutory basis. As the Minister said in the House last week that he will choose a suitable legislative opportunity to put his own tariff scheme on a statutory basis, that should cause him no anxiety.
  The amendment in lieu gives the Minister all the discretion necessary to modify the present scheme in the light of current circumstances as he considers necessary or expedient. The only other obligation is that he should do what he should have done long ago; that is, consult the appropriate people and publish the results of his consultation. Therefore, I put forward the amendment in lieu as an indication of a wholly flexible approach, making generous concessions to the Minister, and giving him all the power that he could reasonably require. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 125 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 125A, but propose Amendment No. 125B in lieu thereof.— (Lord Ackner.)
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has deployed his argument with commendable skill and great conviction. However, at

  501
  this stage of the parliamentary process, are we really concerned with the merits of the argument in support of the amendment in lieu?
  Is it not the case that, if only to seek to ensure that a Bill which, taken by and large, was much welcomed by your Lordships should not be lost for this Session of Parliament ahead of the gracious Speech, many noble Lords on a Division may wish to support the Government or abstain? That is the reality of the situation.
  Apart from the merits, towards the end of the Session there is—and I have made inquiries to this effect—no hope whatever of compromise and no prospect whatever that another place may think again. Although the procedure of the House allows—there is nothing improper in it—circumvention of the claim to privilege of another place by this amendment offered in lieu, to offer it to another place in this situation could only savour of confrontation which would impose an unacceptable strain upon the traditional comity between the Houses.
  There is yet another reason. The massive manifestations of public disorder supposedly generated by the Bill leave a sense of shock, horror and revulsion. I have been informed today by the Snow Hill police that on Saturday those manifestations are due to take place again around the precincts of the Temple. We have closed our doors. Is it not perhaps of no little importance that the will of the elected Chamber—and it is the will of the elected Chamber we are considering today— should be accepted and be seen to be accepted to uphold the authority of Parliament?
  The essential question has been accurately and fairly expressed by the noble and learned Lord. The issue is quite simple. Should we continue to operate under the existing regime, for the reasons advanced by the noble and learned Lord, or under the regime proposed by the Government? I see that the noble and learned Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am much obliged. That is not the proposal at all. I have put forward a careful amendment in lieu which, if looked at, will indicate with total clarity that it is not a proposal to continue the existing system; it is a proposal to give the Government all the discretion that they could desire to change the existing system and to introduce into it, if they so desire, their much-loved tariff approach.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. However, it is by no means so simple and straightforward. Indeed, if the noble and learned Lord consults Hansard, he will no doubt agree with me. The point is that the proposed amendment in lieu is not acceptable to government, and will not be accepted by them however it is put; for example, if it is put in the way that I outlined or in the manner put forward by the noble and learned Lord. The reality of the situation is that, if we accept the amendment, we move into a system of sterile confrontation. It is as simple as that.
  502
  I have to say that when the Lords amendment to which the Commons disagreed was moved in this House by my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow (who has been chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board since 1989) he made a moderate, authoritative speech in support of the amendment. He fairly conceded that substantial improvements could and should be made to the existing regime. Moreover, he sought discussions to that end with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and would continue to seek them if the amendment were carried.
  My noble friend's reservations and objections were expressed in a firm, lucid and wholly courteous manner which, for me, was utterly convincing. I voted on that occasion in support of the amendment and against the Government. However, on this occasion, I shall support the Government because it seems to me that it is now wholly apparent that the Government will not entertain discussions to modify the existing regime and that they are committed, albeit for financial considerations, to implement the regime which they propose.
  The amendment offered in lieu could not induce the Government to think again. As I suggested, it could be seen as but a sterile exercise of confrontation. If it were persisted in, the only effect would be to postpone Royal Assent to a good Bill beyond this Session. There would be no point in offering the amendment in lieu to another place, unless your Lordships were minded to persist and that, perhaps, would be pointless.
  I invite your Lordships to support the Government on the Bill and to reject the amendment proposed in lieu, not on the merits of the argument as to whether the amendment should or should not be carried but on the practical realities of the situation; namely, that to do so would be wholly pointless.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in a perverse sort of way I am rather glad to follow that extraordinary speech. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, started and finished his speech by saying that we should not be concerned with the merits of the argument. But what are we as a revising Chamber if we are not always concerned with the merits of the argument?
  After a curious interlude during which the noble Lord appeared to think that it was relevant to our debates this evening to point out that there were some people who might be tempted to demonstrate anywhere near the Temple (and I notice that that is a much more serious problem to him than demonstrations in Parliament Square; but that is his problem), the noble Lord went on to say not that it would be wrong for us to disagree with the House of Commons—oh no: his phrase was that the amendment would not be "acceptable to government". Indeed, I wrote it down.
  What sort of a revising Chamber are we if our concern is not with the view of Parliament (of which we are a part) but with government? I suggest to your Lordships that those two doctrines which have been expounded by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of

  503
  Alloway, should be totally repugnant to the House and that we should very deliberately decide to put them on one side and ignore them for the purpose of this debate.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, made, as always, a detailed, passionate, well-informed and lucid speech. I neither could nor wish to repeat the arguments on the merits of the case. However, that is quite different from saying that the merits of the case are not relevant; I am simply saying that I do not wish to detain your Lordships with the merits of the case because they have already been so adequately expressed.
  However, I should like briefly to talk about the position in which we find ourselves when considering Commons reasons in response to our amendments. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 put the criminal injuries compensation scheme on a statutory basis. It said quite explicitly that the basis upon which compensation for criminal injuries should be calculated and be comparable to that for civil injuries. That was written into the legislation but not immediately brought into force because, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, the chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said, "Please don't do it yet; we can't keep up". However, the principle always was that the criminal injuries compensation scheme should be on a statutory basis.
  The opportunity was then taken by the noble and learned Lord and others, with our support, to enforce that statutory basis in the context of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. Members of the other place have now said that they do not wish that to be enforced and that they are proposing to remove that statutory basis for criminal injuries compensation from the Bill. In doing so, they are acting on the advice of the House authorities. Indeed, I quote from Mr. Deputy Speaker who said on 20th October in another place that,
  "Lords amendment No. 125 raises questions of common privilege because the legal position under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which activates the statutory scheme by order, is proposed to be changed so that the scheme comes directly into force".
  That is not quite correct; it would come into force after six months. However, that is a minor point. The Deputy Speaker continued to say:
  "An option to spend money is replaced by an obligation".— [Official Report, Commons, 20/10/94; col. 452.]
  That was the advice of the Commons authorities.
  In his amendment, the noble and learned Lord answers that advice 100 per cent. Under the amendment, an option to spend money is not replaced by an obligation: the principle that criminal injuries compensation should be statutory is maintained—and I believe that your Lordships will wish to support that aim—but the financial responsibility of the Government and of the Home Secretary is retained in the subsequent subsections. On that basis, I believe that to support the amendment and to send it back to the Commons would be the correct thing for a thoughtful and responsible revising Chamber to do. Therefore, I invite your Lordships to support the amendment.
  Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, perhaps I too may briefly express sympathy with the purport of the amendment. I do so as one who took part in the
  504
  initial debate which we had in this House as long ago as last February, when a considerable number of your Lordships expressed the gravest misgivings about the Government's proposals.
  I have three reasons, which I shall give briefly. From the time of the Royal Commission chaired by Lord Pearson, the view has been expressed, and subsequently accepted by Parliament, that sums which are spent under the criminal injuries compensation scheme should no longer be spent under the royal prerogative without accountability to Parliament but should be part of a statutory scheme. I wonder whether there is one of your Lordships who would not endorse that approach on constitutional grounds.
  Secondly, I share the concern that where Parliament (in 1988) has enacted with much care a specific form of scheme mirroring the common law and provided that it shall subsequently be brought into force by Statutory Instrument, it is regrettable if instead the Government seek to bring into force a non-statutory scheme while leaving the provisions enacting the statutory scheme on the statute book. I believe that if there are to be changes, and I accept that there may well be a sensible case for changes, these should be made by modification to the statute.
  One of the attractions for me of the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is that it would give the Government the opportunity, in consultation, to decide whether to propose modifications. If they did so, those modifications would have statutory effect. I believe that that is the right constitutional way of proceeding, but I also believe that it is the responsible way of meeting the very considerable misgivings that so many, including my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, have expressed in regard to the amendment.
  Now I come to the merits, because I believe that they are relevant. Let us reflect that we are concerned here with the victims of crime. We are concerned with a group for which our own Government and our own Home Secretary have expressed great concern. Unfortunately, I believe that the scheme runs contrary to that concern. For the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Ackner, it would not only mean that victims of crime were treated less generously; it would mean that they were treated less fairly, and not in accordance with the principles which the common law has laid down over generations, to the approval of the public, and which have been accepted in successive legislation as the proper basis for accepting damages.
  After all, we as a society seek to redress wrongs. Your Lordships will recollect that we do this in the case of those who have been wrongly convicted of crime. We provide that they should receive compensation for their loss of liberty. Those who assess that compensation, as I understand it, take into account what the common law might award by damages for loss of liberty. If those damages included loss of earnings, I suspect that that is susceptible of being included in such an award. There has recently been somewhat of a populist outcry against the size of award to which that could lead. I do not join in that outcry, because I believe that those making the awards are acting in accordance with the law. But I find

  505
  it puzzling that we propose to apply a different and lesser standard to victims of crime. I find the anomaly a striking one. I believe it to be totally unfair that there should be no possibility of compensation for loss of earnings.
  I ask the Government to take this opportunity for a rethink. I believe that when the implications of their scheme become known, and when it hits hard the widow of a police officer killed in the course of duty, the Government, who will have to take responsibility for this, will reflect on their stance.
  There is only one reason why I might hesitate to vote in favour of the amendment; namely, if my noble friend the Minister were to satisfy me that the constitutional arguments were irresistible. I have heard nothing from my noble friend Lord Campbell that even persuades me remotely in that direction. However, of one thing I am sure. The demonstrations against the Bill, which I suspect we all find ugly, are irrelevant. The responsibility for considering the Bill soberly lies within Parliament, and at the moment it lies with us in this House.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I agree very largely with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. In particular, I agree with what has been said about the constitutional position, which seems to me to be unanswerable.
  I am not enamoured with the criminal injuries compensation scheme. My objection all along to the course pursued by the Home Secretary was that he was acting unconstitutionally, in addition to the respect which the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, indicated. He has taken a power in the 1988 Act which gives him discretion when to bring the provisions into force. He reads that as a discretion not to bring the provisions into force at all but, on the contrary, to bring in a totally inconsistent scheme. I ventured to describe that rudely at an earlier stage of the Bill as cocking a snook at Parliament. That is what it is.
  It has been said a number of times in your Lordships' House today that we are a revising Chamber. That is true. However, that does not mean merely a Chamber making suggestions which the Government are able to brush aside, and that we shall then run away with our tail between our legs. We are a revising Chamber and not a suggesting Chamber.
  The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the common plea of privilege and read out what the Deputy Speaker said. That is a subject which we should approach delicately. We recognise normally that the other place can assert its privilege without giving reasons. Oddly enough, on this occasion the reasons were contained in the passage which was read by the noble Lord,Lord McIntosh.
  The decision of the Home Secretary has been challenged in a judicial review. In the first instance, the Government were upheld, but that decision was subject to appeal. If the Court of Appeal holds that the Government have misconceived their power in its
  506
  judicial review, there is no question of a contrast between a discretionary scheme and an obligatory scheme. That whole basis falls.
  One of the great advantages of my noble and learned friend's amendment is that it is not the same as the one which your Lordships endorsed at an earlier stage. It gives the Government and the other place an opportunity to consider the whole matter and, particularly, in the light of the fact that an appeal is pending.
  The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that the amendment is not acceptable to the Government. I do not know how he knows that because we have not yet heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I suspect that he is right, but that is not the end of the matter. It does not follow that if your Lordships were to carry my noble and learned friend's amendment this Bill would be lost to the Session. There is plenty of time for agreement. There is plenty of time for compromise. I very much hope that your Lordships will endorse the amendment of my noble and learned friend.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, speaking about the constitution, as a relatively new Member of your Lordships' House I wondered whether the words on my writ of summons were true. I wondered about the point of this House as a revising Chamber and as a constitutional watchdog. After such wise and powerful speeches I wish briefly to address the constitutional issue and the merits.
  On the constitutional issue, in 1988 the three estates of the realm—both Houses, with Royal Assent— decided that there should be a statutory scheme based on common law principles. That decision remains on the statute book. However, as noble Lords know, it has not been brought into effect by successive Secretaries of State. There has been no attempt by the present Government to obtain the consent of both Houses of Parliament to repeal that scheme. Instead, prerogative power is to be used to flout the intention of Parliament as expressed in the 1988 Act by introducing a different scheme—one not based on common law principles.
  I suggest that, far from doing constitutional damage, the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, enables the British constitution to be protected against a misuse of executive power. That seems to me to be one of those rare cases where we shall be justified in taking that step.
  The question then arises as to whether privilege attaches in a way that would cause conflict between both Houses. I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, does not in any way trespass upon the privileges and powers of another place. It requires the Home Secretary to bring the 1988 scheme into force within 12 months after the passing of this Bill, but it confers wide discretionary powers on him to modify those provisions subject to the approval by each House of the necessary regulations.
  If the House agrees to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, the nature and extent of the charges on public funds will be for the Secretary of State and

  507
  ultimately for another place to decide. Why then is it an important step for your Lordships' House to take? I suggest that there are two reasons. The first—I hope that my language is not too strong for the House—is to avoid an affront to democracy. That is what is involved in the conduct that has taken place so far. It is an affront to democracy when a Minister, without seeking parliamentary approval, frustrates the will of Parliament as expressed in the 1988 Act. The second reason is to avoid manifest unfairness and injustice to the most serious victims of crime.
  In a previous debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, gave many examples. I wish to mention two injustices that would be caused. The examples relate to those who, if the tariff scheme had been in operation, would have had their compensation savagely cut. The first example relates to a brain injury case. It is not disputed that it is an accurate example. The victim required continuous care day and night. The total award was over £500,000 of which future care accounted for £234,000. Under the Home Secretary's scheme he would receive only £40,000.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, gave the example of the quite distinct category of families of victims of murder and manslaughter. Again, the facts are not disputed. He cited a case in 1993 involving a woman of 38 who saw her husband die following a stabbing at the front door of their home. She was married with two children aged six and four. She suffered the deepest distress as a result of that traumatic experience. She received general damages of £17,500 and £120,000 for loss of dependency, a total award of £137,000. Under the new scheme she would receive the stock figure of £10,000 by reason of the death of her husband, and £7,500 for her condition, making a total of £17,500 and funeral expenses. As the noble and learned Lord said at the time, such cases illustrate that the innocent families of manslaughter and murder victims whose financial security was previously provided for by dependency awards, will receive nothing for the future.
  I respectfully submit that the justice of the case requires your Lordships, unusually, to exercise your powers in supporting the amendment. The Home Secretary's main argument for resisting the will of Parliament is that that would cost too much. I suggest that such a view is not consistent with giving priority to the most serious victims of violent crime. Nor can it be said to be in accordance with the will of the other place which has not been asked to repeal the 1988 Act. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, provides a flexible and fair solution which, I suggest, accords with the will of Parliament as expressed in statutory form.
  7 p.m.
  The Earl of Longford: My Lords, anyone who has sought to help victims knows that it is not an easy matter. In many cases, for reasons of self respect, victims are not always ready to come forward. It will always be a technical question of how best they can be helped. Other amendments have been suggested, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, comes before us
  508
  with special knowledge and authority. I am pleased to support his amendment, as indeed my noble friend has done.
  I have found, as many others may have found, that if one supports criminals and does what one can to improve the penal system people ask, "What are you doing for the victim?" People have been asking me that since 1955 when I spoke in a debate on prisons in this House. Such a view is not always expressed by the unintelligent. I spoke in a debate in this House on penal matters recently. One of the most distinguished speakers in the House demanded why I had said nothing about the victims. In fact, I had said quite a bit about victims, but he was so confident that I would not mention them that he had prepared his speech along those lines. There is always the assumption that if one favours one side one does not favour the other.
  The Government in a sense expressed such a view about a year ago. Without wishing to quote at length from the speeches made by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary at the Conservative Party Conference last year, they left the strong impression that they would be tougher on criminals and more helpful to victims. They have sought to be tougher on criminals in the provisions of this Act. Whether matters will work out in the long run as they hope, I cannot say.
  However, victims of crimes have not been helped. I do not think that anyone denies that the Bill is damaging to victims. No one believes that the provision is on balance favourable to victims. I put it bluntly. The Government's actions are in total contradiction to the indications, the prejudices, of a year ago at the Conservative Party Conference. I am these days a mild speaker. The other day I was called a sweet old gentleman. Therefore I shall say nothing nasty. I content myself with the thought that the attitude of the Government to victims in the past year is one of intolerable humbug.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, on the merits of the matter, I agreed with my noble friend Lord Carlisle when the Bill was before us previously. On the merits, I cannot deny that I have a great deal of sympathy with what was said today by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. But however great the merits, above all we must consider our constitutional position. We have the undoubted right, indeed, sometimes the duty, to ask another place to think again. But we should be very careful before exercising a further right which exists to ask them to think again and again. If we were to do so on this amendment, I see no reason why we should not on other amendments, too.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lester, spoke of the will of Parliament and an affront to democracy. It. seems to have been overlooked in some of the speeches made by

  509
  noble Lords that the majority of members in another place—rightly or wrongly and exercising their right— voted against the amendment when it came to them.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me. Members in another place did not vote against this amendment, they voted against another amendment to which this is an amendment.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful for that correction. They voted against the amendment—
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me intervening again, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, they did so having been told that it was an issue of privilege.
  Lord Renton: Yes, indeed, my Lords. They were right to be told and right to bear in mind that it is an issue of House of Commons privilege. That has merely anticipated the next point that I was going to make.
  I turn to the amendment to the amendment—if I may accurately describe it in that way. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, suggests is that we should now ask Members of another place to give power to the Government to introduce a statutory instrument enabling them to fulfil the wishes that many of us have about the improvement of the criminal injuries compensation. It is a statutory instrument which would require an affirmative resolution of both Houses and do so on a matter of House of Commons privilege. That seems to me to be a constitutional paradox. Speaking for myself, I am not prepared to be a party to it.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he is aware that it is clearly set out in the Companion at page 121 that:
  "the Lords need not anticipate what view the Commons may take of any Lords amendments with respect to Commons financial privilege".
  On page 122 it states that the Lords,
  "may offer amendments in lieu of amendments which have been disagreed to by the Commons on the grounds of privilege".
  It does not seem to me that there is anything remotely unconstitutional in what we are doing.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for reminding us of that. However, it does not overcome the problem that we have that if we ask Members of another place to think a second time, there is a danger of our having a constitutional conflict with another place and of our using the powers that we have under the constitution to an unreasonable extent.
  I must say that at this stage of a Session, we should think very carefully before we place ourselves—and perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to finish the sentence—in that position. I do not think we should do so.
  Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he said that we were asking another
  510
  place to think again about the amendment. We are not. We are asking them to think for the first time about a new amendment.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, quite frankly, we are asking them to think a second time because the amendment to the amendment now proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is merely another way of achieving the same purpose. We cannot get round that, however laudable the purpose was and is perhaps still considered to be. I am in favour of the merits.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, whenever at this stage of a Bill I hear supporters of the Government concentrating exclusively on constitutional objections, I begin to wonder whether they are quite confident of the merits of their case. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that the Government would never agree to such an amendment. When I hear that, I am tempted to the Gilbertian reply: "What, never?"
  The noble Lord, Lord Renton, made a point about asking the other place to think again and again. My noble friend Lady Seear has already given one answer to that. This is a different amendment, designed to meet the objection made by another place. I shall make a second answer to it. When the original amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was carried, I was in the Chamber. I went out to have a cup of coffee after the Division; before I had finished my coffee, it was on the ticker tape that the Home Secretary intended to reverse the amendment. I know that some of us can think very quickly. Those thoughts are not always fit for print. What the Home Secretary could not do in that time was to read the reasons of a Chamber in which there is considerable legal experience. I believe that the Home Secretary deserves a chance to think at greater leisure.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first perhaps I may say to the whole House that I regard this amendment as a real amendment and I believe that the House is entirely free to take a view about it and I shall answer it in that vein.
  The practical effect of the amendment is nevertheless, as my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Campbell of Alloway said, very little different from Amendment No. 125 which the noble and learned Lord now proposes that the new clause should replace. Both amendments would require the Government to abandon the tariff scheme and to bring into force the scheme set out in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act. That would have to be done within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, rather than within six months, as proposed previously.
  Of course, I accept that the facility for modification has been introduced and I shall refer to the limitations of that in a moment. The arguments for and against the amendment have been well rehearsed on several occasions in both Houses of Parliament and elsewhere, I am afraid that there is little fresh I can say on the subject. I firmly believe that the Government's objections to the amendment are compelling and that they bear repetition here today.

  511
  Briefly, we think that the old scheme was too slow, too complex, too uncertain for victims and too expensive. The new tariff scheme is simpler, easier for victims to understand, easier and cheaper to administer and victims will get their money more quickly and with less fuss. It is also a great deal less expensive for the taxpayer—an important consideration for which we make no apology.
  As the House knows, the old scheme was based on common law damages and, as such, provided no mechanism for controlling costs which were escalating alarmingly quickly. In 1973–74, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board paid out £4 million in compensation. In 1983 it paid out £33 million. Ten years on, it paid out over £165 million. That is not just due to increases in the number of applications. Over the past 10 years the average award has increased by some 5 per cent. a year more than inflation, practically doubling in real terms since 1979. Without reform, by 2000 to 2001 the cost of the old common law damages scheme would have exceeded £500 million a year. The cumulative cost to the taxpayer would have been £2.5 billion.
  It is not right to expect the taxpayer to fund the scheme on that scale. Let me emphasise that our scheme is by far the most generous in the world and seems likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. We pay out far more compensation than all the other European countries added together—and more last year than the whole of the United States. Indeed, it is worth recording that Great Britain pays over 36 per cent. of all compensation paid throughout the whole world.
  May I remind your Lordships of the rationale for the tariff scheme. We are no longer aiming to provide finely judged "compensation" in the same way as before; that is, in the sense of trying, in some way, to put the victim back in the position he would have been in had the attack not taken place. Our White Paper published last December pointed out that there is no "right" sum of money which can achieve that. Instead, the tariff scheme provides a lump sum payment in tangible recognition of society's concern for the blameless victim of violent crime.
  But while we have changed the basis of assessing compensation, the basic rules for eligibility have been left much as before. Thus anyone who might have expected an award under the old scheme should get an award under the tariff scheme. And they should get it more quickly.
  The latest amendment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, purports to give the Secretary of State some flexibility by enabling him to modify the 1988 scheme when laying the regulations that would bring it into force. But that flexibility is illusory. A power to modify is merely a power to make minor changes at the margin, not a power to make changes of substance to the basic terms and conditions of the 1988 scheme. The practical effect of the noble and learned Lord's amendment would therefore be to lock us into an outmoded, complex scheme based on common law damages which would retain all the worst features of the scheme we sought to remedy in our new tariff scheme. It would be slow, overly bureaucratic and even more obscure and difficult for the typical victim to understand
  512
  than the non-statutory scheme just superseded. And we would lose the ability to predict and control costs that the tariff scheme confers. That is not acceptable.
  It was neither necessary nor appropriate to use this Bill to repeal the redundant criminal injuries compensation scheme provisions of the 1988 Criminal Justice Act. The repeal would not have come into effect until after the tariff scheme had started on 1st April. Our White Paper, as I have said, made it clear that the time for repeal would be when the tariff scheme was made; statutory, and we have made clear —and again, today, I made it clear—that our intention is to give statutory force to the tariff scheme once we are sure it is working as well as it can.
  This Bill is not the right vehicle to make the tariff scheme statutory—it has already started—nor is the time; right. The tariff scheme is quite different from that envisaged in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act. We could not therefore, even if it were appropriate, make the tariff scheme statutory by bringing those provisions into force, even with a power to modify them—whatever the courts might ultimately hold that imprecise word to mean. As I indicated, it is our aim to make sure that the tariff scheme is working properly and effectively, to make any refinements necessary in the light of experience, and then to give it statutory force.
  I explained that we could no longer afford to retain a common law damages scheme under which costs have been increasing so rapidly and in a way that cannot be controlled. The only real mechanisms for controlling costs under the 1988 scheme are to exclude certain classes or groups of people from the scheme, for example, those with occupational benefit schemes, or, rather more reasonably perhaps, to raise the lower limit below which no award is payable, or to reduce the multiplier used to calculate loss of earning, or both of those things.
  The lower limit would have to be raised by a considerable amount even to deliver quite modest savings. Working on estimated figures for the current year, 1994–95, doubling the lower limit from £1,000 to £2,000 would cut the compensation bill by 20 per cent. Yet it would cut the number of successful claimants by 45 per cent. That would mean that some 20,000 victims who might have expected to get an award this year would no longer do so. Raising the lower limit to £4,000 would cut the compensation bill by 40 per cent., saving about £75 million on £175 million—but only at the expense of reducing the number of successful claimants by a further 13,000. That would leave only about 10,000 victims getting any award at all. It would definitely not be welcomed by Victim Support, which favours giving awards to more victims by reducing the lower limit, not raising it.
  The amendment also requires my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to consult such persons and organisations as he considers appropriate before making the regulations which would bring the statutory scheme into effect. There has been extensive consultation. Since announcing our intention to change the scheme in November 1992 we have received representations and comment from just about every person or organisation that has an interest in criminal

  513
  injuries compensation, including Members of both Houses of Parliament. People have set out their respective, and often conflicting, views. We have already thought long and hard about many of the ideas that have been put forward. But none of them, apart from the tariff scheme itself, gets to grips with the need to bring costs under control with simplified, easily understood and easily administered arrangements that get awards to victims quickly.
  Virtually everyone would have got an award under the former scheme. Those people should get an award under the tariff scheme. Sixty per cent. of those beneficiaries will get as much money or more than they would have received under the superseded scheme. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has undertaken to review the tariff bands every three years.
  We have made clear previously that the terms of the tariff scheme are not immutable. If we can refine or improve the tariff scheme in the light of experience, we will. Once we are sure that it is working as effectively as it should, we shall give it statutory effect at the first suitable opportunity.
  The Government have been accused of acting unlawfully and unconstitutionally by bringing in the tariff scheme by executive action while unimplemented provisions to the 1988 Criminal Justice Act remain on the statute book. The Government's action, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, reminded us, was challenged by judicial review. In a judgment on 23rd May, the High Court ruled that the Government had not acted illegally, improperly or irrationally. An appeal against the decision was heard throughout yesterday and today. I understand that judgment has been reserved. I am sure that noble Lords will agree and understand that, until a final judgment has been delivered by the court, it would not be right for me, or indeed anyone else, to say anything further about the propriety of the Government's action.
  Much was said about the most seriously affected victims. Tariff award is not the only source of state aid for many victims. Generous long-term help is also available from the National Health Service, the Department of Social Security and indeed local social services. Many victims also have occupational benefit schemes or insurance arrangements.
  The make-up of the tariff award is based on 20,000 awards made by the CICB. Each tariff award can be said to include an element of each of the heads of damage payable under the old scheme. But the elements are no longer separately quantified.
  The effect of the new clause—this important point was very well made by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Campbell of Alloway—does not give my right honourable friend the Home Secretary unfettered discretion to change the 1988 scheme. Indeed, I suspect that some noble and learned Lords who have spoken in this debate would take a very dim view of my right honourable friend inviting this House to use secondary legislation to modify, seriously and quite substantially, primary legislation. It commits him to a
  514
  common law damages scheme and therefore a minor modification would not make a great deal of difference to anything other than bringing in the original scheme.
  The matter was debated in another place on two separate occasions. On each occasion a substantial majority voted against reinstatement of the old scheme. The amendment asks the House to reinstate, albeit by secondary legislation, the old scheme. I therefore ask your Lordships to respect the wishes of another place. While I accept that noble Lords have the right to do otherwise, I ask the House to reject the amendment.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have a number of short points. First, on the question of merits, on 16th June, some four months ago, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said:
  "I hope that when my noble friend the Minister replies he will consider four points in particular: the manifest injustice of the tariff scheme; its absence of any flexibility; the manifest abuse of Executive power which has ensued; and the fact that various justifications that have been advanced by the Home Office have been demonstrated to be manifestly misconceived".—[Official Report, 16/6/94; col. 1842.]
  Not one of those items has been replied to today. The noble Lord, like myself, awaits the answers to those questions.
  With regard to finance, which has been much in the forefront of the Government's defence, it is significant that it was never suggested in the White Paper as the basis. It has never been part of the consultation process. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, who dealt with this matter in great detail, said in terms:
  "The now accepted principal ground of saving money — proceeds on a false basis and is supported by statistics which, to say the least, are wholly misleading and by assumptions about future expenditure which I believe to be unjustified".—[Official Report, 16/6/94; col. 1833]
  Reference was made to £500 million in four to five years' time. The present bill is £165 million. It is difficult to follow the basis on which it will accelerate. It may be that the Home Secretary has reached the pessimistic view that perhaps prison does not work. That is about the only explanation that one can follow. There is no form of justification given for that projected figure.
  The next matter that I wish to raise is the reference to the powers given under the amendment in lieu. Let me first make the point that this is not an amendment of an amendment. It is an amendment in lieu. It is self-contained. It does not jog back to the previous amendment. But the power which is given to the Secretary of State is that he
  "may make such provision [in the scheme] as [he] considers necessary or expedient in the light of current circumstances to modify the provisions contained in those sections or Schedules".
  I respectfully submit that that is an unlimited power to modify. The anxiety of the Minister that she is in a straitjacket is wholly unjustified.
  What is common ground throughout this entire debate—it has never been disputed—is that the savings are to be made at the expense of those who

  515
  can least afford it. The savings are to be made by slashing the compensation to those most grievously injured, those whose injury has caused the greatest effect upon their standard and mode of living and finally the dependants of those who have been murdered or the subject of manslaughter. It is difficult to follow how on earth the Government can say: "We save money on a scheme for compensating the victims of crime by making savings from the compensation for those victims who have suffered the most."
  Finally, on the constitutional point, it is no use hiding behind the judicial review proceedings. The judicial review proceedings are devoted to an entirely different issue. The issue is whether the Government have acted unlawfully. The complaint made in this House is that they have acted unconstitutionally. They have abused their parliamentary powers.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I think that it is presumptuous of the noble and learned Lord, if I may be so bold, to suggest that the Government have or this House has abused their powers. A court has heard the case once and at this moment judgment is reserved on the appeal. Therefore I feel that it would be quite wrong to presume guilt in the absence of a proper judgment.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not make my point clear. I thought that I had made it clear. The issue before the court is whether the Government have acted unlawfully; that is, beyond their powers, ultra vires. The issue that is debated here is whether the Government have acted unconstitutionally; which is not to exceed their powers but to abuse them and to abuse them by the simple process of conducting legislation in 1988 which provided in terms for a scheme to be made statutory and then, without returning to Parliament, to exercise executive power and do precisely the contrary to that which Parliament had laid down in 1988 at the suit of the Government. That, as everybody else in this Chamber has said, is an affront to Parliament. It is in that context that I use the phrase.
  I was finally about to say that, if we are a revising Chamber which has any form of independence and we do not ask the Government to think once more about their unconstitutional behaviour, it is very difficult to know in what circumstances one can ever ask them to think again. I commend the Motion.
  7.36 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 152.

  Division No.2

  CONTENTS

  Ackner, L. [Teller.]

  Jeger, B.

  Addington, L.

  Kilmarnock, L.

  Airedale, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Bancroft, L.

  Longford, E.

  Barnett, L.

  Macaulay of Bragar, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Beloff, L.

  McCarthy, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Bottomley, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Bridge of Harwich, L. [Teller.]

  Meston, L.

  Bridges, L.

  Milne, L.

  Brightman, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Monson, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Mulley, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Darcy(de Knayth), B.

  Ogmore, L.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Peston, L.

  Desai, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Rea, L.

  Ennals, L.

  Richard, L.

  Ewing of Kirkford, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Ewing of Kirkford, L.

  Russell, E.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Seear, B.

  Gallacher, L.

  Sefton of Garston, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Shannon, E.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Simon of Glaisdale, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Grey, E.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Taylor Blackburn, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Tope, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Walpole, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Warnock, B.

  Hughes, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  White, B.

  Inchyra, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Jacques, L.

  Wilberforce, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Addison, V.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Aldington, L.

  Bruntisfield. L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Burnham, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Burton, L.

  Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Arran, E. [Teller.]

  Cadman, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Caldecote, V.

  Astor, V.

  Camden, M.

  Balfour, E.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Barber, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Blake, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Blaker, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Blyth, L.

  Chelmsford, V.

  Boardman, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Cochrane of Cults, L.

  517

  Coleridge, L.

  Monckton of Brenchley, V.

  Courtown, E.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Mottistone, L.

  Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

  Mountevans, L.

  Cross, V.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Denham, L.

  Munster, E.

  Denton of Wakefield, B.

  Northesk, E.

  Digby, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Dormer, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Downshire, M.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Dudley, E.

  Parkinson, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Elles, B.

  Peel, E.

  Ferrers, E.

  Pender, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Prior, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Goold, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Goschen, V.

  Rees, L.

  Grantchester, L.

  Renton, L.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Rodney, L.

  Harnbleden, V.

  Roxburghe, D.

  Harding of Petherton, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Harmsworth, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Harvington, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Henley L.

  Skidelsky, L.

  Hives, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Holderness, L.

  Stevens of Ludgate, L.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Stockton, E.

  Hothfield, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Howe, E.

  Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

  Inglewood, L.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Tebbit, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Teviot, L.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Torphichen, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Torrington, V.

  Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Lyell, L.

  Tugendhat, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Ullswater, V.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Chancellor.]

  Vinson, L.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Vivian, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Whitelaw, V.

  Mersey, V.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Wynford, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Young, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
  7.44 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 125 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 125A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 125 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 125A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  125 Before Clause 134, insert the following new clause:
  ("Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  (" . In section 171 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988—

  (a) in subsection (2), for the words after "any provision" there shall be substituted the words "brought into force under subsection (1) above,"; and

  (b) after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

  "(2A) Sections 108 to 117 above and Schedules 6 and 7 to this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is passed.".")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  125A Because the Amendment involves charges on public funds and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  131 After Clause 136, insert the following new clause:
  ("Confidential financial information
  Offence of selling confidential financial information

  .— (1) It is an offence for a person ("the seller") to sell or offer to sell information as to the financial affairs of another person if—

  (a) the seller knows that the information has been or will be obtained dishonestly or by deception; and

  (b) the information is intended to be disclosed without the consent of such other person.

  (2) An advertisement or circular indicating that information of that description is or may be for sale is an offer to sell within the meaning of subsection (1).

  (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

  (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine or both;

  (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.")

  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  131A Because the Commons consider it appropriate to make amendments to amendment No. 150 made by the Lords in lieu of this amendment..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 131 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 131A. I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 150A to 150F, to Lords Amendment No. 150 and to Amendment No. 163, to which the Commons disagreed for their reason numbered 163A.
  The views of this House on the procuring and selling of confidential financial information have had a telling impact. As your Lordships will recall, it was in response to concerns expressed here that the Government brought forward an amendment at Report stage dealing with the procurement of data in contravention of the Data Protection Act. This amendment was accepted by another place. The House of Commons also considered the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord,

  519
  Lord Brightman, and approved by your Lordships' House, seeking to prohibit the advertising and sale of improperly obtained confidential financial information.
  The Commons decided that they cannot agree with that amendment in the form in which it passed through your Lordships' House. But the Commons accepted the principal concern underlying it, by agreeing to government Amendments Nos. 150A to 150F. The new amendments go a long way to meeting the spirit of the original proposal. The amendments cover all personal information covered by the Data Protection Act, not just financial information, and to that extent they actually go further than the amendment approved earlier by your Lordships' House.
  I hope that the House will feel able to support these amendments as an acceptable way forward both for those concerned about the freedom of press as well as for those concerned about the privacy of the individual. They are offered in that spirit.
  My noble friend Lord Alexander, who had to leave the Chamber a few minutes ago, wished me to record his satisfaction with the Government's action. But I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for the helpful and positive spirit in which he engaged in discussions with us about the force and effect of his amendment. He brought to our attention a matter on which it is clear many of your Lordships feel strongly. I commend the Motion to the House that your Lordships should not insist on Amendment No. 131, but should instead agree to Amendments Nos. 150A to 150F. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 131, to which the Commons disagreed for their reason numbered 131A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  Lord Brightman: My Lords, as I moved Amendment No. 131 at Report stage, perhaps I can add a brief word. Put shortly, Amendment No. 131, which the other place rejected, penalised the sale of confidential financial information whether or not computer held. Amendment No. 150C, introduced by the Government in the other place last Thursday, penalises the sale of confidential information of all types, provided it is computer held or a copy of computer-held material.
  In my opinion it would be preferable to have retained both amendments, which is what the Opposition sought but failed to achieve in the other place. However, in all the circumstances it would plainly be wrong for me to ask your Lordships to insist on Amendment No. 131. I would accordingly invite your Lordships to be satisfied, as I am, for the time being, with Amendment No. 150C and the accompanying amendments. I wish to take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness the Minister for allowing me to talk to her and to discuss the wording of her amendment at the drafting stage and for taking on board in her amendment much of the spirit of my amendment.
  Lord Inchyra: My Lords, until the end of September I was Secretary General of the British Bankers Association and at times worked quite closely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, on his amendment. I also had the pleasure of meeting the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to discuss the government
  520
  amendment. Although the noble Baroness has already reported the great pleasure of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, for this amendment, I should like on behalf of the banking community as a whole to say how warmly this amendment is welcomed and how much the interest and co-operation of both the noble Baroness, her predecessor, the noble Earl, and their officials have been appreciated.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps I may simply say, because I do not often say it, that on this occasion I wholly agree with the Government. I believe that the position that we are now in as approved by the other place strikes the proper balance between the right to free expression and the right to personal privacy. I very much hope that the same principles will apply to any future White Paper or legislation that the Government may have in mind on free speech and privacy.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is not a party matter. It is an issue on which we had a free vote. I voted with the Government last time against the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and I am very disappointed to see the extent to which it has been widened by the removal of his original restriction to financial information. I fear that the restriction to computer-held information will still lead to a very considerable breach in civil liberty and in freedom of expression and I very much fear that this matter has not been adequately thought out and that it is one to which we shall have to return later on. However, as the noble and learned Lord, the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, are all agreed, it is clear that I shall not get any further by pursuing my opposition.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  146 Clause 143, page 115, line 35, after ("him"") insert ("; and section 16(1) (c) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (costs on dismissal) shall apply accordingly reading the reference to the dismissal of the information as a reference to the discharge of the person arrested.":,')
  The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following consequential amendment to the Bill:
  146A Page 115, line 49, after 'Wales' insert '; and section 16(1) (c) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (costs on dismissal) shall apply accordingly reading the reference to the dismissal of the information as a reference to the discharge of the prisoner'..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 146A to Lords Amendment No. 146. This amendment is necessary to extend the provisions of Amendment No. 146 which ensures that in extradition proceedings magistrates retain the power which they would otherwise lose by virtue of the abolition of committal proceedings to award costs if they decide to discharge the person sought. However, it applies to Commonwealth countries and those countries which are signatories of the European Convention on Extradition and does not cover countries covered by Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1989, with whom we have separate

  521
  treaties; for example, the United States. Amendment No. 146A is therefore a minor and consequential amendment proposed to rectify the omission. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their consequential amendment to the Bill numbered 146A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  150 After Clause 145, insert the following new clause:
  ("Obtaining computer-held information
  Procuring disclosure of computer-held personal information

  .— (1) In section 5 of the Data Protection Act 1984 (prohibitions in relation to personal data, including its disclosure), after subsection (5), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

  "(6) A person who procures the disclosure to him of personal data the disclosure of which to him is in contravention of subsection (2) or (3) above knowing or having reason to believe that the disclosure constitutes such a contravention shall be guilty of an offence.".

  (2) In consequence of the amendment made by subsection (1) above—

  (a) in subsection (5) of that section, after the word "other" there shall be inserted the word "foregoing"; and

  (b) in section 28 (exemptions: crime and taxation), in subsection (3)—

  (i) after the word "contravening" there shall be inserted the words "or in the case of section 5(2) (d) procuring the contravention of; and

  (ii) after the words "to make" there shall be inserted the words "or (in the case of section 5(2) (d)) to procure".")

  The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendments:
  150A Line 4, leave out 'its'.
  150B Line 5, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'
  150C Line 10, at end insert:
  '(7) A person who sells personal data shall be guilty of an offence if (in contravention of subsection (6) above) he has procured the disclosure of the data to him.
  (8) A person who offers to sell personal data shall be guilty of an offence if (in contravention of subsection (6) above) he has procured or subsequently procures the disclosure of the data to him
  (9) For the purposes of subsection (8) above, an advertisement indicating that personal data are or may be for sale is an offer to sell the data.
  (10) For the purposes of subsections (7) and (8) above, "selling", or "offering to sell", in relation to personal data, includes selling, or offering to sell, information extracted from the data.
  (11) In determining, for the purposes of subsection (6),(7) or (8) above, whether a disclosure is in contravention of subsection (2) or (3) above, section 34(6) (d) below shall be disregarded."'
  150D Line 16, leave out 'word "contravening"' and insert 'words "section 26(3) (a) above'".
  150E Line 17, leave out from 'words' to 'and' in line 18 and insert '"or for an offence under section 5(6) above";'.
  150F Line 20, leave out '5(2) (d)' and insert '5(6)'..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 150A to 150F and to Lords Amendment No. 150.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 150A to 150F and to Lords Amendment No. 150.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  154 Clause 147, page 120, line 6 at end insert:
  ("(6) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend the provisions of this section so that they apply to any sporting event for which 6,000 or more tickets are issued for sale.")
  The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment:
  154A Line 3, leave out from 'instrument' to 'sporting' in line 4 and insert 'apply this section, with such modifications as he thinks fit, to such sporting event or category of
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 154A to Lords Amendment No. 154. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 154B and 154C. The purpose of the Government's amendment is to make clear that the order-making power tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and added to the Bill at Third Reading can be extended if public order and public safety considerations apply to a class of sport—for example, rugby union, rugby league or cricket—or to a particular sporting event or events—for example, Wimbledon or test matches. We have also made some minor technical amendments but those do not materially alter the effect of the Lords amendment. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 154A to Lords Amendment No. 154.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  154 Clause 147, page 120, line 6 at end insert:
  ("(6) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend the provisions of this section so that they apply to any sporting event for which 6,000 or more tickets are issued for sale.")
  The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendments:
  154B Line 4, after 'sale' insert 'as he thinks fit'
  154C Line 4, at end insert:
  '(7) An order under subsection (6) above may provide that—

  (a) a certificate (a "ticket sale certificate") signed by a duly authorised officer certifying that 6,000 or more tickets were issued for sale for a sporting event is conclusive evidence of that fact;

  (b) an officer is duly authorised if he is authorised in writing to sign a ticket sale certificate by the home club or the organisers of the sporting event: and

  (c) a document purporting to be a ticket sale certificate shall be received in evidence and deemed to be such a certificate unless the contrary is proved.

  (8) Where an order has been made under subsection (6) above, this section also applies, with any modifications made by the order, to any part of the sporting event specified or

  523
  described in the order, provided that 6,000 or more tickets are issued for sale for the day on which that part of the event takes place.'.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree wilh the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 154B and 154C to Lords Amendment No. 154.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 154B and 154C to Lords Amendment No. 1'54.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  [Motions Nos. 157B and 160B not moved.]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  157 Clause 152, page 121, line 12, after ("section") insert ("75 and")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  157A Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate for the repeal of the provisions to which this Amendment made by the Lords relates to come into force later than the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is passed or for those repeals to come into force piecemeal..

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  160 Clause 152, page 121, line 23, leave out ("75") and insert ("74, 75(1) so far as it repeals sections 10 to 12 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968,")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  160A Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate for the repeal of the provisions to which this Amendment made by the Lords relates to come into force later than the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is passed or for those repeals to come into force piecemeal..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 157 and 160 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 157A and 160A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 157 and 160 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 157A and 160A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  163 Clause 152, page 121, line 24, after ("VIII") insert ("(Offence of selling confidential financial information)")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  163A Because the Commons consider it appropriate to make amendments to Amendment No. 150 made by the Lords in lieu of this amendment.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 163 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 163 A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 163 to which the Commons disagreed for their reason numbered 163A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  [Motion No. 169B not moved.]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  169 Clause 152, page 121, line 25, at end insert:
  ("(4A) Subject to subsection (4) above, section 75 shall
  524
  come into force in relation to the area of any local authority on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument, provided that the day appointed shall not be before 1st July 1999; and the last such order may bring into force the repeals of sections 6 to 9 and the definition in section 16 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and of section 70 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.
  (4B) No order under subsection (4A) above shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  169A Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate for the repeal of the provisions to which this amendment made by the Lords relates to come into force later than the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is passed or for those repeals to come into force piecemeal..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 169 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 169A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 169 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 169A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  175 Clause 152, page 121, line 36, after ("77,") insert ("(Criminal injuries compensation),")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  175A Because the amendment involves charges on public funds and the Commons do not offer any further reason trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 175 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 175 A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 175 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 175A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  [Motion No. 175B not moved.]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  188 Schedule 1, page 123, line 18, after ("centre,") insert ("secure accommodation,")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  188A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  189 Page 124, line 38. at end insert (";
  "secure accommodation" has the same meaning as in section 1 of this Act, and includes any other place to which an offender may have been committed or transferred under section 2 of this Act;")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  189A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reasons numbered 188A and 189A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 188A and 189A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  [Motion No. 315B, 316B and 335B not moved.]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  315 Schedule 11, page 175, line 45, column 3, leave out ("12") and insert ("9")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  315A Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate for the repeal of the provisions to which this amendment made by the Lords relates to come into force later than the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is passed or for those repeals to come into force piecemeal..

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  316 Page 175, line 45, column 3, at end insert:
  ("Sections 10 to 12,")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  316A Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate for the repeal of the provisions to which this amendment made by the Lords relates to come into force later than the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is passed or for those repeals to come into force piecemeal..

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  335 Page 177, line 49, after ("1968") insert ("except sections 6 to 9 and in section 16, in")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  335A Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate for the repeal of the provisions to which this amendment made by the Lords relates to come into force later than the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is passed or for those repeals to come into force piecemeal..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 315, 316 and 335 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 315A, 316A and 335A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 315, 316 and 335 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 315A, 316A and 335A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  University of London Bill
  Returned from the Commons with the amendment agreed to.

  Sheffield Assay Office Bill
  A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders to which they desire the concurrence of this House.
  That the Promoters of the Sheffield Assay Office Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That, on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session, the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That, no Petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders to the House.

  River Calder (Welbeck Site) Bill [H.L.]
  A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders—
  That the Promoters of the River Calder (Welbeck Site) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

  Malvern Hills Bill [H.L.]
  A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders—
  That the Promoters of the Malvern Hills Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

  City of Westminster Bill [H.L.]
  A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders—
  That the Promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

  Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Bill
  A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders to which they desire the concurrence of this House—
  That the Promoters of the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to the date be paid;
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the

  529
  next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
  House adjourned at one minute before eight o'clock.

  WAR CRIMES PROSECUTIONS
  WAR CRIMES PROSECUTIONS
  SFO PROSECUTIONS: USE OF DTI INSPECTORS' TRANSCRIPTS IN EVIDENCE
  SFO PROSECUTIONS: USE OF DTI INSPECTORS' TRANSCRIPTS IN EVIDENCE
  HUMBERSIDE POLICING
  HUMBERSIDE POLICING
  REVIEW OF POLICE CORE AND ANCILLARY TASKS
  REVIEW OF POLICE CORE AND ANCILLARY TASKS
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER TRAVEL OFFICE
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER TRAVEL OFFICE
  COMPULSORY COMPETITIVE TENDERING: LOCAL AUTHORITY IT AND FINANCE SERVICES
  COMPULSORY COMPETITIVE TENDERING: LOCAL AUTHORITY IT AND FINANCE SERVICES
  REORGANISATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  REORGANISATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  ALLEGATIONS BY MR. MOHAMMED AL FAYED: CABINET SECRETARY'S REPORT
  ALLEGATIONS BY MR. MOHAMMED AL FAYED: CABINET SECRETARY'S REPORT